151–160 of 162 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nvidia are supposed to be using RISC-V inside future GPUs.
To replace their falcon cores in the places I talked about in my second paragraph.
TensorFlow and Keras have such a large first mover advantage, the custom chips and MindSpore would have to be very efficient and inexpensive to make real inroads.
So there are basically 2 possibilities. It is possible for Huawei, and Chinese companies in general, to build a successful alternative without using American technology (for the purposes of this post, I'm defining successful as equivalent to their American tech using competitors). It's not possible. What the actions on Huawei have done, however, is ensure that if that possibility exists, very significant chunks of Ch…
It also shows how short sighted USA is with this. They’ve given China incentive to reduce their reliance on the US and give the US less leverage overall. China may set a damaging precedent here with regard to US power
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You imply Huawei was playing by the "rules" and not already stealing. [1] [2] [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/us-indicts-huawe... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-04/huawei-st...
"Tappy" again, plus a story from Bloomberg, which has shattered its reputation when it comes to technology/security reporting (SuperMicro, among other false articles whipping up anti-Chinese hysteria).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You imply Huawei was playing by the "rules" and not already stealing. [1] [2] [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/us-indicts-huawe... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-04/huawei-st...
This seems disingenuous and arbitrary considering the decision to put Iran on a ban list was basically taken unilaterally by the US, all the while Cisco and Bluecoat were selling tech to build the great firewall of China, and a long list of other (US, Israeli, etc.) companies are selling tech to basically every authoritarian, oppressive regime out there without any legal or moral consequences. As for Huawei, the fact…
So there are basically 2 possibilities. It is possible for Huawei, and Chinese companies in general, to build a successful alternative without using American technology (for the purposes of this post, I'm defining successful as equivalent to their American tech using competitors). It's not possible. What the actions on Huawei have done, however, is ensure that if that possibility exists, very significant chunks of Ch…
It also shows how short sighted USA is with this. They’ve given China incentive to reduce their reliance on the US and give the US less leverage overall. China may set a damaging precedent here with regard to US power
I'd say precedent was set when congress blocked China from joining the ISS, leading to China developing its own space station program.
What do they expect. The US tariff wall and embargo is essentially a subsidy that encourages local development. Without it it’s cheaper to continue to depend on US controlled designs. Essentially low tariffs make it hard for local industries to get themselves above the price floor. These parts aren’t much to get excited abOUT today but they’ve finally given China a reason to subsidize local efforts, resulting in the…
"Essentially low tariffs make it hard for local industries to get themselves above the price floor." This applies to both countries.
Look at electronics: yes, China has tons of people building phones, but Chinese companies get about $20 on each iPhone; other parts of the supply chain get dribs and drabs and Apple pockets a couple of hundred bucks, almost all of the profit. trying to do all that in the US wouldn't add much to the GDP and conversely would take people away from working on higher value goods. So for a wealthy country the tariffs not only don't help, they hurt.
Conversely US restrictions raise the value of Chinese companies working their own way up the value chain. Before those restrictions were in place it simply wasn't worth designing, say, a new chip; that takes a long time and while you're doing so other companies are smoking you by selling low cost chips designed elsewhere. Essentially the US was sucking the oxygen out of their competitor's market...but these tariffs stop that.
It's the same principle of why the US wouldn't want its NATO partners spending too much on defense: essentially bribing them to not have much military is cheaper than getting entangled in a future war on the continent. Again, trying to pressure them to spend more is a very expensive move in the medium and long term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As I understand it, the GPU world is full of patents and dominated by just a few parties. This would be a impediment typically, but considering they're blackballed already, how beholden are they to patents? Block imports? Think that's being done already. Requiring US companies to not do business with them? That's being done already. At this point, they just have to ride out the US/China trade war and then when thin…
You imply Huawei was playing by the "rules" and not already stealing. [1] [2] [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/us-indicts-huawe... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-04/huawei-st...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems disingenuous and arbitrary considering the decision to put Iran on a ban list was basically taken unilaterally by the US, all the while Cisco and Bluecoat were selling tech to build the great firewall of China, and a long list of other (US, Israeli, etc.) companies are selling tech to basically every authoritarian, oppressive regime out there without any legal or moral consequences. As for Huawei, the fact…
Whats arbitrary about pointing out a string of high profile reports regarding Huawei attempting to steal trade secrets? I don't see the same reports coming out of US companies in regards to Chinese companies.
The decision to put Iran on a ban list, as I wrote very clearly.
> reports regarding Huawei attempting to steal trade secrets
This is called a "national security" issue but doesn't appear to be treated as such. Which means the threat is not taken seriously or there is no threat.
> I don't see the same reports coming out of US companies in regards to Chinese companies
I'm not sure I understand. The reports about Huawei came from US companies. But in case you were wondering why there are no reports about US companies attempting to steal trade secrets there are 2 possible answers: 1) US companies never spy or 2) US media never talks about it. Which sounds more plausible to you? And if it's 2) I'll ask again: is it fair to form an opinion having only half of the picture?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Tappy" again, plus a story from Bloomberg, which has shattered its reputation when it comes to technology/security reporting (SuperMicro, among other false articles whipping up anti-Chinese hysteria).
Ok, how about NPR: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/08/730898429/huawei-accused-of-t... Or ZDNET: https://www.zdnet.com/article/huawei-regularly-tried-to-stea... or CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/22/huawei-executive-accusetd-of...
The ZDNET story is about a Huawei engineer ... wait for it ... asking someone at Foxconn about what components Apple uses in its smart watches.
The CNBC story is about Huawei and a tech company founded by one of their former employees suing one another, each alleging the other stole trade secrets. These sorts of disputes happen all the time.
You'll notice that nowadays, there's tons of reporting on every minor IP dispute or claim involving Huawei. At the same time, and I'm sure this is completely coincidental, the United States government is trying to paint Huawei as a "bad actor," so that it can be used as a hostage in the trade war.