Now what will Huawei do, since they lack the ability to design their own processors?
Who says they lack the ability to design their own processors?
Can you name any Huawei custom designed processors? Their mobile devices use straight up plain vanilla ARM cores. Their server processors either use vanilla ARM cores or they slightly modify ARM cores (which is NOT the same as designing a processor from scratch, like Apple does).
In the past couple of years they've apparently tapped a home-grown Chinese company by the name of Cambricon (http://www.cambricon.com/) for the IP in their NPU (used in the Kirin 970 and Kirin 980).
I imagine these are the types of Chinese companies they'd have to partner up with in order to design future processors. Even then, that's not an easy task.
Few companies have actually done a lot of work on custom ARM cores. Apple (Vortex), Samsung (Mongoose 4) and NVIDIA (Carmel) appear to be the only ones pushing rather unique cores. Qualcomm seems to be sticking closer to ARM's designs in recent years.
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
If this was all about being against CHINA, ZTE and many others from China would also be banned. They are NOT. It's ONLY Huawei.
Now what will Huawei do, since they lack the ability to design their own processors?
Who says they lack the ability to design their own processors?
Can you name any Huawei custom designed processors? Their mobile devices use straight up plain vanilla ARM cores. Their server processors either use vanilla ARM cores or they slightly modify ARM cores (which is NOT the same as designing a processor from scratch, like Apple does).
In the past couple of years they've apparently tapped a home-grown Chinese company by the name of Cambricon (http://www.cambricon.com/) for the IP in their NPU (used in the Kirin 970 and Kirin 980).
I imagine these are the types of Chinese companies they'd have to partner up with in order to design future processors. Even then, that's not an easy task.
Few companies have actually done a lot of work on custom ARM cores. Apple (Vortex), Samsung (Mongoose 4) and NVIDIA (Carmel) appear to be the only ones pushing rather unique cores. Qualcomm seems to be sticking closer to ARM's designs in recent years.
While an NPU sounds cool and super high-tech, in reality they are pretty easy to design compared to a CPU. A company making an NPU isn’t going to be able to take that knowledge and suddenly start building CPUs or GPUs.
Samsung cores are WAY behind Apple cores as were previous Nvidia cores. Nvidia has given up on mobile so they have nothing to compare directly (their processors for automotive are powerful, but also consume a LOT of power).
Huawei and Qualcomm guy lucky with the 980 and 855 in that ARM has the A76 cores ready and TSMC has 7nm ready at the same time. The “stars aligned” for them and they still couldn’t match Apple. This year will be worse since there’s no new ARM cores so the best they could hope for is a very slight performance bump from a new 7nm Pro process. Apple gets the 7nm Pro boost along with refinements to their custom cores. This will only put Apple further out ahead.
Now what will Huawei do, since they lack the ability to design their own processors?
Who says they lack the ability to design their own processors?
Can you name any Huawei custom designed processors? Their mobile devices use straight up plain vanilla ARM cores. Their server processors either use vanilla ARM cores or they slightly modify ARM cores (which is NOT the same as designing a processor from scratch, like Apple does).
In the past couple of years they've apparently tapped a home-grown Chinese company by the name of Cambricon (http://www.cambricon.com/) for the IP in their NPU (used in the Kirin 970 and Kirin 980).
I imagine these are the types of Chinese companies they'd have to partner up with in order to design future processors. Even then, that's not an easy task.
Few companies have actually done a lot of work on custom ARM cores. Apple (Vortex), Samsung (Mongoose 4) and NVIDIA (Carmel) appear to be the only ones pushing rather unique cores. Qualcomm seems to be sticking closer to ARM's designs in recent years.
While an NPU sounds cool and super high-tech, in reality they are pretty easy to design compared to a CPU. A company making an NPU isn’t going to be able to take that knowledge and suddenly start building CPUs or GPUs.
Samsung cores are WAY behind Apple cores as were previous Nvidia cores. Nvidia has given up on mobile so they have nothing to compare directly (their processors for automotive are powerful, but also consume a LOT of power).
Huawei and Qualcomm guy lucky with the 980 and 855 in that ARM has the A76 cores ready and TSMC has 7nm ready at the same time. The “stars aligned” for them and they still couldn’t match Apple. This year will be worse since there’s no new ARM cores so the best they could hope for is a very slight performance bump from a new 7nm Pro process. Apple gets the 7nm Pro boost along with refinements to their custom cores. This will only put Apple further out ahead.
It's not about sounding cool, but the applications are what makes an NPU interesting. ASICs in general are an area of focus for the Chinese market, but at no point did I suggest development of one is as easy as a CPU. The fact is that this type of local IP will be their only option (the quality is a different story).
Samsung cores are not "WAY" behind, but they're still in need of some work. It's clear though that Samsung is making considerable progress in creating a big core.
NVIDIA's last core to be used in a consumer SoC was their Denver core in Tegra K1 Denver (28 nm) which matched Apple's Typhoon core in the A8X (20 nm) in single core performance. Clearly it wasn't behind.
Cortex A76 is much smaller and uses far less power than a Vortex core, it was designed with different goals in mind. Matching single core performance was never a goal at that size and in that power envelope.
I haven't the slightest idea why you thought there was no new ARM core this year. Deimos is the successor to Cortex A76 and is launching this year (2019) with its successor Hercules next year (2020). Deimos should see a roughly 20% performance gain over Cortex A76.
Now what will Huawei do, since they lack the ability to design their own processors?
Who says they lack the ability to design their own processors?
Can you name any Huawei custom designed processors? Their mobile devices use straight up plain vanilla ARM cores. Their server processors either use vanilla ARM cores or they slightly modify ARM cores (which is NOT the same as designing a processor from scratch, like Apple does).
In the past couple of years they've apparently tapped a home-grown Chinese company by the name of Cambricon (http://www.cambricon.com/) for the IP in their NPU (used in the Kirin 970 and Kirin 980).
I imagine these are the types of Chinese companies they'd have to partner up with in order to design future processors. Even then, that's not an easy task.
Few companies have actually done a lot of work on custom ARM cores. Apple (Vortex), Samsung (Mongoose 4) and NVIDIA (Carmel) appear to be the only ones pushing rather unique cores. Qualcomm seems to be sticking closer to ARM's designs in recent years.
While an NPU sounds cool and super high-tech, in reality they are pretty easy to design compared to a CPU. A company making an NPU isn’t going to be able to take that knowledge and suddenly start building CPUs or GPUs.
Samsung cores are WAY behind Apple cores as were previous Nvidia cores. Nvidia has given up on mobile so they have nothing to compare directly (their processors for automotive are powerful, but also consume a LOT of power).
Huawei and Qualcomm guy lucky with the 980 and 855 in that ARM has the A76 cores ready and TSMC has 7nm ready at the same time. The “stars aligned” for them and they still couldn’t match Apple. This year will be worse since there’s no new ARM cores so the best they could hope for is a very slight performance bump from a new 7nm Pro process. Apple gets the 7nm Pro boost along with refinements to their custom cores. This will only put Apple further out ahead.
It's not about sounding cool, but the applications are what makes an NPU interesting. ASICs in general are an area of focus for the Chinese market, but at no point did I suggest development of one is as easy as a CPU. The fact is that this type of local IP will be their only option (the quality is a different story).
Samsung cores are not "WAY" behind, but they're still in need of some work. It's clear though that Samsung is making considerable progress in creating a big core.
NVIDIA's last core to be used in a consumer SoC was their Denver core in Tegra K1 Denver (28 nm) which matched Apple's Typhoon core in the A8X (20 nm) in single core performance. Clearly it wasn't behind.
Cortex A76 is much smaller and uses far less power than a Vortex core, it was designed with different goals in mind. Matching single core performance was never a goal at that size and in that power envelope.
I haven't the slightest idea why you thought there was no new ARM core this year. Deimos is the successor to Cortex A76 and is launching this year (2019) with its successor Hercules next year (2020). Deimos should see a roughly 20% performance gain over Cortex A76.
