tmay

elijahg said:

tmay said:

elijahg said:

tmay said:

elijahg said:

"Mac growth continues unabated" is pretty misleading. Revenue ≠ sales. I wonder how much of that extra revenue is down to the estimated $40-50 for the M1 vs the $200+ for the Intel CPUs. Also, since soldered RAM has been a thing since 2015 with no appreciable bump in revenue there must have been a drop in sales to keep revenue flat (or no one upgrades the RAM, unlikely). In fact, 2016's Mac revenue was down on 2015. Interesting that they don't report sales, companies stop doing that when numbers are no longer impressive. Wishy washy language like "The demand feels very strong right now" doesn't really say anything. Sales according to third parties have been largely flat since about 2012, which is corroborated by Mac's market share being stuck at 10% for a very long time. Mac sales are growing with the market, not outperforming as they should be. Sales of all computers are up significantly in the pandemic. Apple has essentially run out of people who will fork out for Macs, whose prices continue to rise. This is a real shame, as Mac growth had real momentum until ~2012. I wish Cook would give the Mac more attention, but it's obvious he doesn't care about it at all.

Thank you, so much, for your completely unbiased reading of the results. It's a bold move to voice your opinions so forcefully on AI.

Just the other day, I too was thinking to myself, gee, I wish that Tim Cook would give the Mac more attention. Then I remembered that Apple just recently disrupted the PC business with the M series, and there is still another year and then some of more powerful M series releases just to fill out the existing Mac product line. Heck, Apple is at the front of the line for all of TSMC nodes. I mean, what is that all about?

So now I'm confused.

Is Tim Cook, et al, actually giving too much attention to the Mac?
 
Why isn't there an M1 iPhone Mega Super Pro Plus model, so I can get me 16 GB of RAM and some USB 4 lovin?

Not sure you've read my bias quite right, since I am are entirely invested in the Apple ecosystem with a product in every category Apple produces, and I am a shareholder too. Therefore, surely, my bias is pro-Apple?

I noticed you avoided responding to my comment about Mac sales being flat for the last 8 years.

Whilst the update rates have definitely improved in the last couple of years, probably in an attempt to counter those flat sales - and the M1 is absolutely disruptive to those who don't need Windows, just look at the rates of updates over the last 8 or 9 years. The Mac Pro went 6 years without an update. The Mini 4 years. The MacBook Pro, iMac and Macbook Air all had periods where updates were only once every 2 years. A lot of those updates were just minor spec bumps too, but even then Apple missed out entire new generations of CPU and left the rapidly advancing GPUs to stagnate. The iMac Pro was introduced then abandoned. They were selling the Mac Pro for the same price as it was introduced for, 6 years later. If that's not taking the piss, I don't know what is.

Thanks for regurgitating the past, which is not indicative of the Mac future, so sorry to burst your PC centric bubble;

Here's what happened in the PC world during that time;

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/01/pc-sales-finally-saw-big-growth-in-2020-after-years-of-steady-decline/

"During the Consumer Electronics Show this week, research firm IDC released a report on worldwide traditional PC sales in 2020, and it tells a rosier story than we've been used to in recent years. In the fourth quarter of 2020, PC shipments grew 26.1 percent over the same period last year.

That means 13.1 percent year-over-year growth overall, and the best year and quarter for PC sales in quite some time. In total, 91.6 million traditional PCs were shipped in the fourth quarter of 2020. "Traditional PCs" in IDC's report include systems like desktops, laptops, and work stations. For years, sales of these kinds of computers were declining at worst or growing negligibly at best even as other, newer computing gadget categories like smartphones, smart speakers, and tablets grew relatively rapidly.

IDC notes that the last time the market saw this kind of growth was way back in 2010, when modern multitouch smartphones were still building momentum and Apple's very first iPad had only just launched.

The growth was unsurprisingly largely "centered around work from home and remote learning needs," according to the report. But it also notes that segments unrelated to that, like gaming PCs and monitors, also saw significant growth over the course of the year. The overall growth is also partly due to the fact that "Chrome-based devices are expanding beyond education into the consumer market," according to IDC Vice President Ryan Reith."

Good luck on any PC growth as the pandemic ends.

EDIT;

https://twitter.com/neilcybart/status/1387517315512668160

"Half of people buying iPads and Macs are new to the product categories. It's been that way for a while now and it's still a shocking statistic."

So just write off the last 8 years of flat Mac sales and the reasons for it because it's "regurgitating the past" and "not indicative of the Mac future" despite the same trajectory being followed right now, and in fact worse since Apple has bumped prices yet again and still has the same crap base specs other than the CPU speed? Oh and you conveniently missed the point about me owning a product in every category Apple makes. Very PC centric. No, I'm just a realist without my head up Apple's ass. Really think I'd be on AI since 2006 if I wasn't an Apple fan?

You seem to be confusing wider PC market growth with Mac growth. As I said, there is no Mac growth, it is largely flat, aligned with the rest of the PC market. The bump we are seeing now in both Mac and PC market is due to the pandemic, and Mac sales will decline back to pre-pandemic levels just like PCs. No matter how you try and spin it, Mac sales are not outpacing the wider market unlike pre-2012. They are too expensive, they are not good value anymore especially in the face of Windows 10 not being anywhere near as bad as previous versions, and macOS getting buggier.

You obviously don't understand why "half of people buying iPads and Macs are new to the product categories" is a bad thing. If the sales were up year on year then great, adding 50% more new Mac users is a good thing. But that's not happening. Sales are flat, which means the number of people new to the Mac is equal to those leaving the Mac too. That is not a good thing. It could be that Mac users are keeping their Macs for much longer all of a sudden, which no doubt is happening due to the cost of a Mac, but it's likely not significant (otherwise there would be an eventual upward trend again, and there isn't).

