Since Huawei has been put in the “entities list,” by the US government, many US based companies has stopped doing business with Huawei including Xilinx, Qualcomm, Google, and Intel. Unlike last year’s fiasco with ZTE because of issues with ZTE doing business with Iran, this is nothing to do with Huawei’s wrongdoing by the US government. Since the news of ZTE broke has year, Huawei has developed solutions to mitigate this problem.
Huawei has made substantial mitigation in terms of keeping smartphone business alive. Huawei has developed its own Kirin SOC’s for their smartphones and had developed HongMeng OS to replace Android OS as a replacement. HongMeng OS was developed as an Open platform of Android much like Amazon’s Fire OS on its devices. However, being locked out from google’s play store doesn’t mean that you cannot install play store in its OS much like how you can do it on Fire OS. Furthermore, ARM holdings has developed a JV with Hou An Innovation Fund so it allows Chinese manufacturers to develop its own version of ARM chips in the future.
Huawei’s Matebook’s future is uncertain as Intel has joined the blockade. AMD-China joint venture has produced Hygon Dhyana CPU’s along with Via-China joint venture produced the ZhaoXin CPU’s might come up in the future. As Microsoft did not join in the blockade as of this moment, Huawei can still sell Windows PC on one of these types of CPU’s.
Made in China 2025 policy is designed because they want to reduce on foreign technologies in case of situations like this would occur. It would only further China to re-double efforts for China to ween away from American technology. The only question is would the Chinese government do if trade talks if China and US would further break down.
Huawei might need the Chinese media’s help in doing some defamation against Cisco before that American protectionism truly drops. It’s hard to imagine any other way. Huawei’s Chen Lifan is asking for ideas!
Instead of Cisco, Apple is an ideal target. For one, its user base is much larger than Cisco’s. Samsung’s phones with Android are better in my personal opinion, so iPhones are not indispensable. Apple’s customer service is probably above average in China relative to all the other companies. Certainly, there are legitimate grievances, but I wouldn’t consider them egregious. Also, remember, the Chinese media criticisms were targeting a basket of foreign firms. China is merely playing catch-up in this protectionism game others have been playing these last few years. In this kind of ugliness, everyone should remember who started first.
Henry Kissinger recently told his audience at a Wilson Institute forum that Romney’s and Obama’s campaign rhetoric against China were ‘deplorable.’ Some expat bloggers suggest that China should accept that this is a election phenomenon as if this sort of behavior is ‘normal’ and ‘proper.’ That’s wrong and Americans should take the China-U.S. relationship more seriously – especially in our modern age where many Chinese do understand English and pay attention to what these candidates say. The American public is continually polarized to take on a war-like footing against everything ‘China,’ and it is hard to imagine how the long term trend resulting from it can be positive. Following is an Op-Ed by China Daily USA’s Chen Weihua arguing why the two candidates in fact should apologize for their irresponsible fear-mongering. Continue reading “Blame-game players should apologize” by China Daily USA’s Chen Weihua→
Now that the U.S. House of Representative investigative report by Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence regarding Huawei and ZTE is out, there is a lot of chatter in the U.S. media. I thought Paula Dwyer of Bloomberg summarized this whole affair the best:
What the report lacks is evidence. It also smacks of protectionism, despite denials by the committee chairman, Michigan Republican Mike Rogers, that he is invoking national security to shield U.S. telecoms equipment companies from Chinese competition.
Despite full access to Huawei’s headquarters in Shenzhen and her executives (including Chen Lifan, a board member and a senior vice president), CNET continues to report with astounding accusations and insinuations. At the heart of the issue is American and Australian press accusing Huawei of potentially assisting the Chinese government of hacking into American and Australian computers. The CNET report is wrapped up by a segment where writer Jay Greene (who along with Roger Cheng wrote the article) is interviewed by CNET’s Editor, Bridget Carey, titled, “The espionage anxiety over Huawei.” Now, how do you prove that you are not a spy when your accuser merely accuse you of spying? Isn’t the accuser obligated to present evidence? How does a person prove that he is not a savage to a racist who accuses him of such? The video segment below shows what’s wrong with CNET and the American (and Australian) media in general when they lose faculty in judging how ludicrous their own narratives are.
Following is a commercial for the Huawei Ascend D quad Android-based smartphone – currently the world’s fastest! Huawei already sends chills down Cisco’s spine, and I have no doubt it will become a household name globally. Unfortunately, I thought this phone was poorly named. Just say “d quad” fast! (Here is a hint if you need it.) I currently use the Samsung Galaxy. The screen is amazing; it’s a photographer’s dream phone. My next upgrade will have to be the “d quad.”
(If you follow Huawei, you will know that it is one of the most innovative companies in China, and it has made substantial inroads around the world for its reliable and cost-effective telecom equipment. Actually, if you talk to some Cisco engineers about Huawei, they will tell you Huawei is incredibly innovative. Huawei may even be more active in international bodies defining standards – yes – even more so than Cisco!)
Abrams writes about the recent Huawei failed attempts at acquiring 3Com, 2Wire, and Motorola’s wireless equipment unit, despite offering $100 million more than the competition. He argues this was “blatantly protectionist.” I couldn’t agree more. The only disagreement I have with his article is his characterizing this blatant protectionist act on the U.S.’s part as “Zen.” It is American insecurity and xenophobia; pure and simple. Everyone in China recognize it as such.