The Tegra K1 Denver SOC wasn't ever suitable for a smartphone; its thermals and resultant battery life wouldn't have enabled a tablet comparable to the iPad. It really only found design wins in Nvidia's own Shield, and a very few unsuccessful tablets. It's one-off architecture was a dead end.
Clearly, it was in fact behind the A8X. Credit Apple's silicon design team for its focus on efficiency, and Apple's large captive SOC market that allowed them to produce the A8 series at 20nm while Nvidia was still at 28nm.
I do agree that Samsung has made good progress in its own custom architecture, but overall, to no advantage over Qualcomm.
Basically, you are attempting to make that case that the competition is catching up with Apple in SOC design, but it just never seems to happen, does it.
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
Not sure what world you've been living in the last 100 or so years, but this is what politics is. This is what countries do. They manage deals, relationships, et.al. that protect their country and their interests. People are so upset that the US is finally doing the same thing. China has been doing this since the 1980s. What rock has everyone been living under? Now the outrage comes out? Disingenuous af.
Enlighten me with some cases on this scale.
Protectionism. Not national security.
Even if it's protectionism, it's quite mild compared to how China protects its markets. Heck, major world-beating tech and social networking US companies such as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc, and major US financial services companies, and the websites of pretty much every major news provider in the world (there are 10,000 such) are banned in China.
It's little wonder you guys are so ignorant. Or, as someone noted, you must be some sad little bots.
How is it mild?
I asked him to provide information on other cases like this because basically there are none.
All nations use protectionism. Protectionism is necessary, but to a point, and the points are normally very clearly defined.
In this case the scope of the action is so broad and arbitrary that it is pretty much unprecedented. Unprecedented in law and its impact.
I fully expect a legal challenge to this action.
We aren't just talking about a trade dispute now. If this stance is allowed to stand you will see countries from all over the globe seeking to protect themselves from this kind of situation. The results will be dire for the US.
Trump's actions are not only having a negative impact on US firms (Apple is bracing itself for major problems) but non US firms too.
Far from being 'mild' protectionism, it is a potential game changer and the results may bring a dark age to the US as foreign companies shun it for fear of being affected by these arbitrary decisions.
On the ARM situation, there are some considerations from Huawei here:
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
Not sure what world you've been living in the last 100 or so years, but this is what politics is. This is what countries do. They manage deals, relationships, et.al. that protect their country and their interests. People are so upset that the US is finally doing the same thing. China has been doing this since the 1980s. What rock has everyone been living under? Now the outrage comes out? Disingenuous af.
Enlighten me with some cases on this scale.
Protectionism. Not national security.
Even if it's protectionism, it's quite mild compared to how China protects its markets. Heck, major world-beating tech and social networking US companies such as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc, and major US financial services companies, and the websites of pretty much every major news provider in the world (there are 10,000 such) are banned in China.
It's little wonder you guys are so ignorant. Or, as someone noted, you must be some sad little bots.
How is it mild?
I asked him to provide information on other cases like this because basically there are none.
All nations use protectionism. Protectionism is necessary, but to a point, and the points are normally very clearly defined.
In this case the scope of the action is so broad and arbitrary that it is pretty much unprecedented. Unprecedented in law and its impact.
I fully expect a legal challenge to this action.
We aren't just talking about a trade dispute now. If this stance is allowed to stand you will see countries from all over the globe seeking to protect themselves from this kind of situation. The results will be dire for the US.
Trump's actions are not only having a negative impact on US firms (Apple is bracing itself for major problems) but non US firms too.
Far from being 'mild' protectionism, it is a potential game changer and the results may bring a dark age to the US as foreign companies shun it for fear of being affected by these arbitrary decisions.
On the ARM situation, there are some considerations from Huawei here:
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
Not sure what world you've been living in the last 100 or so years, but this is what politics is. This is what countries do. They manage deals, relationships, et.al. that protect their country and their interests. People are so upset that the US is finally doing the same thing. China has been doing this since the 1980s. What rock has everyone been living under? Now the outrage comes out? Disingenuous af.
Enlighten me with some cases on this scale.
Protectionism. Not national security.
Even if it's protectionism, it's quite mild compared to how China protects its markets. Heck, major world-beating tech and social networking US companies such as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc, and major US financial services companies, and the websites of pretty much every major news provider in the world (there are 10,000 such) are banned in China.
It's little wonder you guys are so ignorant. Or, as someone noted, you must be some sad little bots.
How is it mild?
I asked him to provide information on other cases like this because basically there are none.
All nations use protectionism. Protectionism is necessary, but to a point, and the points are normally very clearly defined.
In this case the scope of the action is so broad and arbitrary that it is pretty much unprecedented. Unprecedented in law and its impact.
I fully expect a legal challenge to this action.
We aren't just talking about a trade dispute now. If this stance is allowed to stand you will see countries from all over the globe seeking to protect themselves from this kind of situation. The results will be dire for the US.
Trump's actions are not only having a negative impact on US firms (Apple is bracing itself for major problems) but non US firms too.
Far from being 'mild' protectionism, it is a potential game changer and the results may bring a dark age to the US as foreign companies shun it for fear of being affected by these arbitrary decisions.
On the ARM situation, there are some considerations from Huawei here:
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
Not sure what world you've been living in the last 100 or so years, but this is what politics is. This is what countries do. They manage deals, relationships, et.al. that protect their country and their interests. People are so upset that the US is finally doing the same thing. China has been doing this since the 1980s. What rock has everyone been living under? Now the outrage comes out? Disingenuous af.
Enlighten me with some cases on this scale.
Protectionism. Not national security.
Even if it's protectionism, it's quite mild compared to how China protects its markets. Heck, major world-beating tech and social networking US companies such as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc, and major US financial services companies, and the websites of pretty much every major news provider in the world (there are 10,000 such) are banned in China.
It's little wonder you guys are so ignorant. Or, as someone noted, you must be some sad little bots.
How is it mild?
I asked him to provide information on other cases like this because basically there are none.
All nations use protectionism. Protectionism is necessary, but to a point, and the points are normally very clearly defined.
In this case the scope of the action is so broad and arbitrary that it is pretty much unprecedented. Unprecedented in law and its impact.
I fully expect a legal challenge to this action.
We aren't just talking about a trade dispute now. If this stance is allowed to stand you will see countries from all over the globe seeking to protect themselves from this kind of situation. The results will be dire for the US.
Trump's actions are not only having a negative impact on US firms (Apple is bracing itself for major problems) but non US firms too.
Far from being 'mild' protectionism, it is a potential game changer and the results may bring a dark age to the US as foreign companies shun it for fear of being affected by these arbitrary decisions.
On the ARM situation, there are some considerations from Huawei here:
That's a fine article if it is in fact a negotiating strategy, but you are going to be very unhappy if what I suspect happens, which is that Huawei and its 70 affiliates will continue to banned anyway for National Security reasons, and there won't be anything that China can do about it.
I would also note that the U.S. is very serious about banning U.S. technology used by various Chinese Surveillance companies, all of that linked to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and HikVision will be likely be banned very soon.
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
Not sure what world you've been living in the last 100 or so years, but this is what politics is. This is what countries do. They manage deals, relationships, et.al. that protect their country and their interests. People are so upset that the US is finally doing the same thing. China has been doing this since the 1980s. What rock has everyone been living under? Now the outrage comes out? Disingenuous af.
Enlighten me with some cases on this scale.
Protectionism. Not national security.
Even if it's protectionism, it's quite mild compared to how China protects its markets. Heck, major world-beating tech and social networking US companies such as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc, and major US financial services companies, and the websites of pretty much every major news provider in the world (there are 10,000 such) are banned in China.
It's little wonder you guys are so ignorant. Or, as someone noted, you must be some sad little bots.
How is it mild?
I asked him to provide information on other cases like this because basically there are none.
All nations use protectionism. Protectionism is necessary, but to a point, and the points are normally very clearly defined.