Let me put it into numbers for you. Mac sales are flat, so there are the same number of new users joining the Mac platform each year. So if Apple sells 100,000 Macs each year for 3 years and 50% of those sales are to new Mac owners, that is 150,000 Macs sold to new users, and 150,000 to existing Mac users; or 50,000 Macs to each group per year. Assuming people keep Macs for 3 years before buying new, and if 100% of those Mac users bought Macs again, then in the fourth year, there should be the 100,000 from existing users (people new to Mac and those who are not), added to the 50,000 new users, resulting in an exponential growth curve. But there is no growth. Because people aren't sticking with the Mac. And once people leave, they don't go back.

I know plenty of people who I have personally persuaded to buy a Mac who have gone back to Windows. And the reason is cost. I know people too who will not buy a M1 Mac as they need Windows since they use more than Pages and Safari, and I am in that group. For the first time in 25 years of Mac ownership, I am going to have to seriously consider switching to a PC when my iMac gets too old. It saddens me that the Mac going in the same direction it was in the '90's. Expensive, proprietary and incompatible.

For the first time in 25 years of Mac ownership, I am going to have to seriously consider switching to a PC when my iMac gets too old. It saddens me that the Mac going in the same direction it was in the '90's. Expensive, proprietary and incompatible.

danvm said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

danvm said:

tmay said:

danvm said:

canukstorm said:

danvm said:

canukstorm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

sdw2001 said:

Wgkrueger said:

GeorgeBMac said:

seanj said:

GeorgeBMac said:

For all those defending the "Everything Glued together & soldered together" assembly of the MacBooks by saying "Nobody ever upgraded a computer", Andrew just called bull!

His biggest (only?) complaint about his M1 MacBook Air is that it can't meet his needs because it is frozen in time with what it came with when he bought it -- versus his MacPro which grew and developed with enhancements as his needs, wants and requirements grew.

Likewise, my 9 year old i7 Thinkpad runs perfectly well and meets all of my needs -- because it's been upgraded to a 500Gb SSD, 16Gb Ram and an internal harddrive used for ongoing, real time backups.  Without those cheap and very simple to install (5 minutes or less) upgrades the machine would have been scrap

Only a tiny percentage of people tinker with the computers, it’s a niche market that’s similar to those that add nitrous oxide to their cars...
Most people just want a computer they can do things with, rather than do things to, in other words a consumer product. With Apple they get that, which is why customer satisfaction is so high.

If you have a 9 year old Thinkpad then you’re probably either running XP (good luck browsing the Internet securely) or you’re running Linux. If it’s the latter then if you happy with a limited number of professional applications then that’s fine.

I forgot to mention that its running WIndows 10.  So, its security is a good as good as any Windows machine.   Admittedly that's a low bar. 

But the point of the post was NOT about lengetivity but to reiterate what Andew said:   His MacPro remained functional because it could be upgraded with additional RAM & Storage -- while his MacBook AIr could not meet his needs because it was all glued and soldered together and locked into its initial configuration when he bought it.

If it needed to be upgraded immediately then it can be returned to Apple. If his needs exceeded the capabilities of a maxed out machine then he couldn’t upgrade it anyway (thinking memory here) and he could return it to Apple. If he used it for a period of time and his use cases changed so they exceeded the machines capabilities, which I think was part of your original point, then it’s a case of longevity. 

...

The point?  Apple clearly looked at what its customers were actually doing, and found the benefits of hardwiring and gluing everything outweighed the negatives.  While I can see the other side, I agree.  I've had Macs since the Pismo PowerBook G3 (2000).   The number of issues I had with those machines (getting a new one every 3-4 years) was far, far higher than now.  The products are not as serviceable or upgradable.  But they also don't need to be.  

 

Perhaps the question is:   Who benefited?   i don't think it was the customer.   For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit.   Can it be made a half millimeter thinner by eliminating a socket?   Perhaps.  But, even if true, that is a pretty marginal benefit.

"For them, in a laptop, soldered & glued together that was non-upgradeable offers no benefit"

It offers a laptop that is lighter due it being thinner.  That may not be a benefit to you but it is benefit to many consumers.  So much so that Windows makers have started copying the MBA design in spades.  It isn't a surprise that ultrabooks like the MBA are the hottest selling segment of the laptop market.  And now with the M1 MBA, you get a laptop that's light, fast and runs cool & quiet.

The average consumer does not care about the same things that you or other IT folk care about.  What they care about are devices that are convenient, easy to use, fast, quiet, cool and have access to web and their favorite apps. Sure, there are some consumers who care about upgradeability but they're far from the majority.  This is the mass market.  And don't get me wrong, I have nothing against computers that are upgradeable but if that's what YOU are after then you should buy a device that allows you to do that.

Maybe you don't need to copy Apple to make devices thinner and lighter.  For example, the ThinkPad X1 Nano is a 2 pound notebook, smaller and lighter than any current Apple notebook, and it has a replaceable SSD and battery, among other parts.  


X1 Nano Gen 1 Hardware Maintenance Manual (lenovo.com)

And this not only benefits someone who later needs a larger SSD drive, but also makes possible to service the device onsite without special tools.  That could be a better design compared to Apple notebooks, where you have to send it via mail or take it to an Apple Store for service.  

Like I said in my previous post, if that's a design that works for you then more power to you.  The vast majority of average consumers using their device for home use is not goint to go through the trouble of opening up their laptop, upgrade the SSD & reinstall the OS.  They want to buy it and forget it.

Did you read my post?  It wasn't about upgradeability at all.  I pointed out the the X1 Nano showed that you don't need to glue or sold everything for a think / light device.  Second, I think that consumers could benefit from a device that's easy to service.  For example, if the logic board needs to be replaced, the user won't lose data since the SSD can be swapped to the new logic board.  Or after 3-4 years, the battery can be replaced extending the life of the notebook.  Is that really bad for consumers?

