Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

21–30 of 74 posts

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

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's a thought experiment. They would be drawn to Intel under that set of circumstances. (Intel being singled out by a China for punitive sanctions.)

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

#22

> “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…

Money can only get you so far; government money often even less. Yes of course, Huawei and the whole high tech IT hardware sector is strategic, and this is both why the US government tried to kneecap China and why the Chinese government intervened to save its companies. But money doesn't turn by itself in technological progress and most other countries wouldn't have managed, even with the same amount of money.

>most other countries wouldn't have managed

This is really the crux. I don't think any hightech company from any other country could have survived Huawei tier sanctions US imposed, much less come back from it within a few years. Apart from sacrificing some of mobile/honor/consumer global footprint, HW's telco/ICT still has global market share except in a few countries US is pressing hard to get HW ban. Even then I wonder for how long/durable, half the reason countries including FVEY conceded to banning HW (after fairly prolonged negotiation/hesitation) was because US made decision for them via sanctions that made HW's ability to build gear/honor long term contract uncertain. While no US partners going to reverse position to piss off US, but they may just take sweet time/find excuses not to stripout./replace HW gear scheduled for next few years. Would not be surprised if they start asking for exemptions now that HW increasingly able to service gear without US inputs. Even US still has 20k+ pieces of HW + ZTE kit in domestic networks.

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

#23
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Turns out that if the US Govt really wanted to hobble Huawei long term then it should have “given” them upper management from Boeing, Intel, and a few others instead. Maybe even subsidize some McKenzie consultants for them!

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

#24

> “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…

Isn't that just Chinese policy cancelling out American policy. China prevented sanctions from killing Huawei by subsidizing them. But often those kinds of subsidies make companies weaker and less competitive in the long run. There are plenty of examples of that in the US. So if Huawei did get stronger and more resilient that is noteworthy. But it's probably too early too tell.

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

#25

> “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…

> Imagine China sanctions Intel with the intent of driving them out of key markets

China increasingly is in the consumer market (where the 28nm nodes Chinese players can domestically produce are competitive).

Chinese state agencies are phasing out Intel processors for domestic processors [0] and amendments to the CHIPS act increasingly restrict Intel and other grantees from purchasing Chinese intermediate parts [1], and Intel anyhow has export controls placed on it to prevent sales to Huawei and other controlled organizations [2]

In return, the US is helping subsidize Intel in building our High NA EUV capabilities (a major reason for the Intel layoffs this week) as well as Secure Enclave related R&D

The whole idea of the Sullivan Principle is to force Chinese players to spend more and more money but remaining the same distance apart (2 gen) [3]. The idea is Chinese players keep burning money building capacity, yet lagging behind relatively speaking, and that money could have been used for better applications by China.

Already China's GDP per Capita has remained stagnant since COVID began [4] and those tens of billions spent on building capacity could have been better applied building a more robust domestic economy, yet median per capita household incomes are stuck at around $4.6k/yr with a massive urban-rural gap (approx $7k urban, $2.9k rural) [5].

Without a robust domestic economy, and increased limits on export markets, this only leads to overproduction and deflation.

[0] - https://www.ft.com/content/7bf0f79b-dea7-49fa-8253-f678d5acd...

[1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-18/lawmakers...

[2] - https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-revoked-some-export-li...

[3] - https://www.belfercenter.org/event/competition-without-catas...

[4] - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...

[5] - https://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202402/t202402...

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

#26

> “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 not that money is everything, otherwise Boeing would be perfect , you also need talent and vision

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

#27
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?

Is it only confusing to me that the Americas region is the lowest one and that it barely dropped after the sanctions?

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

#28

> “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…

Isn't that just Chinese policy cancelling out American policy. China prevented sanctions from killing Huawei by subsidizing them. But often those kinds of subsidies make companies weaker and less competitive in the long run. There are plenty of examples of that in the US. So if Huawei did get stronger and more resilient that is noteworthy. But it's probably too early too tell.

> Isn't that just Chinese policy cancelling out American policy

Pretty much. And that's the point from the US side (http://industrialpolicy.us/resources/SpecificIndustries/IT/f...)

The whole idea of the Sullivan Principle is to force Chinese players to spend more and more money but remaining the same distance apart (2 gen) [0]. The idea is Chinese players keep burning money building capacity, yet lagging behind relatively speaking, and that money could have been used for better applications by China.

Already China's GDP per Capita has remained stagnant since COVID began [1] and those tens of billions spent on building capacity could have been better applied building a more robust domestic economy, yet median per capita household incomes are stuck at around $4.6k/yr with a massive urban-rural gap (approx $7k urban, $2.9k rural) [2]. Without a robust domestic economy, and increased limits on export markets, this only leads to overproduction and deflation.

Edit: can't reply, so replying in here.

Const 2015 dollars is still an approximation of production, and even then absolute household disposable income is low. It doesn't matter what GDP per Capita you have if the delta between that and median household income remains so large. All this implies is that the majority of revenue from production is captured by a minority. This is extremely rickety, and leads to long term economic malaise.

And it's not like you are paying in 2015 dollars in 2024 - absolute cost of inputs still change, and these kinds of transformations don't mean much when looked at holistically with other metrics like median household disposable income and nominal GDP per Capita.

Reply 2: Yet 50% of Chinese households still have a disposable income of well below $5k/yr. You can argue PPP all you want (it isn't even the correct application when discussing median incomes) yet inputs and all trade abroad continues to be executed at nominal rates. Only 13% of per capita household income per quarter is spent on transportation and telecom (ie. ~$50/mo per Chinese household), and much of that is spent on existing products not new products. Sure you have overproduction today, but what about 5 years from now? With absolute growth decreasing how are median household incomes expected to increase? And even the Chinese government has a finite amount of money - and instead of giving it to consumers to allow them to build a domestic economy it's only going to a handful of businesses that themselves are heavily automated and gatekept due to skilling requirements

[0] - https://www.belfercenter.org/event/competition-without-catas...

[1] - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...

[2] - https://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202402/t202402...

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

#29
post #27
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?

Is it only confusing to me that the Americas region is the lowest one and that it barely dropped after the sanctions?

1. EMEA is surprisingly often a larger market than "the Americas"

2. "that it barely dropped after the sanctions" - good point.

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

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. So they are not so much a threat that our military won't use them in foreign territory but they are so much of a threat that consumers are banned from getting them in the US. What a joke.
Post reply on HN