In this case the scope of the action is so broad and arbitrary that it is pretty much unprecedented. Unprecedented in law and its impact.
I fully expect a legal challenge to this action.
We aren't just talking about a trade dispute now. If this stance is allowed to stand you will see countries from all over the globe seeking to protect themselves from this kind of situation. The results will be dire for the US.
Trump's actions are not only having a negative impact on US firms (Apple is bracing itself for major problems) but non US firms too.
Far from being 'mild' protectionism, it is a potential game changer and the results may bring a dark age to the US as foreign companies shun it for fear of being affected by these arbitrary decisions.
On the ARM situation, there are some considerations from Huawei here:
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
Not sure what world you've been living in the last 100 or so years, but this is what politics is. This is what countries do. They manage deals, relationships, et.al. that protect their country and their interests. People are so upset that the US is finally doing the same thing. China has been doing this since the 1980s. What rock has everyone been living under? Now the outrage comes out? Disingenuous af.
Enlighten me with some cases on this scale.
Protectionism. Not national security.
Even if it's protectionism, it's quite mild compared to how China protects its markets. Heck, major world-beating tech and social networking US companies such as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc, and major US financial services companies, and the websites of pretty much every major news provider in the world (there are 10,000 such) are banned in China.
It's little wonder you guys are so ignorant. Or, as someone noted, you must be some sad little bots.
How is it mild?
I asked him to provide information on other cases like this because basically there are none.
All nations use protectionism. Protectionism is necessary, but to a point, and the points are normally very clearly defined.
In this case the scope of the action is so broad and arbitrary that it is pretty much unprecedented. Unprecedented in law and its impact.
I fully expect a legal challenge to this action.
We aren't just talking about a trade dispute now. If this stance is allowed to stand you will see countries from all over the globe seeking to protect themselves from this kind of situation. The results will be dire for the US.
Trump's actions are not only having a negative impact on US firms (Apple is bracing itself for major problems) but non US firms too.
Far from being 'mild' protectionism, it is a potential game changer and the results may bring a dark age to the US as foreign companies shun it for fear of being affected by these arbitrary decisions.
On the ARM situation, there are some considerations from Huawei here:
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
Not sure what world you've been living in the last 100 or so years, but this is what politics is. This is what countries do. They manage deals, relationships, et.al. that protect their country and their interests. People are so upset that the US is finally doing the same thing. China has been doing this since the 1980s. What rock has everyone been living under? Now the outrage comes out? Disingenuous af.
Enlighten me with some cases on this scale.
Protectionism. Not national security.
Even if it's protectionism, it's quite mild compared to how China protects its markets. Heck, major world-beating tech and social networking US companies such as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc, and major US financial services companies, and the websites of pretty much every major news provider in the world (there are 10,000 such) are banned in China.
It's little wonder you guys are so ignorant. Or, as someone noted, you must be some sad little bots.
How is it mild?
I asked him to provide information on other cases like this because basically there are none.
All nations use protectionism. Protectionism is necessary, but to a point, and the points are normally very clearly defined.
In this case the scope of the action is so broad and arbitrary that it is pretty much unprecedented. Unprecedented in law and its impact.
I fully expect a legal challenge to this action.
We aren't just talking about a trade dispute now. If this stance is allowed to stand you will see countries from all over the globe seeking to protect themselves from this kind of situation. The results will be dire for the US.
Trump's actions are not only having a negative impact on US firms (Apple is bracing itself for major problems) but non US firms too.
Far from being 'mild' protectionism, it is a potential game changer and the results may bring a dark age to the US as foreign companies shun it for fear of being affected by these arbitrary decisions.
On the ARM situation, there are some considerations from Huawei here:
Seeing as the answer is evident even to people who aren't following the situation, your question (and 'bot' reference) is out of place.
Therefore, I will ask you a question. Why do you think they are similar?
To help you with your answer please take into account whether the actions of the Chinese government were applicable outside China.
I hope that you have been paid up for your Huawei influencing. Looks like a very rough ride ahead.
I'll answer that question.
China, controlled by the CCP, blocks most of the internet so that its flock doesn't get any ideas beyond post Mao / Xi doctrine. At the same time, China is fine with using the internet in the West for influencing, basically what you are doing right now.
The U.S. bans Huawei telecom equipment due to National Security concerns, ie, Huawei's close connection with the Chinese Government and the CCP. See above. Because the Chinese reneged very recently in the trade negotiations on IP and and forced technology transfer remedies, the U.S. decided to fuck Huawei. Your bullshit story about Huawei and all of its great technology collapsed in a sea of withdrawn Western IP, basically killing Huawei consumer products, and telecom, outside of China.
But good news! Huawei and the Chinese now have the opportunity actually take a long road of technological self sufficiency, and unfortunately for them, an attempt at retribution against Apple will likely only accelerate the shift of the supply chain to other countries. One thing that the Chinese citizen expects, is jobs and rising income, and if Xi can't deliver that, then he gets replaced.
In the meantime, I reiterate; why would any country in the world put itself at risk by implementing critical infrastructure from the world's largest Authoritarian government supported and controlled company, Huawei?
a link to a Rene Richie / Ben Bajarin video on this whole matter;
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
Not sure what world you've been living in the last 100 or so years, but this is what politics is. This is what countries do. They manage deals, relationships, et.al. that protect their country and their interests. People are so upset that the US is finally doing the same thing. China has been doing this since the 1980s. What rock has everyone been living under? Now the outrage comes out? Disingenuous af.
Enlighten me with some cases on this scale.
Protectionism. Not national security.
Even if it's protectionism, it's quite mild compared to how China protects its markets. Heck, major world-beating tech and social networking US companies such as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc, and major US financial services companies, and the websites of pretty much every major news provider in the world (there are 10,000 such) are banned in China.
It's little wonder you guys are so ignorant. Or, as someone noted, you must be some sad little bots.
How is it mild?
I asked him to provide information on other cases like this because basically there are none.
All nations use protectionism. Protectionism is necessary, but to a point, and the points are normally very clearly defined.
In this case the scope of the action is so broad and arbitrary that it is pretty much unprecedented. Unprecedented in law and its impact.
I fully expect a legal challenge to this action.
We aren't just talking about a trade dispute now. If this stance is allowed to stand you will see countries from all over the globe seeking to protect themselves from this kind of situation. The results will be dire for the US.
Trump's actions are not only having a negative impact on US firms (Apple is bracing itself for major problems) but non US firms too.
Far from being 'mild' protectionism, it is a potential game changer and the results may bring a dark age to the US as foreign companies shun it for fear of being affected by these arbitrary decisions.
On the ARM situation, there are some considerations from Huawei here:
Seeing as the answer is evident even to people who aren't following the situation, your question (and 'bot' reference) is out of place.
Therefore, I will ask you a question. Why do you think they are similar?
To help you with your answer please take into account whether the actions of the Chinese government were applicable outside China.
I hope that you have been paid up for your Huawei influencing. Looks like a very rough ride ahead.
I'll answer that question.
China, controlled by the CCP, blocks most of the internet so that its flock doesn't get any ideas beyond post Mao / Xi doctrine. At the same time, China is fine with using the internet in the West for influencing, basically what you are doing right now.
The U.S. bans Huawei telecom equipment due to National Security concerns, ie, Huawei's close connection with the Chinese Government and the CCP. See above. Because the Chinese reneged very recently in the trade negotiations on IP and and forced technology transfer remedies, the U.S. decided to fuck Huawei. Your bullshit story about Huawei and all of its great technology collapsed in a sea of withdrawn Western IP, basically killing Huawei consumer products, and telecom, outside of China.
But good news! Huawei and the Chinese now have the opportunity actually take a long road of technological self sufficiency, and unfortunately for them, an attempt at retribution against Apple will likely only accelerate the shift of the supply chain to other countries. One thing that the Chinese citizen expects, is jobs and rising income, and if Xi can't deliver that, then he gets replaced.