I am of the belief that consumers want the most reliable devices, vs ease of service, so consumers have a purchase choice, same as it ever was. For the record, the X1 Nano traded battery life for lightweight and serviceability, and given that Apple has better battery life, plus better performance based on its M1 silicon, I'm not in agreement with your argument.

One would think that the market will actually decide this, not any of our arguments, but here we are, arguing to little effect, one way or another.

Do you have proof that the X1 Nano is a less reliable device?  Most ThinkPads, including the X1 Nano, pass many durability tests.  And based on what I have seen from my customer ThinkPad, they have many advantages over my MBP, from a design and construction POV.  

Lenovo ThinkPad | Military-tested Rugged Laptops | Lenovo US

Second, I agree that the M1 is a better compared to the Intel processor the X1 Nano have.  But that wasn't my point.  What I'm saying is that Lenovo showed that it's possible to create a thin and light device, while keeping the device easy to service.  

Lenovo created a thin and light device by compromising battery life. The marketing value of ease of serviceability to the consumer is minimal if their device has a high level of reliability to begin with. It may be an advantage for Lenovo, but Apple has retail stores that do a modest level of service and are within a short drive  by the bulk of the U.S. population.

Which service paradigm is more valuable to the consumer?

That's the question.

That's bullshit. 

1) The Thinkpad Nano runs 13 -18 hours.   Any other false claims?

2)  Go take your MacBook to an Apple store and ask them to upgrade the SSD or Ram -- they'll tell you to buy a new one.

LOL!

Show me the link where a reviewer got 13-18 hours in a real test. Most get 7 to 8 hours.

https://www.theverge.com/22335874/lenovo-thinkpad-x1-nano-laptop-windows-business-intel-review-price-specs

GOOD STUFF

• Weighs less than two pounds
• 16:10 display
• Capable processor
• Windows Hello webcam with physical shutter
• Exceptional build quality

BAD STUFF

• Not many ports
• Unintuitive keyboard layout
• Touchpad is a bit small
• Battery life isn’t the best
• On the pricey side

Mac Book Air

https://www.tomsguide.com/reviews/macbook-air-2020-m1

OUR VERDICT

The MacBook Air now has the speed and battery life to beat the best PCs.

FOR

• Remarkably fast performance
• Strong legacy app support
• Amazingly long battery life
• Comfy Magic Keyboard
• Improved webcam

AGAINST

• Still has thick bezels
• Light on ports

"The MacBook Air's performance — powered by the M1 processor and 16GB of RAM — is phenomenal. When I split its screen between 20 Chrome (Intel, not Universal) tabs and a 1080p YouTube video — plus Apple's Mail and Photos app, Pixelmator (again, an Intel app) and 1Password (Intel, again) in the background, I never saw anything close to a hiccup. Oh, and in the background, 20GB of 4K video was being AirDrop transferred, while everything stayed smooth and stable."

Upgradeability isn't of value to people looking for performance, long battery life, and very quiet operation.You need to move your thought processes into the 21st Century...

PC Mag tests had the X1 Nano at 18:37,
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Nano Review | PCMag

PC World had it at 14 hours,
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Nano review: Lenovo drops the mic with its light, fast, and long-lasting ThinkPad | PCWorld

LaptopMag and Ubergizmo had it at close to 12 hours,
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Nano Review | Ubergizmo
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Nano review | Laptop Mag

Gizmondo had 16 hours,
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Nano Review: The Lightest Laptop Winner (gizmodo.com)

And I know that the MBA has better battery life / performance.  But design wise, weight and construction, the X1 Nano is a better device.

reddit comments

https://www.reddit.com/r/thinkpad/comments/l4wemt/x1_nano_battery_life/

Users not seeing the battery life that your reviewers are.

elijahg said:

tmay said:

elijahg said:

"Mac growth continues unabated" is pretty misleading. Revenue ≠ sales. I wonder how much of that extra revenue is down to the estimated $40-50 for the M1 vs the $200+ for the Intel CPUs. Also, since soldered RAM has been a thing since 2015 with no appreciable bump in revenue there must have been a drop in sales to keep revenue flat (or no one upgrades the RAM, unlikely). In fact, 2016's Mac revenue was down on 2015. Interesting that they don't report sales, companies stop doing that when numbers are no longer impressive. Wishy washy language like "The demand feels very strong right now" doesn't really say anything. Sales according to third parties have been largely flat since about 2012, which is corroborated by Mac's market share being stuck at 10% for a very long time. Mac sales are growing with the market, not outperforming as they should be. Sales of all computers are up significantly in the pandemic. Apple has essentially run out of people who will fork out for Macs, whose prices continue to rise. This is a real shame, as Mac growth had real momentum until ~2012. I wish Cook would give the Mac more attention, but it's obvious he doesn't care about it at all.

Thank you, so much, for your completely unbiased reading of the results. It's a bold move to voice your opinions so forcefully on AI.

Just the other day, I too was thinking to myself, gee, I wish that Tim Cook would give the Mac more attention. Then I remembered that Apple just recently disrupted the PC business with the M series, and there is still another year and then some of more powerful M series releases just to fill out the existing Mac product line. Heck, Apple is at the front of the line for all of TSMC nodes. I mean, what is that all about?

So now I'm confused.

Is Tim Cook, et al, actually giving too much attention to the Mac?
 
Why isn't there an M1 iPhone Mega Super Pro Plus model, so I can get me 16 GB of RAM and some USB 4 lovin?

Not sure you've read my bias quite right, since I am are entirely invested in the Apple ecosystem with a product in every category Apple produces, and I am a shareholder too. Therefore, surely, my bias is pro-Apple?

