Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 74 posts

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#11

Post by onepointsixC »

woooooo wrote: post #6
akira2501 wrote: post #4

> “The U.S. government’s campaign against Huawei is inadvertently bolstering the company’s resilience, echoing the age-old adage that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” Then in the _very next_ paragraphs: > State money was critical. [...] billions of dollars flowed from the Chinese government to Huawei through preferential buying contracts and subsidies So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anythin…

It's state policy on both sides. Cutting China and particularly Huawei off from access to our tech has forced them to develop capacity domestically, at a state and corporate level. Good for tech in an abstract space race kind of way, but pretty debatable as a geopolitical move.

It didn't force them to forced them to develop capacity domestically. They always wanted to do that and have been spending princely sums yearly to try to get there. It removed the ability to have a cheap and gradual transition from foreign ones to domestic ones.

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#12

Post by walterbell »

akira2501 wrote: post #4

> “The U.S. government’s campaign against Huawei is inadvertently bolstering the company’s resilience, echoing the age-old adage that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” Then in the _very next_ paragraphs: > State money was critical. [...] billions of dollars flowed from the Chinese government to Huawei through preferential buying contracts and subsidies So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anythin…

https://ecipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ECI_24_PolicyBr...

> It is tempting to assume that Huawei’s survival is solely attributable to massive state subsidies. However, the reality is more nuanced with fiscal policy complemented by research, development, and diversification, as well as the indecisive application of US sanctions.. US export controls affected the device business – which is an unprofitable side business – rather than its core business in carrier equipment..

With limited access to Taiwanese and Korean foundries, Huawei has retained the same baseband card for nearly four years – a design built around Balong 5000 chipset, a 7 nm [2019] ASIC.. Huawei is packing more chips onto each card to keep pace on mMIMOs. Its power performance is suffering, but Huawei offset these gaps by adjusting its prices to compensate for the higher electricity bills for its customers, thereby keeping [TCO] constant..

The shift in US strategy – from promoting “trusted vendors” to trying to spawn a US alternative – only resulted in eroded profitability.. or market shares swapping hands among Western vendors.. in December 2023, AT&T took the decision to replace its brand-new Nokia 5G equipment with an O-RAN-compliant network delivered by Ericsson.

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#13

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

akira2501 wrote: post #4

> “The U.S. government’s campaign against Huawei is inadvertently bolstering the company’s resilience, echoing the age-old adage that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” Then in the _very next_ paragraphs: > State money was critical. [...] billions of dollars flowed from the Chinese government to Huawei through preferential buying contracts and subsidies So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anythin…

> So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anything? It doesn't matter what US policy is if China has decided to make you a defacto state run company.

It's not a complete non sequitur if China's additional support of Huawei can be attributed to the US's campaign against the company.

Put the shoe on the other foot: Imagine China sanctions Intel with the intent of driving them out of key markets. Hostile foreign government action. It would surprise nobody if, in response, the US government then took steps to shore up Intel's position. Domestic government reaction.

...US consumers would also be drawn to Intel, in this scenario, as an icon of American industry bravely resisting foreign interference.

So the situation with Huawei is by no means surprising.

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#15

Post by onepointsixC »

Dalewyn wrote: post #7
akira2501 wrote: post #4

> “The U.S. government’s campaign against Huawei is inadvertently bolstering the company’s resilience, echoing the age-old adage that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” Then in the _very next_ paragraphs: > State money was critical. [...] billions of dollars flowed from the Chinese government to Huawei through preferential buying contracts and subsidies So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anythin…

>So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anything? China is succeeding at securing their industry and supply chains despite (or because of) our Cold War II efforts. Meanwhile, if Intel is any indication we are consistently failing to secure our industry and supply chains and China hasn't even had to do anything besides just exist.

It’s not just existing, the Chinese give an order of magnitude more subsidies. The CHIPS act was always been too little. If it at least matched that of China, without considering how much more their subsides pays for in China in PPP terms, then we’d be in decent shape.

