avon b7

chasm said:

Once again, from Cook's letter: "More than 100 percent of the shortfall is due to the Chinese economy contracting."

So no, the price of the iPhone (which is comparable to the premium offerings from Samsung) is not a factor. Consumer spending in China has contracted 70 percent in the last six months, according to Bloomberg. While there are probably other factors at play to blame for that, the trade war is definitely causing consumers and businesses in China to pull back on spending. Astute readers will have noticed that a wave of "bad earnings reports" have started coming in from all the tech businesses that depend heavily on the China market (like Samsung).

While we don't have data from most of the Chinese makers like Xiaomi yet, you can bet they'll seeing dramatic drops in sales as well.

Bottom line: Apple is firing on all cylinders and growing in every area -- except China sales. This is a relatively short-term problem (wait for trade war to end) rather than as some of you are suggesting, a long term problem (phone pricing). The proof can be found in sales everywhere outside of China. This is exactly why Apple abandoned the 90-day reporting cycle.

GeorgeBMac said:

avon b7 said:

sacto joe said:

avon b7 said:

I switched just over four years ago with the dilemma mentioned in this piece. I was priced our of the iPhone market (new phone), but picking up a much older iPhone (refurbished or second hand) was a ridiculous proposition as I could get a new phone with very competitive hardware for (in those days) 200€.

New phone. Modern technology. Amazing build quality. Fast charging. Extra storage etc. It was Android but I liked the system much more than iOS.

Nowadays, you can pick up amazing new phones that leave four year old hardware in the dust for 250€ (or less!) and follow a far shorter upgrade path or hang on to it for longer if you wish. 

You would have to be an iOS die hard to pick up a four year old iPhone as your main phone.

I think my situation is pretty indicative of many people who were in my situation and it is one of the reasons iPhone sales flattened.

New, far cheaper phones from competitors are more than good enough on every level.

The big difference between today and four years ago is that competitors are offering amazing phones at every price band right up into premium and far beyond.

Plenty of options at plenty of prices.

Apple has very limited options and an 's' cycle which is now taking the edge off of its ability to react to market trends.

We're so thrilled you're happy with your Android, and that you like their system better. Never mind that it's OS is full of security holes you could drive a Russian tank through. Never mind that you don't have the product ecosystem that Apple gives it's users. Go in peace to enjoy your Android device. Just don't expect us to be jealous....

I have never had one single security issue. What do you mean by 'ecosystem'. Is it synonymous of lock in?

If I need an app, I get it from the Play Store. If I need a service, it's available. Apps are updated continuously - and independently of the core OS.

Have you used Android recently?

If ya gotta ask the question, you won't understand the answer....

dee_dee said:

avon b7 said:

Those 'halo' features you mention are clearly having the desired effect. Apple is going to be behind in many areas for almost the entirety of 2019. Sales look to remain flat  for Apple while Huawei has set new records for itself with every flagship it released in 2018, shifting almost 50,000,000 more units than in 2017.

Huawei's 2019 looks far more uncertain than Apple's:

a) Carriers around the world are abandoning plans to use Huawei for 5G networks
b) Bad press from the criminal charges levied agains CFO Meng Wanzhou, could hamper sales in North America
c) If Huawei is found in violation of Iran sanction like ZTE was, they could be banned from using US technology.  At the very least they will be looking at Billions in fines and change of board of directors.
d) Trump is looking at issuing an executive order, banning Huawei and ZTE equipment from US. https://www.techradar.com/news/trump-considering-formal-us-ban-on-huawei-and-zte 
e)  Huawei stock is down 50% for the year.  Not a good omen for a company that is supposed to "set new records" this year. https://www.google.com/search?q=SHE%3A+002502&oq=SHE%3A+002502&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.238j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

StrangeDays said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

gatorguy said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

nht said:

anton zuykov said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.

The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.

If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm  guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.

http://time.com/5483682/huawei-security-risks-demand-proof/

The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.

I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would  by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens? 

China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.

Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/australia-no-longer-isolated-as-five-eyes-turn-on-huawei-20181206-p50kk1.html


"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.

For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.

There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.

"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.

"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to
extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk
failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or
interference."

In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."

Huawei is not China. 

"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."

Fixed.

Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.

One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.

Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China.
But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH

Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment tcommodate wide-spread network info scooping  the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff.
What are you smoking?

He’s smoking Chinese weed.  That little genius loves to support China even though it is diametrically opposed to western democracies including Spain where he claims to come from.

It’s so blatant that he’s probably a Chinese astroturfer.

Never spoken about the Chinese government one way or another. Recent laws have simply codified habitual practice. The style that the US uses. No laws were necessary to block Huawei's retail business in the US because the US simply pressured Huawei's clients to back out of deals.