I noticed you avoided responding to my comment about Mac sales being flat for the last 8 years.

Whilst the update rates have definitely improved in the last couple of years, probably in an attempt to counter those flat sales - and the M1 is absolutely disruptive to those who don't need Windows, just look at the rates of updates over the last 8 or 9 years. The Mac Pro went 6 years without an update. The Mini 4 years. The MacBook Pro, iMac and Macbook Air all had periods where updates were only once every 2 years. A lot of those updates were just minor spec bumps too, but even then Apple missed out entire new generations of CPU and left the rapidly advancing GPUs to stagnate. The iMac Pro was introduced then abandoned. They were selling the Mac Pro for the same price as it was introduced for, 6 years later. If that's not taking the piss, I don't know what is.

That means 13.1 percent year-over-year growth overall, and the best year and quarter for PC sales in quite some time. In total, 91.6 million traditional PCs were shipped in the fourth quarter of 2020. "Traditional PCs" in IDC's report include systems like desktops, laptops, and work stations. For years, sales of these kinds of computers were declining at worst or growing negligibly at best even as other, newer computing gadget categories like smartphones, smart speakers, and tablets grew relatively rapidly.

IDC notes that the last time the market saw this kind of growth was way back in 2010, when modern multitouch smartphones were still building momentum and Apple's very first iPad had only just launched.

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

elijahg said:

cloudguy said:

dk49 said:

If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence? 

See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.

The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.

A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.

Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios. 

Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.

It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.

It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course. 

In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc. 

Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.

It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too. 

You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.

Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.

As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000. 

What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.

Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.

The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.

As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?

And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.

I think we should just wait and see on that one. 

Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.

Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.

I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.

Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.

Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured. 

Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.

A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing  that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.

But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.

Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc. 

The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others. 

This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you? 

https://e.huawei.com/en/products/cloud-computing-dc/atlas/atlas-900-ai?utm_medium=psm&utm_source=corp_facebook&utm_campaign=HC2019&source=psm_corp_facebook

As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.

The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.

If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.

Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else? 

Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything? 

Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?

How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?

https://www.gizchina.com/2020/11/11/midea-launches-its-first-batch-of-products-running-on-harmony-os/

Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do. 

Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it. 

"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.

Thanks for playing.

Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.

https://jamestown.org/program/semiconductor-scandal-a-concerning-backdrop-to-xis-pursuit-of-core-technologies/

https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Khan-Flynn—Maintaining-Chinas-Dependence-on-Democracies.pdf

You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.

Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?

Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.

Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.

You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.

I'm not surprised.

And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.

As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.

And in the spirit of Jaws...

"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-) 

The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment. 

That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.

Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon. 

https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Khan-Flynn—Maintaining-Chinas-Dependence-on-Democracies.pdf

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.

It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."

https://jamestown.org/program/semiconductor-scandal-a-concerning-backdrop-to-xis-pursuit-of-core-technologies/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-02/china-revs-up-grand-chip-ambitions-to-counter-u-s-blacklistings

Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.

Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack. 

The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.

And there you have it...

The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.

Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!

Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.

Wow! Is that news?

Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!

Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.

He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.

Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?

Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.

Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes! 

Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS. 

Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.

It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.

And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS? 

In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.

That stack is only going to get bigger. 

You've gone off the deep end.

Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not. 

That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?

"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan

FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.

Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!

Sneaky bounder! 

It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .

Where to begin....?

Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!

Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.

We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).

Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course). 

They are even present in the US.

As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.

More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace. 

Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?

And you are asking me to get real? 

Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.

Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share. 

Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.

It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!

The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.

Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.

Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.

It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.

I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.

R&D spending has been increased yet again. 

They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact. 

We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given. 

But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.

Take a look for yourself ...

https://www.brookings.edu/research/china-as-a-cyber-great-power-beijings-two-voices-in-telecommunications/

One tidbit...

"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]

No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.

I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.

All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.

That makes your point about China irrelevant.

Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY. 

Take a minute and let that sink in.

These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.

Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security! 

The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies. 

Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards. 

If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even. 

This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself? 

It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei. 

The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism. 

Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened! 

You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go. 

Remind me. What was this thread about? 

The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm. 

More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-chinese-hackers-working-ministry-state-security-charged-global-computer-intrusion

Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?

You leave me with no option. This was my second paragraph:

"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not." 

I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.

'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.

Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!

But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.

I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.

And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day. 

I believe that the issue of hacking, is in the context of China actually being behind in technologies, and hacking to steal IP as the shortest path to catching up.

China is absolutely behind in indigenous silicon design tools, equipment, and processes, having very little share of any silicon below 14nm. Huawei is absolutely stymied by not having current or future access, to date, of anything below 14nm.

Now it may be that Samsung will find that it makes sense to fab for Huawei, a direct consumer electronics competitor, than to court the rest of the world, but I'm not actually seeing that as likely, and it would still violate U.S. technology licenses.

Yes. In those areas China is behind.

The problem for some is that China is not only taking steps to catch up but that the US is actually forcing them to accelerate their progress.

This is what the US officially believes:

"For the first time since World War II, America’s technological predominance – the backbone of its economic and military power – is under threat. China possesses the might, talent and ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change".

The upshot is that the US is not now trying to compete, it is trying to choke Chinese advances through extraterritorial actions. In doing so, it has alienated allies, caused severe financial losses for third parties and made countries the world over rethink the business they do with US technology companies. There is no point standing on a rug when it can be pulled out from under your feet at any time.

Logically, companies now have good reasons to 'pass' on US technology and actively seek or develop alternatives. 

You really need to keep up with current events...

https://jamestown.org/program/semiconductor-scandal-a-concerning-backdrop-to-xis-pursuit-of-core-technologies/

"Semiconductor Scandal A Concerning Backdrop to Xi’s Pursuit of “Core Technologies”

China is 7 to 10 years behind in silicon. The U.S, EU, Japan, and South Korea are accelerating investment to maintain that lead.