In the meantime, I reiterate; why would any country in the world put itself at risk by implementing critical infrastructure from the world's largest Authoritarian government supported and controlled company, Huawei?
a link to a Rene Richie / Ben Bajarin video on this whole matter;
You didn't actually answer the question!
National security has nothing to do with anything. That is now pretty clear.
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
Not sure what world you've been living in the last 100 or so years, but this is what politics is. This is what countries do. They manage deals, relationships, et.al. that protect their country and their interests. People are so upset that the US is finally doing the same thing. China has been doing this since the 1980s. What rock has everyone been living under? Now the outrage comes out? Disingenuous af.
Enlighten me with some cases on this scale.
Protectionism. Not national security.
Even if it's protectionism, it's quite mild compared to how China protects its markets. Heck, major world-beating tech and social networking US companies such as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc, and major US financial services companies, and the websites of pretty much every major news provider in the world (there are 10,000 such) are banned in China.
It's little wonder you guys are so ignorant. Or, as someone noted, you must be some sad little bots.
How is it mild?
I asked him to provide information on other cases like this because basically there are none.
All nations use protectionism. Protectionism is necessary, but to a point, and the points are normally very clearly defined.
In this case the scope of the action is so broad and arbitrary that it is pretty much unprecedented. Unprecedented in law and its impact.
I fully expect a legal challenge to this action.
We aren't just talking about a trade dispute now. If this stance is allowed to stand you will see countries from all over the globe seeking to protect themselves from this kind of situation. The results will be dire for the US.
Trump's actions are not only having a negative impact on US firms (Apple is bracing itself for major problems) but non US firms too.
Far from being 'mild' protectionism, it is a potential game changer and the results may bring a dark age to the US as foreign companies shun it for fear of being affected by these arbitrary decisions.
On the ARM situation, there are some considerations from Huawei here:
Seeing as the answer is evident even to people who aren't following the situation, your question (and 'bot' reference) is out of place.
Therefore, I will ask you a question. Why do you think they are similar?
To help you with your answer please take into account whether the actions of the Chinese government were applicable outside China.
I hope that you have been paid up for your Huawei influencing. Looks like a very rough ride ahead.
I'll answer that question.
China, controlled by the CCP, blocks most of the internet so that its flock doesn't get any ideas beyond post Mao / Xi doctrine. At the same time, China is fine with using the internet in the West for influencing, basically what you are doing right now.
The U.S. bans Huawei telecom equipment due to National Security concerns, ie, Huawei's close connection with the Chinese Government and the CCP. See above. Because the Chinese reneged very recently in the trade negotiations on IP and and forced technology transfer remedies, the U.S. decided to fuck Huawei. Your bullshit story about Huawei and all of its great technology collapsed in a sea of withdrawn Western IP, basically killing Huawei consumer products, and telecom, outside of China.
But good news! Huawei and the Chinese now have the opportunity actually take a long road of technological self sufficiency, and unfortunately for them, an attempt at retribution against Apple will likely only accelerate the shift of the supply chain to other countries. One thing that the Chinese citizen expects, is jobs and rising income, and if Xi can't deliver that, then he gets replaced.
In the meantime, I reiterate; why would any country in the world put itself at risk by implementing critical infrastructure from the world's largest Authoritarian government supported and controlled company, Huawei?
a link to a Rene Richie / Ben Bajarin video on this whole matter;
You didn't actually answer the question!
National security has nothing to do with anything. That is now pretty clear.
You are laughably inept at influencing.
BTW, I wasn't aware of the fact until today, that Avon b7 is actually the descriptor of an inflatable boat valve. Who knew!
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
Not sure what world you've been living in the last 100 or so years, but this is what politics is. This is what countries do. They manage deals, relationships, et.al. that protect their country and their interests. People are so upset that the US is finally doing the same thing. China has been doing this since the 1980s. What rock has everyone been living under? Now the outrage comes out? Disingenuous af.
Enlighten me with some cases on this scale.
Protectionism. Not national security.
Even if it's protectionism, it's quite mild compared to how China protects its markets. Heck, major world-beating tech and social networking US companies such as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter etc, and major US financial services companies, and the websites of pretty much every major news provider in the world (there are 10,000 such) are banned in China.
It's little wonder you guys are so ignorant. Or, as someone noted, you must be some sad little bots.
How is it mild?
I asked him to provide information on other cases like this because basically there are none.
All nations use protectionism. Protectionism is necessary, but to a point, and the points are normally very clearly defined.
In this case the scope of the action is so broad and arbitrary that it is pretty much unprecedented. Unprecedented in law and its impact.
I fully expect a legal challenge to this action.
We aren't just talking about a trade dispute now. If this stance is allowed to stand you will see countries from all over the globe seeking to protect themselves from this kind of situation. The results will be dire for the US.
Trump's actions are not only having a negative impact on US firms (Apple is bracing itself for major problems) but non US firms too.
Far from being 'mild' protectionism, it is a potential game changer and the results may bring a dark age to the US as foreign companies shun it for fear of being affected by these arbitrary decisions.
On the ARM situation, there are some considerations from Huawei here:
Seeing as the answer is evident even to people who aren't following the situation, your question (and 'bot' reference) is out of place.
Therefore, I will ask you a question. Why do you think they are similar?
To help you with your answer please take into account whether the actions of the Chinese government were applicable outside China.
I hope that you have been paid up for your Huawei influencing. Looks like a very rough ride ahead.
I'll answer that question.
China, controlled by the CCP, blocks most of the internet so that its flock doesn't get any ideas beyond post Mao / Xi doctrine. At the same time, China is fine with using the internet in the West for influencing, basically what you are doing right now.
The U.S. bans Huawei telecom equipment due to National Security concerns, ie, Huawei's close connection with the Chinese Government and the CCP. See above. Because the Chinese reneged very recently in the trade negotiations on IP and and forced technology transfer remedies, the U.S. decided to fuck Huawei. Your bullshit story about Huawei and all of its great technology collapsed in a sea of withdrawn Western IP, basically killing Huawei consumer products, and telecom, outside of China.
But good news! Huawei and the Chinese now have the opportunity actually take a long road of technological self sufficiency, and unfortunately for them, an attempt at retribution against Apple will likely only accelerate the shift of the supply chain to other countries. One thing that the Chinese citizen expects, is jobs and rising income, and if Xi can't deliver that, then he gets replaced.
In the meantime, I reiterate; why would any country in the world put itself at risk by implementing critical infrastructure from the world's largest Authoritarian government supported and controlled company, Huawei?
a link to a Rene Richie / Ben Bajarin video on this whole matter;
You didn't actually answer the question!
National security has nothing to do with anything. That is now pretty clear.
You are laughably inept at influencing.
BTW, I wasn't aware of the fact until today, that Avon b7 is actually the descriptor of an inflatable boat valve. Who knew!
But you still didn't answer the question!
I will do it for you.
The correct answer would have been, that with those other examples, China limited its influence to its own sovereign territory, something that every sovereign nation has the right to do (U.S included). It wasn't trying to destroy those companies.
The reason why the graphic wasn't even a 'remotely similar situation' is that the US is trying to overreach the limits of its borders and stop Huawei from carrying out business around the globe. Something which has set a precedent with quite unknown consequences.
Now, presenting that graphic made no sense from the outset. The question now is if you really couldn't comprehend the situation or if you did it knowingly.
Both leave you in bad light and throwing cheap insults around just pulled you down further.
To make matters worse you are now even contemplating the issue of national security being a ruse and seeing it for what it is: a very poor negotiating tactic. One that could end up in court.
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
"Europeans pushed back, too. During one closed-door session, senior representatives from European telecom operators pressed a U.S. official for hard evidence that Huawei presented a security risk. One executive demanded to see a smoking gun, recalled the U.S. official.
The American official fired back: “If the gun is smoking, you’ve already been shot. I don’t know why you’re lining up in front of a loaded weapon.”