What I have said is that the real reasons for the US wanting to stop Huawei have little to do with world security.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/paranoia-will-destroy-you-why-chinese-tech-isnt-spying-on-us/

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2174811/chinese-communist-party-needs-curtail-its-presence-private

Because private companies in the U.S. don't have the equivalent of Chinese Communist Party Cells.

Not that I think Huawei is totally trustworthy, (I retired my ZTE phone over some security oddities with their custom skin that I wasn't comfortable with) but I think you're being a bit too quick to completely dismiss Avon's point about the US government too pressuring private companies into following whatever is "best for the US" and it's foreign policies.  His point was a valid one IMO. 

So, I'm guessing that you would be okay with Huawei and ZTE 5G infrastructure here in the U.S. even if not "totally" trustworthy?

I'm not keen on our infrastructure built out from our adversary's equipment.

Handsets aren't infrastructure.

'Your' infrastructure isn't German, Australian, British or anything outside the US but the US is using exactly the same pressure tactics it used within the US to double down on foreign governments.

Do you consider your own government an adversary? I seem to recall someone pointing out to a senator (IIRC) the NSA was just as likely to try to interfere with communications but the answer was that that was preferable to the Chinese.

Infrastructure needs to be interoperable. There is little you can do to make systems bulletproof as ALL ICTs are open to the same risks. This all boils down to the US getting leap frogged on communications technology and trying to use muscle where open competition has left it sure to lose influence.

Nope, handsets aren't infrastructure, and good thing that all of my posts reference infrastructure as telecom equipment, not handsets.

As I mentioned, all of the members of the Five Eyes have come to the same conclusion; they do not want to rely on telecom infrastructure from China, and it looks like others in the EU that will come to the same conclusion.

Given that there are already other suppliers of 5G infrastructure that are acceptable to the U.S., I'm not seeing the great 5G "leapfrog" by China that you do, although I would agree that China will have a wider buildout earlier. 

China just can't move fast enough to improve surveillance of its own population!

My point was if handsets aren't infrastructure, where is the problem with handsets?

Chinese culture accepts surveillance. This is a reality. Even Spanish culture accepts surveillance. We have electronic ID and  cameras recording our every move. The difference is that the Chinese take things up a notch. Under many cameras in Spain there is a sign saying members of the public may 'exercise your rights' and providing an address. How exactly am I supposed to actually do that?

Do you believe that the US government has (or had) plans for similar efforts to make mass surveillance a reality?

In the old days, when I was in the government, I met someone from a division tracking 'subversives'. This was pre internet and this person spent all day examining government video recordings of protest marches to detect faces that appeared with unusually high frequency. Very low tech.

Today, I'm sure the same goals are pursued but in a high tech fashion. I'm also convinced Chinese tech is being used. Probably Face++. The only difference is that the term 'subversives' has probably been changed.

On Thursday I will fly to London and I will pass through a fully automated passport control system that will include biometric checks.

Many people in US government 'security' departments would probably love to have Chinese levels of surveillance but know that isn't an option that can be put on the table. The question remains though. Are governments (not limited to the US) willing to push ahead with their surveillance goals in spite of public opinion or legislation?

Is NarusInsight the visible part of deeper surveillance programs? Are those kinds of systems open to misuse?

We need identification. Nowadays that means some form of biometric information. That information needs to be stored somewhere. That is government. There isn't really that much of a gap between the facial recognition techniques used in China and those used elsewhere, at least on a technical level. There differences are in other realms - and complex.

Facial recognition is used on the Barcelona metro system to identify pick pockets. A noble effort. The system isn't automated like it might be in China but the mechanism is the same: constant passenger surveillance and a notification system on PA or from the train driver. Plain clothes police present on trains to coordinate with controllers.

As the system is not automated it is inefficient but I can see government 'selling' the automation as a boom to security. From there it wouldn't take long for public opinion to change.

TBH, I can't imagine a scenario where the Chinese surveillance model doesn't become the norm. The only difference will be the protections tied to it to protect our civil rights. Of course, AI will be part of that future and guess who is setting the pace in that field?

You may be in love with authoritarianism, but some of us, not so much.

Hardly. The dictatorship may be a fading memory in Spain but I know people (many people) who were directly affected by the regime at a political level. I know people who form part of 'truth commissions' whenever new mass graves are discovered. I know professors who are world renowned experts on the Civil War. I have no love for authoritarianism, I can assure you.

However, Huawei is not China. You need to understand this.

Again, since you ignored it — not according to US congressman briefed by intelligence agencies, who I reckon are more reliable and trustworthy than some knockoff cheerleader on a rumors site. The senator on BBC said your knockoff shop is controlled by China. If we are to trust US intel when they say Russia meddles, I don’t know why we should doubt them on China. Intelligence agencies don’t work for Trump and are adversarial to his administration. 