I am fully up to date with current events but these are not current events.

It's the same old story. Very little has changed, in fact.

This is the second time you've posted that link in this thread and it is completely irrelevant. 

You are acting like a bot now.

What Japan, South Korea and the EU are doing is NOT because of China and a desire to stay ahead of it.

They can't actually do that long term. What they are doing is reducing dependence on outside technologies. Yes, US technologies will be the worst affected.

As an aside, currently the ONLY thing preventing ASML selling EUV scanners to Chinese companies is purely political. The situation may even push ASML to completely erradicate what little US technology remains from its products. That would leave the US with the need to probably seek a revision of the Wassenaar Arrangement, something it cannot force unilaterally. It would need the agreement of other countries.

Of course, China (and everyone else) is already looking beyond EUV anyway. 

"In 2015, when the International Olympic Committee (ioc) awarded the 2022 Winter Olympics to Beijing, some people criticised the decision because of China’s human-rights record. Just in the previous few weeks China had rounded up hundreds of civil-society activists across the country. But the rival candidate for the games was another authoritarian state, Kazakhstan. Democracies such as Norway had pulled out of the race. And few people even imagined that, within two years, China would be building a gulag in Xinjiang to incarcerate more than 1m ethnic Uyghurs because of their religious and cultural beliefs.

Attitudes in the West towards China have hardened a lot since the ioc made its decision. In January America called the repression in Xinjiang “genocide”. On March 22nd it joined Britain, Canada and the European Union in a simultaneous declaration of sanctions against Chinese officials involved in that region’s atrocities. It was a rare co-ordinated attempt by Western powers to put pressure on China over its human-rights record. They have been riled, too, by China’s clampdown in Hong Kong and its growing challenge to liberal norms globally. The winter games, which are due to begin on February 4th, will be among the most controversial in Olympic history.

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

elijahg said:

cloudguy said:

dk49 said:

If ARM has its own AI engine now, what does it mean for Apple's Neural engine? Is it possible for Apple to completely discard ARMs AI engine in their processors or they will have to build theirs on top of ARMs? If yes then will it not break ARM's licence? 

See above. Apple is an ARM Holdings co-founder. They have a perpetual architectural license.

The fact that they were an ARM Holdings co-founder is no longer relevant to anything, they sold (AFAIK) all their interests in ARM long ago, and have never had a controlling stake. The perpetual architectural license was acquired when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008. NVIDIA also has an architectural license, along with MS and Qualcomm, so there's no reason they couldn't match Apple's M1 CPU speeds - except their engineers aren't good enough, apparently. So not really sure what Nvidia sees in ARM.

A disadvantage of not controlling the whole stack, as Apple does, is that Qualcomm, Samsung, et al, haven't control of Android OS, or Windows OS, and so will never have SOC's as optimized for end users, as Apple will for its own ecosystem. It may not make all that much difference in a mature marketplace, though it appears that Apple still sees an increasing user base, and still benefits from its tight integration of all of the technologies that is has at its disposal.

Android vendors can control the 'whole stack' if they wish to. Android is open source. It would take a huge investment and vendors would have to effectively re-invent many wheels but it's an option. There advantages and disadvantages to both scenarios. 

Huawei has been forced to do exactly that, and as a result, perhaps it could be argued that it controls as much, or more, of the 'whole stack' as Apple.

It's 5G modem and WiFi chipsets are designed in house, for example. Apple's aren't.

It can also 'optimise' the stack beyond the CE boundaries of Apple, as it also produces Cloud hardware and services along with AI hardware and services. It also develops it own battery and charging technologies. Not to mention participating in and designing the core communications technologies that are the backbone of today's modern day devices. Apple devices included of course. 

In software, GMS is being replaced by HMS etc. 

Qualcomm and especially Samsung are also well placed to do the same if necessary but for different reasons, they have no need to.

It's worth noting that Huawei has also been reportedly greenlighted to use ARMv9 and just like all vendors, has the option of using RISC-V too. 

You would be accurate in stating that Huawei is on a possible path to that, but factually, Huawei is not anywhere close to where Apple is in SOC development, and that takes into account the short term advantage that Huawei has with integration of 5G into its smartphone SOC. I also take exception to their Android fork being very developed, though of course, you have disagreed with that in the past, against published evidence that it is mostly a vanilla copy.

Samsung has attempted to, but has never been able to replicate Apple's success and continue to trail in SOC performance, and density, and Qualcomm develops a range of SOC's for its many customers.

As I have stated before; every year, Apple ships about 70% of its units based on its single, current (A14), A series processor, and this year, it appears that Apple will approach 250m iPhone units, which is in the neighborhood of 175 million A14's, not including iPad's. Not in anyone's universe will Qualcomm come close to those numbers for the Snapdragon 888, nor Samsung for the Exynos 2100, nor Huawei for the Kirin 9000. 

What's interesting is how much of an advantage Apple continues to carry over its competitors, and the M series is yet another instance.

Huawei is right up there with Apple on SoC development. On process node and even besting Apple on transistor density. On timing. On getting their modems on SoC, on ISP and DSP development, on secure enclave etc.

The amount of processors Apple ships is totally irrevelant. What does that have to do with the advantages of owning the whole stack? And you are making some utterly wild projections anyway. Why not try to run with something that is more realistic, like what they shipped last year? Either way, quantity would still mean nothing but if that is what you want, Mediatek reportedly shipped over 350 million processors last year.

As for the advantage Apple continues to have over competitors, are you claiming that not being able to ship a latest generation 5G modem on SoC is an advantage?