I suspect that the U.S. sees Huawei as both "personal' and "strategic" to both Xi and China, based on all of the telegraphing Huawei and China have been doing about Huawei's breadth of accomplishments and basic resistance to Huawei.
"BEIJING — China’s leader, Xi Jinping, seemed confident three weeks ago that a yearlong trade war with the United States could soon subside, handing him a potent political victory.
He even made a speech saying China would protect intellectual property, encourage foreign investment, and buy more goods and services from abroad — all changes the United States had been demanding as the countries tried to negotiate a deal.
But just a week after that speech, Chinese negotiators sent the Americans a substantially rewritten draft agreement, prompting President Trump to accuse Beijing of reneging on terms that had been settled.
That has left hopes for a historic breakthrough in tatters."
Credit to the Czechs and Australians for leading off against Huawei.
What you just posted tacitly admitted that there is 'nothing in the bag' on Huawei. Something that simply confirms the madness in all this.
However, we don't need much more than Trump's own words to see why this is happening. The fact that he is getting away with it (at least so far) says a lot about the damage he is causing around the world. I really can't see it lasting.
China is preparing a response (according to the latest rumours) that puts Apple squarely in its crosshairs as a tit-for-tat counter for the Huawei move and that will supposedly hit multibillion dollar Chinese investments in the US.
The 'smoking gun' reference is a sign of how low things have got. Did he not understand that, through that reference, he will have to accept that other powers will be able to argue their cases in exactly the same way? Or does he think that only the US should be allowed that 'right'?
This is pure, absolute protectionism. Nothing more.
1. What's in the bag? The Chinese government's relationship to private industry.
2. What "damage" is Trump causing around the world? I'm quite serious.
3. China does not have the economic firepower to drastically affect us. The only thing they could really do is dump U.S. treasuries onto the market. That would tank our economy, which in turn would tank the world economy. It's suicide. We could eliminate all trade with China within a few years and we'd recover just fine. China would not. They are 2% of our economy. We are 20% of theirs.
4. This is not protectionism. This is called "fighting the war we have." Trump is using tariffs to force China to make a better deal and get them to stop their blatant IP theft and cheating on trade. The war doesn't go away just because you pretend it doesn't exist (just as every Republican and Democrat administration did before Trump).
1. Evidence to support the claims the US has tabled against Huawei (as 'required' by many countries).
2. Trump is behaving like a Sheriff in some small US town where he thinks he can call all the shots. The problem is that it isn't a town but the world and the damage is instability - now - but with possible long term effects, the financial impact of his actions and the political fallout associated with his unpredictability. Actions which are often claimed to fall into the judicial plane but that can be plucked from that plane for commercial or political reasons.
3. I suggest we wait and see on this. This is not the China of old. They had planned to plough a trillion dollars into the US (purchases of Boeing aircraft). There is a multibillion liquid gas infrastructure project (Alaska) that could be affected (along with a reduction of US gas purchases). Apple could be hit very hard but things are getting so tough for US business that even the US sports footwear industry has already told Trump they want him to find a solution before China raises tariffs. Isn't Trump's latest action all about reducing that 20%? Because that could happen. The difference now (just like the EU) is that China has domestic demand. It can play off itself and find alternatives (Boeing to Airbus for example).
4. It's protectionism. That is beyond doubt at this point.
1. I'm not aware of the particulars. As I stated earlier, it's more about the Chinese government's relationship with "private corporations," particularly high-tech ones.
2. Well, he has the authority to call the shots. I don't see the instability or financial/political fallout from what he's doing. The market barely registered a blip. Our economy is soaring. The impact appears to be on China, which has seen a significant reduction in GDP growth. As for unpredictability, I don't think anyone can look at Trump's trade actions and say they didn't see it coming. He's been talking about standing up for America in trade for 30 years.
3. This is much, much worse than the China of old. Their technical capabilities and aggression are far beyond what they were 20 years ago. China does invest in the U.S. If they retaliate significantly, it will have some impact on us. But the point is that a trade war will damage them far, far more than it will us. This is why they have to make a deal at some point. It's not an option for them. That's the result of our trade deficit....they need us to buy their products more than we need them to buy ours.
4. Beyond doubt? Hardly. Trump's stated goal is to make a deal. He wants to get to "fair" trade. The goal is not to have tariffs because he thinks tariffs are great in and of themselves. He is using them to achieve something. Now, he may end up being wrong. But it's not a philosophy of protectionism that's driving the tariffs.
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
"Europeans pushed back, too. During one closed-door session, senior representatives from European telecom operators pressed a U.S. official for hard evidence that Huawei presented a security risk. One executive demanded to see a smoking gun, recalled the U.S. official.
The American official fired back: “If the gun is smoking, you’ve already been shot. I don’t know why you’re lining up in front of a loaded weapon.”
I suspect that the U.S. sees Huawei as both "personal' and "strategic" to both Xi and China, based on all of the telegraphing Huawei and China have been doing about Huawei's breadth of accomplishments and basic resistance to Huawei.
"BEIJING — China’s leader, Xi Jinping, seemed confident three weeks ago that a yearlong trade war with the United States could soon subside, handing him a potent political victory.
He even made a speech saying China would protect intellectual property, encourage foreign investment, and buy more goods and services from abroad — all changes the United States had been demanding as the countries tried to negotiate a deal.
But just a week after that speech, Chinese negotiators sent the Americans a substantially rewritten draft agreement, prompting President Trump to accuse Beijing of reneging on terms that had been settled.
That has left hopes for a historic breakthrough in tatters."
Credit to the Czechs and Australians for leading off against Huawei.
What you just posted tacitly admitted that there is 'nothing in the bag' on Huawei. Something that simply confirms the madness in all this.
However, we don't need much more than Trump's own words to see why this is happening. The fact that he is getting away with it (at least so far) says a lot about the damage he is causing around the world. I really can't see it lasting.
China is preparing a response (according to the latest rumours) that puts Apple squarely in its crosshairs as a tit-for-tat counter for the Huawei move and that will supposedly hit multibillion dollar Chinese investments in the US.
The 'smoking gun' reference is a sign of how low things have got. Did he not understand that, through that reference, he will have to accept that other powers will be able to argue their cases in exactly the same way? Or does he think that only the US should be allowed that 'right'?
This is pure, absolute protectionism. Nothing more.
1. What's in the bag? The Chinese government's relationship to private industry.
2. What "damage" is Trump causing around the world? I'm quite serious.
3. China does not have the economic firepower to drastically affect us. The only thing they could really do is dump U.S. treasuries onto the market. That would tank our economy, which in turn would tank the world economy. It's suicide. We could eliminate all trade with China within a few years and we'd recover just fine. China would not. They are 2% of our economy. We are 20% of theirs.
4. This is not protectionism. This is called "fighting the war we have." Trump is using tariffs to force China to make a better deal and get them to stop their blatant IP theft and cheating on trade. The war doesn't go away just because you pretend it doesn't exist (just as every Republican and Democrat administration did before Trump).
1. Evidence to support the claims the US has tabled against Huawei (as 'required' by many countries).
2. Trump is behaving like a Sheriff in some small US town where he thinks he can call all the shots. The problem is that it isn't a town but the world and the damage is instability - now - but with possible long term effects, the financial impact of his actions and the political fallout associated with his unpredictability. Actions which are often claimed to fall into the judicial plane but that can be plucked from that plane for commercial or political reasons.
3. I suggest we wait and see on this. This is not the China of old. They had planned to plough a trillion dollars into the US (purchases of Boeing aircraft). There is a multibillion liquid gas infrastructure project (Alaska) that could be affected (along with a reduction of US gas purchases). Apple could be hit very hard but things are getting so tough for US business that even the US sports footwear industry has already told Trump they want him to find a solution before China raises tariffs. Isn't Trump's latest action all about reducing that 20%? Because that could happen. The difference now (just like the EU) is that China has domestic demand. It can play off itself and find alternatives (Boeing to Airbus for example).
