31–40 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about a company leveraging its monopoly on operating systems to illicitly gain an advantage in other markets, say ... webbrowsers? Should we nuke them?
Companies who make a web browser and a company that builds the hardware backbone of a nation's internet are not even comparable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are referring to Microsoft, then yes, the US and Europe both prosecuted them and placed restrictions on them.
Microsoft? It’s not the nineties. Try Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are referring to Microsoft, then yes, the US and Europe both prosecuted them and placed restrictions on them.
Microsoft? It’s not the nineties. Try Google.
This may be a bit of pro-USA or pro-Western favoritism on my part, but if a company is getting away with illicitly gaining access to trade secrets in order to build a competitive advantage while shielded by its home country (not the best example, but t-mobile v. huawei - I imagine plenty of others are classified), is it in-scope for opposing nations to destabilize the company responsible for doing so?
How about a company leveraging its monopoly on operating systems to illicitly gain an advantage in other markets, say ... webbrowsers? Should we nuke them?
This may be a bit of pro-USA or pro-Western favoritism on my part, but if a company is getting away with illicitly gaining access to trade secrets in order to build a competitive advantage while shielded by its home country (not the best example, but t-mobile v. huawei - I imagine plenty of others are classified), is it in-scope for opposing nations to destabilize the company responsible for doing so?
This may be a bit of pro-USA or pro-Western favoritism on my part, but if a company is getting away with illicitly gaining access to trade secrets in order to build a competitive advantage while shielded by its home country (not the best example, but t-mobile v. huawei - I imagine plenty of others are classified), is it in-scope for opposing nations to destabilize the company responsible for doing so?
I know many ppl are going to defend "America" here. But remember who you are defending. Great power rivalry is bad for corporate profit and amazing for wage laborer, which most of HN is. If you are an worker in North America, this type of headline should be a moment of celebration.
We are defending western civilization. I would rather China to collapse than to see it replace the US of A. China is actively trying to erase any minorities by replacing them with han chinese. It is an evil, vile country and it needs to fundamentally change before we accept its ambitions.
I've rarely seen this kind of hiperbole on hn. Who is we? What does it mean to defend? What exactly is the connection to Western civilization here?
> I would rather China to collapse than to see it replace the US of A.
Is this in any way pertinent to the topic being discussed? Is there a risk that China would collapse if Huawei gets into business trouble? Is there any risk that China would "replace" the US if Huawei doesn't get into trouble?
I know many ppl are going to defend "America" here. But remember who you are defending. Great power rivalry is bad for corporate profit and amazing for wage laborer, which most of HN is. If you are an worker in North America, this type of headline should be a moment of celebration.
We are defending western civilization. I would rather China to collapse than to see it replace the US of A. China is actively trying to erase any minorities by replacing them with han chinese. It is an evil, vile country and it needs to fundamentally change before we accept its ambitions.
The evils of the US and China are not even comparable in the modern era. A million plus in concentration camps, secret police disappearing journalists/doctors/dissidents, absolute authoritarian control over citizens lives, replacement of ethnic minorities en masse, organ harvesting, wholesale theft of IP and technology, etc etc etc.
It's such a tired and played out argument of "but in 1973 America did [bad thing]".
The issue with Huawei is that they are actually 4 years ahead in terms of infrastructure technology compared to any american company.
US companies can't compete in the market where they don't exist. Qualcomm sells components, not mobile networks. There are only four big companies left for for 4G/LTE/5G mobile infrastructure:
COMPANY MARKET SHARE
Huawei 28%
Ericsson 27%
Nokia 23%
ZTE 13%
Samsung 3%Earlier quoted context omitted.
This again? I think your point is appropriate when speaking Spanish, Portuguese (EDIT: not Portuguese), etc. However, in common English (no, not just in the US) the word "America" more often refers to the USA. Languages don't use the same or derivative words for many other countries as well.
Can confirm. Eastern european here. America refers to the US of A. If we want to be explicit about the other america we say South America.