And as for 'the Android fork' (eh?) not being very developed, it already contained more APIs than Google GMS Android, and two days ago, Beta 3 was released, adding 1,000 more APIs. Considering no one outside China has even seen the system, you are jumping to A LOT of uninformed conclusions. Especially as the system already has a release date for handsets: 24 April.

I think we should just wait and see on that one. 

Huawei/HiSilicon is dead in the water without access to a leading node fab, so what you state is factually untrue. Rumors of a Kirin 9010 at 3 nm are pure fantasy, as there are no fabs in the PRC that are capable of less 14 nm. There were very few Kirin 9000 produced, perhaps 8 million total, and the Kirin 9000 was trailing A14 and Qualcomm 888 in performance.

Apple owning its own stack is why Apple has the M1, and will follow up with more performant M Series. Apple owning its own stack is why Apple doesn't have to be concerned with SOC cost, and hasn't created mid, and low range, variants of the current A Series, other than AX which powers iPad.

I misstated that Apple doesn't have 5G integrated on the SOC, That should be restated as Apple does not have 5G integrated on the A14 die. Of course, in the future, Apple will integrate 5G on die, but in the meantime, consumers aren't concerned about how Apple implements 4G, and units sold in proof of that.

Yeah, we should "wait", but it should be noted that you have no specific knowledge of Huawei's Harmony OS as it pertains to smartphones either; you're merely parroting Huawei Marketing.

Anyone (Apple included) has a problem if they have a product design that cannot be manufactured. 

Not long ago, the entire industry was affected by a very similar problem but that wasn't politics, it was COVID-19.

A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy' . Logic should tell you that if it weren't for politics TSMC would actually be testing  that processor with Huawei right now. Each Kirin chip is basically on a five year design window.

But none of that has even the slightest to do with what I was replying to: the advantages of own the 'whole stack'.

Ah yes, Apple and the M1. You did slip that in there but then Huawei has MindSpore, DaVinci, Ascend (which goes from earbuds up to AI clusters with 1024 cores), solutions for Airport and Port control, robotics, Power solutions and a very long list of etc. 

The whole stack you say? Why not. It makes sense for some companies but not necessarily for others. 

This is 'old' now but I still haven't seen an Apple equivalent. Have you? 

https://e.huawei.com/en/products/cloud-computing-dc/atlas/atlas-900-ai?utm_medium=psm&utm_source=corp_facebook&utm_campaign=HC2019&source=psm_corp_facebook

As for HarmonyOS, I am definitely not 'parroting' Huawei Marketing.

The information I provide is publicly available and comes from the head of HarmonyOS software development (not marketing) . Your claims, and this is ironic btw, do seem like the product of pure fantasy.

If I say it's best to wait and see what is released, it is because there is nothing official yet. That's reasonable on my part but you seem to be able to reach conclusions that are based on... what exactly? Definitely not anything Huawei have actually said.

Oh right, the ARS article! Is that it though? Nothing else? 

Did you bother to contextualise that article? To see how those conclusions fit in with what Huawei is actually claiming? Did you question anything? 

Where are those 16,000 APIs hiding for example? Being a multikernel system with a kernel abstraction layer, how many kernels were looked at?

How is it possible that one of the world's largest home appliance brands (not handsets) has already confirmed support for Harmony OS on a whole suite of products?

https://www.gizchina.com/2020/11/11/midea-launches-its-first-batch-of-products-running-on-harmony-os/

Of course HarmonyOS is already out there either in version 1 form (TVs, cars and smartscreens), or parts of it working 'undercover' in watches and routers etc and doing things that Android simply cannot do. 

Xiaomi is able to purchase the full line of Qualcomm, so that avenue may be available to Huawei, but I doubt it. 

"A Kirin SoC on 3nm is anything but 'pure fantasy", but logic tells me that it will never exist, so perhaps it is you that needs to stop fantasizing, and since Huawei isn't going to get even a semi-custom processor anytime soon, then Huawei absolutely lacks the "full stack" for its smartphones. I don't think that Samsung will be able to save them either.

Thanks for playing.

Looking forward to Google's White Chapel SOC, so they can take advantage of the "full stack" as well, because of course there are other options besides Apple in the world.

https://jamestown.org/program/semiconductor-scandal-a-concerning-backdrop-to-xis-pursuit-of-core-technologies/

https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Khan-Flynn—Maintaining-Chinas-Dependence-on-Democracies.pdf

You have managed to tie yourself up in knots again.

Yes, Xiaomi has has access to the full range of Qualcomm products but what does that have to do with anything?

Huawei does not have the same access. You don't have to 'doubt' that because it is crystal clear and the result of a last minute change by Trump.

Samsung is a different story but there are only rumours at this point.

You have skirted mostly everything I challenged you with by either running up some new alley or outright ignoring it but for good measure you throw China into the soup.

I'm not surprised.

And 'logic' cannot tell you a 3nm Kirin will never exist when, at this junction in time, the only restriction in place is 100% political. There's a field where you should never say 'never'.

As for 'owning the full stack', perhaps you see things more clearly now than from your Apple centred earlier posts. Yes, the world includes more than Apple and clearly there are stacks, and there are stacks, LOL.

And in the spirit of Jaws...

"You're gonna need a bigger stack!". ;-) 

The point is, that there is very little indigenous silicon production in China, and the best node available is 14nm. You, and the PRC, keep pointing out that China is going to be self sufficient in silicon, but that's just not true in the near term, given the fact that only the U.S., Taiwan, and South Korea, have leading edge nodes, and only the U.S., Japan, and the Netherlands, build leading edge semiconductor equipment. 

That means, that China will have to acquire IP, which will likely involve theft, will have to hire away TSMC employees, which they have been, and would still have to replace the design software, which is almost entirely U.S. origin.