4. It's protectionism. That is beyond doubt at this point.
1. I'm not aware of the particulars. As I stated earlier, it's more about the Chinese government's relationship with "private corporations," particularly high-tech ones.
2. Well, he has the authority to call the shots. I don't see the instability or financial/political fallout from what he's doing. The market barely registered a blip. Our economy is soaring. The impact appears to be on China, which has seen a significant reduction in GDP growth. As for unpredictability, I don't think anyone can look at Trump's trade actions and say they didn't see it coming. He's been talking about standing up for America in trade for 30 years.
3. This is much, much worse than the China of old. Their technical capabilities and aggression are far beyond what they were 20 years ago. China does invest in the U.S. If they retaliate significantly, it will have some impact on us. But the point is that a trade war will damage them far, far more than it will us. This is why they have to make a deal at some point. It's not an option for them. That's the result of our trade deficit....they need us to buy their products more than we need them to buy ours.
4. Beyond doubt? Hardly. Trump's stated goal is to make a deal. He wants to get to "fair" trade. The goal is not to have tariffs because he thinks tariffs are great in and of themselves. He is using them to achieve something. Now, he may end up being wrong. But it's not a philosophy of protectionism that's driving the tariffs.
1. The particulars are that governments wanted evidence to support US claims over national security. They got none and the result (then) was that they wouldn't put a ban in place. Since then it has become crystal clear to most that national security was simply a ruse. The real issue is commercial and avoiding the Chinese gaining an even larger upper hand on key technologies going forward.
2. There is political and financial fallout everywhere you look. If this were limited to the US it would be fine but Trump's actions have directly impacted non-US companies. Simply search fall financial/political fallout trade war. Companies are declaring huge revenue slides, entire sectors (US sports footwear for example) are claiming the trade war will be catastrophic for them. 16 billion US dollars to the farming industry (other industries will not take long to demand their share). US consumers are footing the bill on tariffs (in spite of what Trump says) and the OECD has grim news:
3. China. US. It doesn't matter. We shouldn't be resolving issues in this way. China has outplayed the US on 5G and is about to do the same with AI. Using executive powers to extend impact beyond sovereign limits to derail competitors and under false pretences (national security) is not the way the world wants to do business. China has implied it's ready for a long battle. For all his bluster, I doubt Trump wants a long battle neither does business (large or small). Consumers don't either He may have already gone too far for the Chinese (who are now demanding he correct his 'wrong actions' before continuing any negotiations).
4. It's protectionism and in the purest sense. Look at how you didn't mention 'national security' in point 4. We knew this from the outset. The latest revelation that Trump could use Huawei as leverage in trade talks just goes to show how shallow the whole episode has been. He now has no credibility left on the world stage. Not that he had much from the moment he took office (you will remember the comments by high ranking EU officials). Trying to destroy a giant company to stop it from taking a lead in a critical field instead of letting market forces play out is abhorrent. We live in a globalised world with a globalised supply chain. What Trump is trying to do is destroy it. Ironically, all he has done is send a stark message to everyone else on the planet saying that he will stop at nothing to impede other nations from trying to change the status quo. It was already too late to stop that from happening. The EU (and obviously China) were already thinking about depending less on other nations and more on themselves and were working to that end. The Huawei episode has simply taught them they must accelerate the change. The upshot is that the US will lose out on every level, and faster.
I really wish there was some objective, scientific, and non-politicized coverage of the actual issues the US has with Huawei. A lot of the concerns seem to be pure conjecture or hypotheticals and ignore the fact that all countries, US and EU ones included, have both the ability and incentives to place surveillance inside any hardware or software communication platforms and equipment, whether at the manufacturing point of origin or through interception anywhere in the supply, distribution, or service channels and pretty much regardless of where the equipment is deployed. It's not like Huawei is building a giant ship with a massive crane to mine manganese nodules from the bottom of the ocean off the east coast of the US, or anything like that...
There is absolutely nothing more than you point out.
The Trump administration simply didn't want to see the Chinese take a tech lead (5G for example) over the US.
Trump tried to get other countries to do the dirty work by banning Huawei. Most of those countries refused (after requesting evidence and not getting any) and as a US ban wasn't going to be enough, he simply declared a 'national emergency' to justify an executive order. This in spite of court cases (by both sides) already being underway.
Why wait for the legalities to be cleared up when you can skip that part altogether?
We are now in Wild West Politics and the sheriff is acting like one of those dodgy sheriffs in some crazy western.
Blatant protectionism and nothing else save for the conjecture and hypotheticals.
This is not the precedent the US should be setting on a world stage.
"Europeans pushed back, too. During one closed-door session, senior representatives from European telecom operators pressed a U.S. official for hard evidence that Huawei presented a security risk. One executive demanded to see a smoking gun, recalled the U.S. official.
The American official fired back: “If the gun is smoking, you’ve already been shot. I don’t know why you’re lining up in front of a loaded weapon.”
I suspect that the U.S. sees Huawei as both "personal' and "strategic" to both Xi and China, based on all of the telegraphing Huawei and China have been doing about Huawei's breadth of accomplishments and basic resistance to Huawei.
"BEIJING — China’s leader, Xi Jinping, seemed confident three weeks ago that a yearlong trade war with the United States could soon subside, handing him a potent political victory.
He even made a speech saying China would protect intellectual property, encourage foreign investment, and buy more goods and services from abroad — all changes the United States had been demanding as the countries tried to negotiate a deal.
But just a week after that speech, Chinese negotiators sent the Americans a substantially rewritten draft agreement, prompting President Trump to accuse Beijing of reneging on terms that had been settled.
That has left hopes for a historic breakthrough in tatters."
Credit to the Czechs and Australians for leading off against Huawei.
What you just posted tacitly admitted that there is 'nothing in the bag' on Huawei. Something that simply confirms the madness in all this.
However, we don't need much more than Trump's own words to see why this is happening. The fact that he is getting away with it (at least so far) says a lot about the damage he is causing around the world. I really can't see it lasting.
China is preparing a response (according to the latest rumours) that puts Apple squarely in its crosshairs as a tit-for-tat counter for the Huawei move and that will supposedly hit multibillion dollar Chinese investments in the US.
The 'smoking gun' reference is a sign of how low things have got. Did he not understand that, through that reference, he will have to accept that other powers will be able to argue their cases in exactly the same way? Or does he think that only the US should be allowed that 'right'?
This is pure, absolute protectionism. Nothing more.
1. What's in the bag? The Chinese government's relationship to private industry.
2. What "damage" is Trump causing around the world? I'm quite serious.
3. China does not have the economic firepower to drastically affect us. The only thing they could really do is dump U.S. treasuries onto the market. That would tank our economy, which in turn would tank the world economy. It's suicide. We could eliminate all trade with China within a few years and we'd recover just fine. China would not. They are 2% of our economy. We are 20% of theirs.
4. This is not protectionism. This is called "fighting the war we have." Trump is using tariffs to force China to make a better deal and get them to stop their blatant IP theft and cheating on trade. The war doesn't go away just because you pretend it doesn't exist (just as every Republican and Democrat administration did before Trump).
1. Evidence to support the claims the US has tabled against Huawei (as 'required' by many countries).
2. Trump is behaving like a Sheriff in some small US town where he thinks he can call all the shots. The problem is that it isn't a town but the world and the damage is instability - now - but with possible long term effects, the financial impact of his actions and the political fallout associated with his unpredictability. Actions which are often claimed to fall into the judicial plane but that can be plucked from that plane for commercial or political reasons.
3. I suggest we wait and see on this. This is not the China of old. They had planned to plough a trillion dollars into the US (purchases of Boeing aircraft). There is a multibillion liquid gas infrastructure project (Alaska) that could be affected (along with a reduction of US gas purchases). Apple could be hit very hard but things are getting so tough for US business that even the US sports footwear industry has already told Trump they want him to find a solution before China raises tariffs. Isn't Trump's latest action all about reducing that 20%? Because that could happen. The difference now (just like the EU) is that China has domestic demand. It can play off itself and find alternatives (Boeing to Airbus for example).