What evidence do you provide to discredit their reports? Why should you be taken more seriously than briefed congressmen? Be specific. 

Briefed on: 'suspicions and fears'.

It has been repeated over and over, if Huawei were found to be guilty of anything untoward, their business would collapse like a house of cards. Overnight. It would be the end. Forever.

The Germans have stated, more or less publicly, that evidence needs to be produced. So far, clearly that hasn't been forthcoming or Germany would put a ban in place.

The same would apply to all countries but Huawei has signed more 5G contracts than anyone else and has already shipped over 10,000 base stations.

The Germans appear to be reevaluating Huawei 5G, and Frances Orange is a no:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-europe-germany/deutsche-telekom-reviews-huawei-ties-orange-says-no-on-5g-idUSKBN1OD0G7

I'm thinking that the West is less inclined to trust the Chinese Autocracy than it was when mercantilism was in full bloom only a few years ago, but more to the point, China flexing its muscles in the South China Seas, among other expansions, is a warning about even more future trade friction.

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

gatorguy said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

nht said:

anton zuykov said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

I'm sure that Chinese Companies and individuals will see their social scores increase by participating in these boycotts.

The Five Eyes are aligned against Chinese Telecom equipment, and as they should be. There's no odds in a telecom infrastructure from an authoritarian government known for IP theft.

If Apple gets beaten up in China, then I'm  guessing that China will no longer be the supply chain for Apple Products.

http://time.com/5483682/huawei-security-risks-demand-proof/

The Five Eyes already has a lot Huawei gear. Nothing surprising in that. What is new is the US desperately trying to stop Huawei progress for technological and political reasons under the guise of security and doing so, so late in the day that the UK roll out of 5G could be put back by a year and cost a lot more. All without a shred of evidence.

I'm not seeing the need for proof, no more than China would  by banning / eliminating U.S.telecom equipment. Were you aware that Huawei is providing AI hardware to the Chinese Government for upgrading its already intrusive network spying on its own citizens? 

China has an authoritarian government, President for Life, and China is adamant about seizing the South China Sea per it's claims, which bodes ill for international trade. Given the rampant IP theft, and Chinese Hacking, I'm not seeing why democracies would risk using Huawei infrastructure.

Great Britain is in the process of reevaluating Huawei equipment; the rest, including the U.S., have little in the way of Huawei equipment in place, and most of that will be removed or replaced.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/australia-no-longer-isolated-as-five-eyes-turn-on-huawei-20181206-p50kk1.html


"In Australia, experts are also concerned about cyber-security attacks against our institutions and businesses emanating from China.

For example, consider recent reports in this newspaper that China’s peak security agency directed a surge in cyber attacks on Australian companies over the past year; and that internet traffic heading for Australia was diverted to China for a six-day period.

There's no suggestion Huawei is in anyway involved in these attacks. But the government's decision to ban it from Australia's 5G networks was certainly based on concerns about China.

"A long history of cyber incidents shows cyber actors target Australia and Australians," Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Mitch Fifield said in their joint statement back in August without directly mentioning China.

"The government considers that the involvement of vendors who are likely to be subject to
extrajudicial directions from a foreign government that conflict with Australian law, may risk
failure by the carrier to adequately protect a 5G network from unauthorised access or
interference."

In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."

Huawei is not China. 

"In other words, the government was concerned that even if Huawei wasn't directly controlled by the Chinese government (the vendor has always denied that it is), under the country's laws it wouldn't be able to resist any demands made on it by Beijing."

Fixed.

Nope. Huawei has denied this. Not directly or indirectly. Huawei says it complies with all the laws in force in the countries where it operates and data is stored for example, in the EU, on servers within the EU.

One thing is China another is the rest of the world. When in China, do as the Chinese does. Comply with the law - just like Apple does.

Not directly or indirectly? If the Chinese gov-t tells you to do something, YOU DO, if you live in China.
But how does it "denied" anything that was said here? You literally have just confirmed that yourself, while disagreeing with the conclusions of "China says, you do" approach. This makes no sense... We know that China spies a lot. We know that some congressmen were briefed on the extent of the problem and that is case that they are trying to conduct not just routine spying but rather, they are trying to infiltrate as many networks as possible to get IP. Guess, how would you do that, if you have companies in China manufacturing NETWORK equipment? SMH

Of course Huawei will deny it. What else can they do - say, yes, we altered all our equipment tcommodate wide-spread network info scooping  the Chinese government is trying to do? Now, please, keep buying out stuff.
What are you smoking?

He’s smoking Chinese weed.  That little genius loves to support China even though it is diametrically opposed to western democracies including Spain where he claims to come from.

It’s so blatant that he’s probably a Chinese astroturfer.

Never spoken about the Chinese government one way or another. Recent laws have simply codified habitual practice. The style that the US uses. No laws were necessary to block Huawei's retail business in the US because the US simply pressured Huawei's clients to back out of deals.