Throwing all that together, China really isn't a player in leading edge silicon. 

https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Khan-Flynn—Maintaining-Chinas-Dependence-on-Democracies.pdf

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Chinese government is investing tens of billions of dollars in its computer chip factories and may eventually achieve global state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities. However, China can succeed only if the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands continue to sell it the manufacturing equipment necessary to operate its chip factories. If these states deny access to this specialized equipment, China would find it nearly impossible to develop or maintain advanced chip factories for the foreseeable future. Countering the Chinese government’s market-distorting subsidies with such export controls would shift chip factory capacity to democracies, especially the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the firms making specialized manufacturing equipment for chips would experience little to no long-term revenue loss from such export controls, and may even benefit from working with more reliable partners in these democracies.

It is in the security interests of democratic states, including the United States, for China to remain reliant on democracies for state-of-the-art chips. Advanced weapons systems and many emerging technologies for surveillance and oppression depend on state-of-the-art chips — currently produced only by firms in the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maintaining exclusive control of these chips will allow democracies to implement targeted end-use and end-user export controls on them, largely preempting China’s development and use of many dangerous or destabilizing technologies."

https://jamestown.org/program/semiconductor-scandal-a-concerning-backdrop-to-xis-pursuit-of-core-technologies/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-02/china-revs-up-grand-chip-ambitions-to-counter-u-s-blacklistings

Bottom line, China has no indigenous capacity to manufacture silicon suitable for flagship smartphones; not now, not anytime soon. The West is at no economic disadvantage by restricting the technology for leading edge silicon manufacturing.

Huawei has no current source for SOC's suitable for flagship smartphones, and has no near term potential for obtaining those from indigenous China production. No silicon, no full stack. 

The funniest comment that I'd seen recently was by GeorgeBmac, to the effect that China had the capability of taking out a U.S. aircraft carrier with a "ship killing" ballistic missile, not realizing that "ship killing" ballistic missiles, among other things, are the reason that the U.S. and its allies aren't keen on supplying leading edge silicon to the PRC.

And there you have it...

The full blown anti-China, off topic, obsessive, politically rooted rant.

Come on! You brought the 'advantages of owning the full stack' into this and I challenged that notion point for point. That's it. You either accept what I pointed out or you challenge it - but with something relevant!

Yeah, Huawei can't satisfy its chip requirements without external fabrication.

Wow! Is that news?

Here's something for you to chew on - neither can Apple!

Trump couldn't handle seeing the global supply chain working against his interests so he attempted (and failed, btw) to wreck it.

He threw a stick (at best!) into the spokes and blew the collective US semiconductor's head off in the process.

Why do you think US companies are basically pleading for 'licences' to do business with Huawei - with Google not letting up for a second in lobbying in the two years that this has been going on?

Google wants Huawei with it, not against it. Huawei would love to continue doing business with Google.

Now Google has a MAJOR problem. Under scrutiny along with others at home and abroad and with Huawei about to ship HarmonyOS on handsets and hoping to plunk it onto 300 million devices this year alone. Yikes! 

Petal search has morphed into a full blown independent search engine, Petal Maps is live, Petal Mail is in beta. Every single Google Service is being relentlessly targeted and substitutes released onto the world. Yes, that of course includes advertising revenue through HMS. 

Pandora's Box has been opened and at best all Google can hope for is getting GMS apps onto HMS but of course, Huawei will be pulling the strings there and it will cost Google a pretty penny to get Google Search onto a Huawei device.

It's disheartening for both Huawei and Google because nether of them were seeking this situation. It was forced on them by ill thought out policy at government level.

And to top Google's nightmare scenario off, HarmonyOS/HMS will only get better and it will sit there waiting to jump, should the US think about targeting any other Chinese brands which currently use GMS. Do you think Google isn't losing sleep over the potential of the entire Chinese handset sector switching away from GMS to HMS? 

In fact, there is already talk of Meizu having agreed to do just that.

That stack is only going to get bigger. 

You've gone off the deep end.

Apple and Google will still be able to design and fab leading edge SoC's; Huawei/HiSilicon will not. 

That's a harsh reality. More to the point Google services essentially don't exist in China, so, what exactly is Google losing, given that side loading apps is prevalent in China as well?

"The block is indiscriminate as all Google services in all countries, encrypted or not, are now blocked in China. This blockage includes Google search, images, Gmail and almost all other products. In addition, the block covers Google Hong Kong, google.com, and all other country specific versions, e.g., Google Japan

FFS, there is no Honor subbrand, and Huawei smartphone sales have crashed. Move on, for god's sake.

Ah! Now you put 'FFS' at the end of the post!

Sneaky bounder! 

It still means the same though - you have nothing left to shoot back with, and you were shooting blanks from the start anyway .

Where to begin....?

Ah! Something you got right, although it's a case of stating the obvious!

Yes, Huawei,' currently cannot fab 5nm chips.

We are all perfectly aware of that and as I said further up, that will change (possibly mid term or short term depending on technology advances, politics or both).

Next up. Chinese brands and GMS. You have not been paying attention. Huawei was the first major Chinese handset manufacturer to make an impact with international sales. Over the last two years the other major brands (Oppo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Honor) have been sweeping into non-Chinese markets at breathtaking speed (Honor was already there of course). 

They are even present in the US.

As HarmonyOS matures, the lure of switching (if the US tries another Huawei style stunt) will simply be more attractive.

More and more reviewers are beginning to come around to the idea that not having GMS may not be such an issue if HMS keeps moving at its current pace. 

Honor was spun off to keep the inertia going. Do you seriously believe it can't be re-absorbed at a later date?

And you are asking me to get real? 

Of the three previous top brands, Samsung, Huawei, and Apple, it appears that it is now Samsung, Apple, followed by Chinese brands. The only change is that Huawei's foreign share has been consumed by other Chinese brands, and Huawei has no access to leading edge fabs or SoC's.