4. It's protectionism. That is beyond doubt at this point.
1. I'm not aware of the particulars. As I stated earlier, it's more about the Chinese government's relationship with "private corporations," particularly high-tech ones.
2. Well, he has the authority to call the shots. I don't see the instability or financial/political fallout from what he's doing. The market barely registered a blip. Our economy is soaring. The impact appears to be on China, which has seen a significant reduction in GDP growth. As for unpredictability, I don't think anyone can look at Trump's trade actions and say they didn't see it coming. He's been talking about standing up for America in trade for 30 years.
3. This is much, much worse than the China of old. Their technical capabilities and aggression are far beyond what they were 20 years ago. China does invest in the U.S. If they retaliate significantly, it will have some impact on us. But the point is that a trade war will damage them far, far more than it will us. This is why they have to make a deal at some point. It's not an option for them. That's the result of our trade deficit....they need us to buy their products more than we need them to buy ours.
4. Beyond doubt? Hardly. Trump's stated goal is to make a deal. He wants to get to "fair" trade. The goal is not to have tariffs because he thinks tariffs are great in and of themselves. He is using them to achieve something. Now, he may end up being wrong. But it's not a philosophy of protectionism that's driving the tariffs.
1. The particulars are that governments wanted evidence to support US claims over national security. They got none and the result (then) was that they wouldn't put a ban in place. Since then it has become crystal clear to most that national security was simply a ruse. The real issue is commercial and avoiding the Chinese gaining an even larger upper hand on key technologies going forward.
2. There is political and financial fallout everywhere you look. If this were limited to the US it would be fine but Trump's actions have directly impacted non-US companies. Simply search fall financial/political fallout trade war. Companies are declaring huge revenue slides, entire sectors (US sports footwear for example) are claiming the trade war will be catastrophic for them. 16 billion US dollars to the farming industry (other industries will not take long to demand their share). US consumers are footing the bill on tariffs (in spite of what Trump says) and the OECD has grim news:
3. China. US. It doesn't matter. We shouldn't be resolving issues in this way. China has outplayed the US on 5G and is about to do the same with AI. Using executive powers to extend impact beyond sovereign limits to derail competitors and under false pretences (national security) is not the way the world wants to do business. China has implied it's ready for a long battle. For all his bluster, I doubt Trump wants a long battle neither does business (large or small). Consumers don't either He may have already gone too far for the Chinese (who are now demanding he correct his 'wrong actions' before continuing any negotiations).
4. It's protectionism and in the purest sense. Look at how you didn't mention 'national security' in point 4. We knew this from the outset. The latest revelation that Trump could use Huawei as leverage in trade talks just goes to show how shallow the whole episode has been. He now has no credibility left on the world stage. Not that he had much from the moment he took office (you will remember the comments by high ranking EU officials). Trying to destroy a giant company to stop it from taking a lead in a critical field instead of letting market forces play out is abhorrent. We live in a globalised world with a globalised supply chain. What Trump is trying to do is destroy it. Ironically, all he has done is send a stark message to everyone else on the planet saying that he will stop at nothing to impede other nations from trying to change the status quo. It was already too late to stop that from happening. The EU (and obviously China) were already thinking about depending less on other nations and more on themselves and were working to that end. The Huawei episode has simply taught them they must accelerate the change. The upshot is that the US will lose out on every level, and faster.
Remember that post above of the various internet companies that were blocked?
China’s 2010 rare earth export reduction wasn’t the only shot the country has taken: in January of that year Google announced that its network had been hacked by China, resulting in the theft of intellectual property, and that the company was reevaluating its approach to the Chinese market. Soon after Google closed down its China operations and directed users to its Hong Kong site, which was summarily blocked by the Great Firewall.
Google was hardly alone in this regard: YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook were all blocked in 2009, and since Google’s block sites like Instagram, Dropbox, Pinterest, Reddit, and Discord have been as well, along with a whole host of media sites like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Wikipedia.
Indeed, this is where I take the biggest issue with Culpan labeling this past week’s actions as the start of a tech cold war: China took the first shots, and they took them a long time ago. For over a decade U.S. services companies have been unilaterally shut out of the China market, even as Chinese alternatives had full reign, running on servers built with U.S. components (and likely using U.S. intellectual property)."
Your screed fails to note that China has been protectionist since Nixon. Still, you're okay with that because "sovereignty" for authoritarian China, but not for the U.S., or any other liberal country, that China has been stealing IP and technology from.
"On a summer evening in 2004, as the Supercomm tech conference in Chicago wound down, a middle-aged Chinese visitor began wending his way through the nearly abandoned booths, popping open million-dollar networking equipment to photograph the circuit boards inside, according to people who were there."
There's a paywall, but the gist of the article is self explanatory.
Comments
I imagine these are the types of Chinese companies they'd have to partner up with in order to design future processors. Even then, that's not an easy task.
Few companies have actually done a lot of work on custom ARM cores. Apple (Vortex), Samsung (Mongoose 4) and NVIDIA (Carmel) appear to be the only ones pushing rather unique cores. Qualcomm seems to be sticking closer to ARM's designs in recent years.
Stacey spoke out against capitalism, therefore she must be a communist.
If you can answer why this logic is wrong, your logic passes. If you think this sentence is correct, you should not post any comment.
While an NPU sounds cool and super high-tech, in reality they are pretty easy to design compared to a CPU. A company making an NPU isn’t going to be able to take that knowledge and suddenly start building CPUs or GPUs.
Samsung cores are WAY behind Apple cores as were previous Nvidia cores. Nvidia has given up on mobile so they have nothing to compare directly (their processors for automotive are powerful, but also consume a LOT of power).
Huawei and Qualcomm guy lucky with the 980 and 855 in that ARM has the A76 cores ready and TSMC has 7nm ready at the same time. The “stars aligned” for them and they still couldn’t match Apple. This year will be worse since there’s no new ARM cores so the best they could hope for is a very slight performance bump from a new 7nm Pro process. Apple gets the 7nm Pro boost along with refinements to their custom cores. This will only put Apple further out ahead.
Samsung cores are not "WAY" behind, but they're still in need of some work. It's clear though that Samsung is making considerable progress in creating a big core.
Geekbench 4 Single Core:
- A12 (7 nm) - 4797
- Exynos 9820 (8 nm) - 4308
- A11 (10 nm) - 4215
- A10 (16 nm) - 3409
- Exynos 9810 (10 nm) - 3289
- A9 (16 nm) - 2271
- Exynos 8895 (10 nm) - 1950
- Exynos 8890 (14 nm) - 1810
NVIDIA's last core to be used in a consumer SoC was their Denver core in Tegra K1 Denver (28 nm) which matched Apple's Typhoon core in the A8X (20 nm) in single core performance. Clearly it wasn't behind.
Cortex A76 is much smaller and uses far less power than a Vortex core, it was designed with different goals in mind. Matching single core performance was never a goal at that size and in that power envelope.
I haven't the slightest idea why you thought there was no new ARM core this year. Deimos is the successor to Cortex A76 and is launching this year (2019) with its successor Hercules next year (2020). Deimos should see a roughly 20% performance gain over Cortex A76.
Clearly, it was in fact behind the A8X. Credit Apple's silicon design team for its focus on efficiency, and Apple's large captive SOC market that allowed them to produce the A8 series at 20nm while Nvidia was still at 28nm.
I do agree that Samsung has made good progress in its own custom architecture, but overall, to no advantage over Qualcomm.
Basically, you are attempting to make that case that the competition is catching up with Apple in SOC design, but it just never seems to happen, does it.
I asked him to provide information on other cases like this because basically there are none.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/22/18634754/huawei-ban-lawsuit-phones-national-security-trump
All nations use protectionism. Protectionism is necessary, but to a point, and the points are normally very clearly defined.
In this case the scope of the action is so broad and arbitrary that it is pretty much unprecedented. Unprecedented in law and its impact.