What I have said is that the real reasons for the US wanting to stop Huawei have little to do with world security.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/paranoia-will-destroy-you-why-chinese-tech-isnt-spying-on-us/

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2174811/chinese-communist-party-needs-curtail-its-presence-private

Because private companies in the U.S. don't have the equivalent of Chinese Communist Party Cells.

Not that I think Huawei is totally trustworthy, (I retired my ZTE phone over some security oddities with their custom skin that I wasn't comfortable with) but I think you're being a bit too quick to completely dismiss Avon's point about the US government too pressuring private companies into following whatever is "best for the US" and it's foreign policies.  His point was a valid one IMO. 

So, I'm guessing that you would be okay with Huawei and ZTE 5G infrastructure here in the U.S. even if not "totally" trustworthy?

I'm not keen on our infrastructure built out from our adversary's equipment.

Handsets aren't infrastructure.

'Your' infrastructure isn't German, Australian, British or anything outside the US but the US is using exactly the same pressure tactics it used within the US to double down on foreign governments.

Do you consider your own government an adversary? I seem to recall someone pointing out to a senator (IIRC) the NSA was just as likely to try to interfere with communications but the answer was that that was preferable to the Chinese.

Infrastructure needs to be interoperable. There is little you can do to make systems bulletproof as ALL ICTs are open to the same risks. This all boils down to the US getting leap frogged on communications technology and trying to use muscle where open competition has left it sure to lose influence.

Nope, handsets aren't infrastructure, and good thing that all of my posts reference infrastructure as telecom equipment, not handsets.

As I mentioned, all of the members of the Five Eyes have come to the same conclusion; they do not want to rely on telecom infrastructure from China, and it looks like others in the EU that will come to the same conclusion.

Given that there are already other suppliers of 5G infrastructure that are acceptable to the U.S., I'm not seeing the great 5G "leapfrog" by China that you do, although I would agree that China will have a wider buildout earlier. 

China just can't move fast enough to improve surveillance of its own population!

My point was if handsets aren't infrastructure, where is the problem with handsets?

Chinese culture accepts surveillance. This is a reality. Even Spanish culture accepts surveillance. We have electronic ID and  cameras recording our every move. The difference is that the Chinese take things up a notch. Under many cameras in Spain there is a sign saying members of the public may 'exercise your rights' and providing an address. How exactly am I supposed to actually do that?

Do you believe that the US government has (or had) plans for similar efforts to make mass surveillance a reality?

In the old days, when I was in the government, I met someone from a division tracking 'subversives'. This was pre internet and this person spent all day examining government video recordings of protest marches to detect faces that appeared with unusually high frequency. Very low tech.

Today, I'm sure the same goals are pursued but in a high tech fashion. I'm also convinced Chinese tech is being used. Probably Face++. The only difference is that the term 'subversives' has probably been changed.

On Thursday I will fly to London and I will pass through a fully automated passport control system that will include biometric checks.

Many people in US government 'security' departments would probably love to have Chinese levels of surveillance but know that isn't an option that can be put on the table. The question remains though. Are governments (not limited to the US) willing to push ahead with their surveillance goals in spite of public opinion or legislation?

Is NarusInsight the visible part of deeper surveillance programs? Are those kinds of systems open to misuse?

We need identification. Nowadays that means some form of biometric information. That information needs to be stored somewhere. That is government. There isn't really that much of a gap between the facial recognition techniques used in China and those used elsewhere, at least on a technical level. There differences are in other realms - and complex.

Facial recognition is used on the Barcelona metro system to identify pick pockets. A noble effort. The system isn't automated like it might be in China but the mechanism is the same: constant passenger surveillance and a notification system on PA or from the train driver. Plain clothes police present on trains to coordinate with controllers.

As the system is not automated it is inefficient but I can see government 'selling' the automation as a boom to security. From there it wouldn't take long for public opinion to change.

TBH, I can't imagine a scenario where the Chinese surveillance model doesn't become the norm. The only difference will be the protections tied to it to protect our civil rights. Of course, AI will be part of that future and guess who is setting the pace in that field?

You may be in love with authoritarianism, but some of us, not so much.

Hardly. The dictatorship may be a fading memory in Spain but I know people (many people) who were directly affected by the regime at a political level. I know people who form part of 'truth commissions' whenever new mass graves are discovered. I know professors who are world renowned experts on the Civil War. I have no love for authoritarianism, I can assure you.

However, Huawei is not China. You need to understand this.

Sure, whatever. 

I'll ignore the Communist Party Members within the Huawei, the private company, in a one party state, and the very equipment that Huawei provides to buildout the Chinese Police State.

Still, I can't ignore the excitement in one of your previous posts talking about Chinese surveillance technology.