Other than that, Huawei is doing just fine, well, except for also losing foreign telecom share. 

Details, details. Sure Huawei may eventually get access to competitive SoC's, but it certainly isn't today, or tomorrow. Meanwhile, those sales just keep diving.

It has access to leading edge SoCs. It designs them itself!

The current problem is fabbing them, not designing them.

Huawei's handset share was huge. Even dividing it among Chinese competitors, it remains huge and is growing fast outside China.

Against all the odds Huawei actually increased revenues and net profit for 2020.

It has turned its focus to 5G, AI, Cloud and CE for growth options. Last year HiSilicon made an IoT SoC available to third parties. It will try to get HarmonyOS onto as much IoT hardware as possible. Huawei provided an EV solution (hardware/software) to car manufacturers. It provided 5G based services solutions for aviation, mining, ports, farming, health and science etc.

I'm not even getting into its energy solutions and a raft of other fields.

R&D spending has been increased yet again. 

They are not standing still and the fab situation of its ARM strategy is there but they are working to reduce its impact. 

We will see if they succeed. Nothing is a given. 

But. if your stack is gigantic, it gives you options and 5G is one of the keys threads that tie things up.

Take a look for yourself ...

https://www.brookings.edu/research/china-as-a-cyber-great-power-beijings-two-voices-in-telecommunications/

One tidbit...

"Even as the Chinese government encourages foreign audiences to purchase Huawei products, its leaders warn domestic audiences of the dangers that stem from reliance on foreign technology. Years before the trade war and the Trump administration’s restrictions on Huawei, Xi argued that “the control of core technology by others is our biggest hidden danger” and that allowing foreigners to control core technology “is like building a house on someone else’s foundation.”[1] He declared that “China must have its own technology, and it must have strong technology.”[2]

No one can possibly imagine why the rest of the world is justifiably concerned about an adversary power controlling their infrastructure.

I let you have the last word and didn't make the quip I was going to. I thought you'd had enough with digging holes and falling into them.

All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not.

That makes your point about China irrelevant.

Secondly, and you really should try to understand this. No one (and I mean no one) is controlling ICT infrastructure in the way you are implying. NO SINGLE COMPANY. 

Take a minute and let that sink in.

These are international standards, created by standards committees. ICT is a collaborative effort which requires interoperability as well as backwards compatibility.

Everything (and I mean everything) is STANDARDS BASED. That includes security! 

The carriers run the networks. Governments can limit the carriers. Carriers have licences to operate and use spectrum frequencies. 

Huawei does not control infrastructure. It provides infrastructure which complies with internationally agreed standards. 

If Huawei could do what you imply (and it can't because no country relies on a single infrastructure supplier and carrier) it would logically mean its instant death. Faster than instant even. 

This has been said a million times by everyone with just a grain of common sense. Why would Huawei deliberately push the self destruct button on itself? 

It's one of the reasons the US has NEVER been able to put even a shred of evidence on the table. Literally NOTHING. It's why it has been left with no option but to bully and threaten it's allies over Huawei. 

The whole thing has nothing to do with 'national security'. It's protectionism. 

Carrier networks are made up of equipment from different vendors for good reason and for as much as the US wants to use non-Huawei equipment and wants other countries to follow suit, the reality is that almost all of that equipment is still manufactured in, you guessed it, China! And nothing has happened! 

You lost all credibility on this subject long ago. It was your own doing and you can handle that I'm sure. Now, let things go. 

Remind me. What was this thread about? 

The thread was about ARM, and I added that Huawei no longer has access to any node below 14nm. 

More to the point, it appears that China believes as I do; that you don't trust critical infrastructure to your adversary;

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-chinese-hackers-working-ministry-state-security-charged-global-computer-intrusion

Yeah, it's just government sponsored hacking to steal IP; what's the big deal?

You leave me with no option. This was my second paragraph:

"All countries want to depend less on others for critical technology or resources. Some are actually able to do something about it. Others are not." 

I asked you to try and let that sink in. You clearly didn't.

'Hacking' has nothing to do with 'controlling' the network.

Everyone (US, UK, China...) will be trying to hack into the other. Some will be more successful than others but it is supremely ironic that the US seems to have had enormous problems of late and nary a piece of Huawei equipment in sight!

But nevertheless, and thanks to Snowden, we know a lot about US hacking attempts and Operation Shotgiant no less.

I wonder when the FBI will begin investigating the NSA, CIA and the rest. LOL.

And to give you something to reflect on. Huawei deals with over 1,000,000 intrusion attempts - a day. 

I believe that the issue of hacking, is in the context of China actually being behind in technologies, and hacking to steal IP as the shortest path to catching up.

China is absolutely behind in indigenous silicon design tools, equipment, and processes, having very little share of any silicon below 14nm. Huawei is absolutely stymied by not having current or future access, to date, of anything below 14nm.

Now it may be that Samsung will find that it makes sense to fab for Huawei, a direct consumer electronics competitor, than to court the rest of the world, but I'm not actually seeing that as likely, and it would still violate U.S. technology licenses.

Yes. In those areas China is behind.

The problem for some is that China is not only taking steps to catch up but that the US is actually forcing them to accelerate their progress.

This is what the US officially believes:

"For the first time since World War II, America’s technological predominance – the backbone of its economic and military power – is under threat. China possesses the might, talent and ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s leader in AI in the next decade if current trends do not change".

The upshot is that the US is not now trying to compete, it is trying to choke Chinese advances through extraterritorial actions. In doing so, it has alienated allies, caused severe financial losses for third parties and made countries the world over rethink the business they do with US technology companies. There is no point standing on a rug when it can be pulled out from under your feet at any time.

Logically, companies now have good reasons to 'pass' on US technology and actively seek or develop alternatives.