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#16

Post by jonnybgood »

aninteger wrote: post #5
pstrateman wrote: post #3

The US wanted them out of the US market and mostly succeeded there.

Not in the military at all. The military asks for an exception each year. https://www.lightreading.com/security/the-us-is-moving-very-...

To be clear, Huawei products are not being used within the US military. The US military is in countries that do use Huawei products. In order to properly operate in these countries the US military would have to use or connect to these products in some way.

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#17

Post by aragonite »

akira2501 wrote: post #4

> “The U.S. government’s campaign against Huawei is inadvertently bolstering the company’s resilience, echoing the age-old adage that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” Then in the _very next_ paragraphs: > State money was critical. [...] billions of dollars flowed from the Chinese government to Huawei through preferential buying contracts and subsidies So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anythin…

If a foreign state launches a similar campaign against a US company, and the US government responds with industrial policy support for that company, the foreign state would have little ground to cry foul about the US company receiving state subsidies. And if the US company survives or even prospers, it's not out of the question that this could be viewed as evidence of its resilience, assuming state support isn't solely responsible for its survival/prospering.

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#18

Post by imp0cat »

lysace wrote: post #14

1. This article's headline made me lose some trust in the WSJ, given that: 2. Huawei has gotten stronger in China and weaker elsewhere. https://archive.ph/JgNQg/d40b9dd122f4675c47c29c9a4528bb60734... Edit: Flagged? What rule does this comment break?

Why was this flagged?

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#19

Post by Rinzler89 »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #13
akira2501 wrote: post #4

> “The U.S. government’s campaign against Huawei is inadvertently bolstering the company’s resilience, echoing the age-old adage that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” Then in the _very next_ paragraphs: > State money was critical. [...] billions of dollars flowed from the Chinese government to Huawei through preferential buying contracts and subsidies So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anythin…

> So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anything? It doesn't matter what US policy is if China has decided to make you a defacto state run company. It's not a complete non sequitur if China's additional support of Huawei can be attributed to the US's campaign against the company. Put the shoe on the other foot: Imagine China sanctions Intel with the intent of driving them out of key markets. Hostile foreig…

>...US consumers would also be drawn to Intel

I take it you aren't following the latest news. Intel of today is more like Boeing. Uncle Sam will keep it afloat due to nationals security, but its performance is weaning enough that consumers are voting with their wallets against it.

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#20

Post by Rinzler89 »

onepointsixC wrote: post #15
Dalewyn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anything? China is succeeding at securing their industry and supply chains despite (or because of) our Cold War II efforts. Meanwhile, if Intel is any indication we are consistently failing to secure our industry and supply chains and China hasn't even had to do anything besides just exist.

It’s not just existing, the Chinese give an order of magnitude more subsidies. The CHIPS act was always been too little. If it at least matched that of China, without considering how much more their subsides pays for in China in PPP terms, then we’d be in decent shape.

>It’s not just existing, the Chinese give an order of magnitude more subsidies.

Are they really? Are they giving more than what state subsidies Silicon Valley companies received from the WW2 radar/radio era, from Shockley semiconductors, to the Traitorous eight[1], to the present day?

To me it seems China is only spending so much because they need to speedrun in a couple of decades what the US achieved in 3 times that, but it also did that with a lot of state subsidies, let's not kid ourselves.

For example, EUV lithography exists because the US state sponsored Sandia Labs for the research, but we're supposed to think "China bad" when the CCP does the same? Same with other SV tech that came out of defense or state sponsored projects.

Also, the way the financial system is set up in the US and they way the VC sector works, is also somewhat of form of state subsidies in disguise since the US gov just prints loads of cheap money, investors would dump it on 100 companies, one would boom to become the world dominator, the other 99 would flop, and get written as a tax write-off, and presto, you have a VC sector that no other country can replicate because they don't own the money printer to the world's reserve currency.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitorous_eight

Post reply on HN