China's iPhones ban seen as effort to restrict Apple's access to market
A Congressman has commented that he is not surprised by China's new ban on iPhones for state employees, but it does not believe that this measure is linked to security concerns.
iPhone 14 Pro Max
China has recently imposed a new policy for the safety of its central government office workers. As part of this policy, employees cannot use their iPhones for work or even bring them into the building.
The move is an escalation of the government's existing restrictions on using foreign-designed technology, which have been in place for the past ten years. While said to be because of security concerns, U.S. House members believe it to be more a retaliation in ongoing U.S./Chinese relations.
"This is textbook Chinese Communist Party (CCP) behavior - promote PRC (People's Republic of China) national champions in telecommunications, and slowly squeeze western companies' market access," U.S. Representative Mike Gallagher said in an emailed statement, seen by Reuters.
While the ban took effect on Wednesday, reports have indicated it's not being enforced.
The move by China has yet to be confirmed by official sources. Conventional wisdom suggests that it may be a move to boost the home-grown Huawei's first 5G phone, since US sanctions bit.
Even though the move may be done to curb market access, most iPhones sold in China are bought by the general public -- not the government. About 19% of Apple's iPhone sales overall come from China.
Despite China's smartphone market contraction, iPhone sales to the public are expanding.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
"This is textbook Chinese Communist Party (CCP) behavior - promote PRC (People's Republic of China) national champions in telecommunications, and slowly squeeze western companies' market access"
And what was the whole Huawei thing in the US about then?
Slightly more of a squeeze!
There have been concerns about Huawei Telecom in the West, and why Huawei should be disallowed in critical telecom infrastructure, and these have largely played out, with the exception of some holdouts in the EU who will ultimately have to remove Huawei Telecom gear.
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/eu-considers-mandatory-ban-using-huawei-build-5g-ft-2023-06-07/
Still chuckling?
Apple or Huawei wouldn't have to be complicit in anything when it comes to the NSA or Chinese equivalents.
We know a fair bit about the NSA's activities though thanks to Snowden.
As far a protectionism goes, the US had no cutting edge ICT infrastructure to protect but strong-arming Huawei out of the US (see the 2017 AT&T/Huawei situation) absolutely did protect Apple from Huawei on US soil.
That's why the quote is laughable.
No country is going to build out critical infrastructure with equipment from an adversary. That should be common sense.
Uhm, the reason that you don't install critical infrastructure from an adversary is that you would be concerned that they would leave backdoors to control that infrastructure, or even, turn it off at a critical time.
Not the same thing as using a backdoor for spying, which, as it turns out, isn't necessary in China as they have full access anyway.
That has to be it.../s
Look at how close AT&T came to carrying Huawei phones. There were actually thousands of Mate 10 series phones in lorries all over the US in readiness for a CES announcement.
US communications is not only domestic. It travels the world via giant fibre optic cables. Lots of them managed by Huawei.
It's protectionism. Plain and simple. It's never been about national security. Ever.
If it were, NO Chinese phone would be allowed in the US. After all, the CCP has its fingers in every Chinese company, right?
It's just nonsense.
Huawei was a technological threat and had to be stopped. That's it.
One thing is clear to informed, thinking people: any Chinese company that out-paces US competitors will be tarred as a “security threat” because the “level playing field” the US lecture
s the world about always has to tilt in favor of the US. This was the case when Japanese beat the USA (Google Plaza Accord), which Korea and now China. G
Keep telling yourself that it is only protectionism. That will fix Huawei's "situation".
If evidence were required, no better to hear it from the horse's mouth.
Just a splattering of quotes in no particular order from a speech given by William Barr in Washington.
Attorney General William P. Barr - 6 Feb 2020
"Second, we have to make a decision on the “horse” we are going to ride in this race. Who is the 5G equipment supplier, or suppliers, that we will rely on to compete against Huawei around the globe, win contracts from operators, and blunt Huawei’s drive to domination?"
...
" The time is very short. We and our allies have to act quickly. While much has to be done, it is imperative to make two decisions right away.
The question is whether, within this window, the United States and our allies can mount sufficient competition to Huawei to retain and capture enough market share to sustain the kind of long-term and robust competitive position necessary to avoid surrendering dominance to the Chinese."
...
"China’s success in 5G infrastructure is also translating into advantages in a range of new technologies associated with 5G. AI is a good example. As China captures more and more of the data generated by 5G, its AI products become better.
...
"Semiconductors provide a good example of the ripple effect of Chinese leadership in 5G. China now consumes over half of the world’s semiconductors. China has now started to replace U.S. semiconductors with its own. Its scale in this field will permit it to make the investments needed close the current quality gap. As China builds its scale in the semiconductor industry, it will place substantial pressure on alternative suppliers. And, of course, semiconductors are indispensable to a wide range of technology and industries apart from 5G."
...
"Chinese companies start with the advantage of the largest domestic market, giving them instant scale, and as they add to this around the world, they will be able to invest more in their technology.
Huawei is now the leading supplier on every continent, except North America. The United States does not have an equipment supplier. China’s principal competitors are the Finish firm, Nokia (with a 17 percent share) and the Swedish firm Ericsson (with a 14 percent share)."
...
" From a national security standpoint, if the Industrial Internet becomes dependent on Chinese technology, China would have the ability to shut countries off from technology and equipment upon which their consumers and industry depend. The power the United States has today to use economic sanctions would pale by comparison to the unprecedented economic leverage we would be surrendering into the hands of China"
...
"It has been estimated that the Industrial Internet powered by 5G could generate new economic opportunities of $23 trillion by 2025. If China establishes sole dominance over 5G, it will be able to dominate the opportunities arising from a stunning range of emerging technologies that will be dependent on, and interwoven with the 5G platform."
...
"5G technology lies at the center of the technological and industrial world that is taking shape. In essence, communications networks are not just for communications anymore. They are evolving into the central nervous system of the next generation of internet, called the "Industrial Internet," and the next generation of industrial systems that will depend on that infrastructure. China has built up a lead in 5G, capturing 40 percent of the global 5G infrastructure market. For the first time in history, the United States is not leading the next technology era."
Full speech here:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-keynote-address-department-justices-china
You can feel the fear in his words. It is oozing out of every single paragraph but even the reference to 'national security' is directly connected to the technological standing. There is a huge amount of nonsense too. Especially this: "China would have the ability to shut countries off from technology and equipment upon which their consumers and industry depend." surely he doesn't mean like exactly what the US is doing to nations around the world right now via sanctions?
As Steve Balmer might say: "Technology! Technology! Technology!
Or as Trump might say:" Protectionism! Protectionism! Protectionism!
Yes, there is geopolitics at the bottom of this but the core of it all is technology, not spying, weapons etc. It's about technology and the next industrial revolution.
With all that put on the table, this Chinese ban becomes a quite tame response.