I fully expect a legal challenge to this action.
We aren't just talking about a trade dispute now. If this stance is allowed to stand you will see countries from all over the globe seeking to protect themselves from this kind of situation. The results will be dire for the US.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/23/economy/trade-war-economy/index.html
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/china-tests-nuclear-option-trade-war-sells-us-treasurys-2019-5-1028225480
Trump's actions are not only having a negative impact on US firms (Apple is bracing itself for major problems) but non US firms too.
Far from being 'mild' protectionism, it is a potential game changer and the results may bring a dark age to the US as foreign companies shun it for fear of being affected by these arbitrary decisions.
On the ARM situation, there are some considerations from Huawei here:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-tech-usa-china-response/china-says-lodged-solemn-representations-with-u-s-over-huawei-idUSKCN1ST0PR
Anyway, I'll throw this in as I've just read it and it's a good read.
https://thebulwark.com/this-is-literally-the-only-piece-you-need-to-read-about-trumps-trade-war/
I would also note that the U.S. is very serious about banning U.S. technology used by various Chinese Surveillance companies, all of that linked to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and HikVision will be likely be banned very soon.
Therefore, I will ask you a question. Why do you think they are similar?
To help you with your answer please take into account whether the actions of the Chinese government were applicable outside China.
I'll answer that question.
China, controlled by the CCP, blocks most of the internet so that its flock doesn't get any ideas beyond post Mao / Xi doctrine. At the same time, China is fine with using the internet in the West for influencing, basically what you are doing right now.
The U.S. bans Huawei telecom equipment due to National Security concerns, ie, Huawei's close connection with the Chinese Government and the CCP. See above. Because the Chinese reneged very recently in the trade negotiations on IP and and forced technology transfer remedies, the U.S. decided to fuck Huawei. Your bullshit story about Huawei and all of its great technology collapsed in a sea of withdrawn Western IP, basically killing Huawei consumer products, and telecom, outside of China.
But good news! Huawei and the Chinese now have the opportunity actually take a long road of technological self sufficiency, and unfortunately for them, an attempt at retribution against Apple will likely only accelerate the shift of the supply chain to other countries. One thing that the Chinese citizen expects, is jobs and rising income, and if Xi can't deliver that, then he gets replaced.
In the meantime, I reiterate; why would any country in the world put itself at risk by implementing critical infrastructure from the world's largest Authoritarian government supported and controlled company, Huawei?
a link to a Rene Richie / Ben Bajarin video on this whole matter;
National security has nothing to do with anything. That is now pretty clear.
BTW, I wasn't aware of the fact until today, that Avon b7 is actually the descriptor of an inflatable boat valve. Who knew!
I will do it for you.
The correct answer would have been, that with those other examples, China limited its influence to its own sovereign territory, something that every sovereign nation has the right to do (U.S included). It wasn't trying to destroy those companies.
The reason why the graphic wasn't even a 'remotely similar situation' is that the US is trying to overreach the limits of its borders and stop Huawei from carrying out business around the globe. Something which has set a precedent with quite unknown consequences.
Now, presenting that graphic made no sense from the outset. The question now is if you really couldn't comprehend the situation or if you did it knowingly.
Both leave you in bad light and throwing cheap insults around just pulled you down further.
To make matters worse you are now even contemplating the issue of national security being a ruse and seeing it for what it is: a very poor negotiating tactic. One that could end up in court.
1. I'm not aware of the particulars. As I stated earlier, it's more about the Chinese government's relationship with "private corporations," particularly high-tech ones.
2. Well, he has the authority to call the shots. I don't see the instability or financial/political fallout from what he's doing. The market barely registered a blip. Our economy is soaring. The impact appears to be on China, which has seen a significant reduction in GDP growth. As for unpredictability, I don't think anyone can look at Trump's trade actions and say they didn't see it coming. He's been talking about standing up for America in trade for 30 years.
3. This is much, much worse than the China of old. Their technical capabilities and aggression are far beyond what they were 20 years ago. China does invest in the U.S. If they retaliate significantly, it will have some impact on us. But the point is that a trade war will damage them far, far more than it will us. This is why they have to make a deal at some point. It's not an option for them. That's the result of our trade deficit....they need us to buy their products more than we need them to buy ours.
4. Beyond doubt? Hardly. Trump's stated goal is to make a deal. He wants to get to "fair" trade. The goal is not to have tariffs because he thinks tariffs are great in and of themselves. He is using them to achieve something. Now, he may end up being wrong. But it's not a philosophy of protectionism that's driving the tariffs.
2. There is political and financial fallout everywhere you look. If this were limited to the US it would be fine but Trump's actions have directly impacted non-US companies. Simply search fall financial/political fallout trade war. Companies are declaring huge revenue slides, entire sectors (US sports footwear for example) are claiming the trade war will be catastrophic for them. 16 billion US dollars to the farming industry (other industries will not take long to demand their share). US consumers are footing the bill on tariffs (in spite of what Trump says) and the OECD has grim news:
https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/uschina-trade-war-could-derail-global-economy-oecd-warns/news-story/f1f05750f14744b33260e775a62108f8
3. China. US. It doesn't matter. We shouldn't be resolving issues in this way. China has outplayed the US on 5G and is about to do the same with AI. Using executive powers to extend impact beyond sovereign limits to derail competitors and under false pretences (national security) is not the way the world wants to do business. China has implied it's ready for a long battle. For all his bluster, I doubt Trump wants a long battle neither does business (large or small). Consumers don't either He may have already gone too far for the Chinese (who are now demanding he correct his 'wrong actions' before continuing any negotiations).
4. It's protectionism and in the purest sense. Look at how you didn't mention 'national security' in point 4. We knew this from the outset. The latest revelation that Trump could use Huawei as leverage in trade talks just goes to show how shallow the whole episode has been. He now has no credibility left on the world stage. Not that he had much from the moment he took office (you will remember the comments by high ranking EU officials). Trying to destroy a giant company to stop it from taking a lead in a critical field instead of letting market forces play out is abhorrent. We live in a globalised world with a globalised supply chain. What Trump is trying to do is destroy it. Ironically, all he has done is send a stark message to everyone else on the planet saying that he will stop at nothing to impede other nations from trying to change the status quo. It was already too late to stop that from happening. The EU (and obviously China) were already thinking about depending less on other nations and more on themselves and were working to that end. The Huawei episode has simply taught them they must accelerate the change. The upshot is that the US will lose out on every level, and faster.
https://stratechery.com/2019/china-leverage-and-values/
"China’s Protectionism
China’s 2010 rare earth export reduction wasn’t the only shot the country has taken: in January of that year Google announced that its network had been hacked by China, resulting in the theft of intellectual property, and that the company was reevaluating its approach to the Chinese market. Soon after Google closed down its China operations and directed users to its Hong Kong site, which was summarily blocked by the Great Firewall.
Google was hardly alone in this regard: YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook were all blocked in 2009, and since Google’s block sites like Instagram, Dropbox, Pinterest, Reddit, and Discord have been as well, along with a whole host of media sites like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Wikipedia.
Indeed, this is where I take the biggest issue with Culpan labeling this past week’s actions as the start of a tech cold war: China took the first shots, and they took them a long time ago. For over a decade U.S. services companies have been unilaterally shut out of the China market, even as Chinese alternatives had full reign, running on servers built with U.S. components (and likely using U.S. intellectual property)."
Your screed fails to note that China has been protectionist since Nixon. Still, you're okay with that because "sovereignty" for authoritarian China, but not for the U.S., or any other liberal country, that China has been stealing IP and technology from.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/huaweis-yearslong-rise-is-littered-with-accusations-of-theft-and-dubious-ethics-11558756858
"On a summer evening in 2004, as the Supercomm tech conference in Chicago wound down, a middle-aged Chinese visitor began wending his way through the nearly abandoned booths, popping open million-dollar networking equipment to photograph the circuit boards inside, according to people who were there."
There's a paywall, but the gist of the article is self explanatory.