May I ask what field you are in? It makes perfect sense to me that a politically sensitive and strategically critical company (in a politically sensitive and strategically critical industry) MUST move towards vertically integrating its supply chain. The liabilities of selling your own intermediate inputs to your direct competitors is too great to justify expanding your revenue streams by a few billions (or even few tens of billions) of USD per year. Intel and Qualcomm sell their processors because they don't actually compete with their customers. They purely sell intermediate inputs while their customers purely sell finished products.
Take a step back and look at the big picture beyond the revenue stream. This is about supply chain independence and global dominance. It's about being able to not just survive, but maybe even thrive during a hypothetical period of complete and total cold war between China and the U.S.
now
NATO weighing Huawei spying risks to member countries
Phone envy
By Mar 17, 2019, 9:00am EDT
The US is falling behind on phone design, and foldables are the proof. This year’s Mobile World Congress was full of foldables, from to to to to the to .
But all of those devices have one thing in common: like the last few waves of innovative phone designs released overseas, they won’t be available in America in any meaningful way. Looking at the foldable landscape, there’s basically only one device out there that will actually be sold in the US, from carriers, without requiring to deal with import fees or cellular compatibility: .
This isn’t a new phenomenon. Cool phones from overseas have always had a tough time making their way to America, due to market demand, trade agreements, and complex other geopolitical factors. The current is an obvious example.
But the problem isn’t just about US customers missing out on cool and interesting phones, although that’s plenty frustrating. It’s also that flagships from companies like Oppo and Huawei are increasingly some of the best hardware in the world, offering new ideas and specs on par with the best phones in the US, but at far more affordable prices. And that means less competition in a stagnant domestic phone market that largely just consists of Apple and Samsung phones.
Huawei, Xiaomi, and Oppo are the No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 smartphone makers in the world by marketshare, but in the United States there’s a virtual duopoly. , in the fourth quarter of 2018, Apple controlled a 54 percent chunk of the market, while Samsung had 22 percent — together, the two brands make up more than three quarters of all phones sold in the US. The next closest competitor is LG, at 12 percent, and it’s been struggling with smartphone sales for years. Even seeming juggernauts like Google, with its Pixel line critically lauded and benefitting from the full firepower of the company’s marketing behind it, and Sony, a brand US consumers are incredibly familiar with, can barely make a dent.
So even if Chinese brands could sell in the US, odds are they’ll face an uphill battle breaking into the market. But it’s largely a moot point, since right now it’s not even a competition at all. Additionally, the boringness of US phones also hurts innovation. Right now, major devices in the US are dull, with notches and iPhone X-ish designs. As far as most US customers are concerned, that’s the height of innovation, so much so that when Samsung comes out with its , it feels like a victory. But Chinese phones have already far surpassed those notched designs due to the faster and more experimental pace of technology.
Outside the US, the phone world is filled with truly weird and innovative ideas. Bored of dull, black and white phones? Check out these neon-hued gradients that shimmer in the sun:
Hate your notch? How about a pop-up camera that appears when you need it, and leaves your screen gloriously unmarred when you don’t?
Or maybe just try a that flips around for selfies, or , or . Sure, not all of them are the most practical, but they’re pushing the envelope forward in a way that Apple and Samsung’s hardware simply aren’t.
Plus, , the fact that only one or two of those devices will be available in the US for now is going to severely limit their adoption. Right now, the foldable space is a free-for-all, with widely varied ideas of what styles of folding phones work and don’t. But US customers are only going to get to see a fraction of what’s out there. Right now, Samsung’s Galaxy Fold is the only game in town for US customers, and even if you prefer the slim style and inverse fold that Huawei is using on the Mate X, you’re likely out of luck.
Now, it’s possible to circumvent some of the issues — if you’re willing to pay a premium, you can import all the latest and greatest phones from outside the US. In theory, unified telecom standards mean unlocked cell phones aren’t restricted to any carrier: you can simply buy any phone on the internet and be good to go.
But the reality is more complicated. Different carriers and phones support different LTE bands and different cellular technologies (hello, GSM vs. CDMA). Without the partnership and blessing of a carrier, it’s a crapshoot as to whether your new device will actually work properly when it’s powered on stateside.
These compatibility problems are only going to get worse in the future . It’s bad enough finding an unlocked phone that supports your carrier’s best LTE bands in the US. Throwing in the chaos of different chunks of 5G spectrum that vary from carrier to carrier with different modem and antennas requirements will only make things worse. With that may mean 5G coverage gaps, it seems virtually impossible that you’ll simply be able to buy an unlocked 5G phone and have it work in the US, at least not for years to come.
It’s not like Chinese companies haven’t tried to enter the US market. Xiaomi did a push a few years back, but only ended up selling and and even that underpinned scooter startups like Bird — but no phones. Huawei has arguably gotten the closest of all. At CES 2018, Huawei was on the verge of announcing a deal with AT&T to sell the Mate 10 Pro in the US, but due to . Verizon was reportedly scared away as well.
Both those efforts ended in failure, and with the political winds blowing the way they are, it’s increasingly looking like the US phone market won’t have to worry about competition from companies like Huawei or Xiaomi anytime soon. But that doesn’t make it any more enjoyable to be stuck on the sidelines watching all the cool hardware from afar.
Canada is both blessed and cursed for having the U.S. as its neighbor and ally. American investment is undeniably the biggest booster of Canadian economic growth, making the country what it is today: a developed and rich nation. The cost, however, has been extremely high, culminating in Canada surrendering its economic and geopolitical sovereignty and subjecting it to U.S. extraterritoriality.
American economic dominance over Canada began before Confederation in 1867 when its prime minister, John A. MacDonald, implemented the National Policy with the tariff as its cornerstone. The thinking was imposing 33-percent duty would protect infant Canadian import-substitute industries from the more mature foreign enterprises, particularly those of the United States.
Instead of paying the tariffs, American enterprises came into Canada through the "backdoor," investing in manufacturing and resource industries. Unable to compete with the more technologically advanced, powerful and richer U.S. firms, Canadian enterprises were unable to grow and relegated into a state of inefficiency.
Today, the U.S. is the country's biggest trade partner, buying over 75 percent of Canadian exports (mostly produced by U.S.-owned firms). America is also Canada's largest foreign investor, owning more than 50 percent of Canadian corporate assets.
Indeed, major Canadian industries, from auto manufacturing (i.e. General Motors) to retailing (Walmart), are dominated by U.S. enterprises, making the joke "when the U.S. sneezes, Canada catches pneumonia" a truism. That is, Canada has turned into a "branch" of the United States.
Effects of being a 'branch' of U.S. economy
As a "branch" of the U.S. economy, Canada has paid a very high price, limiting its economic prospects, as major decisions of foreign investors are made at the U.S.-located headquarters.
For example, General Motors shutting down its Canadian operations was a head office decision to restructure the company, making it more profitable and in line with future demands. But that decision put thousands of Canadian auto and related workers on the unemployment line.
The auto industry has a massive multiplier effect, from steel manufacturing to dealership, thus closing down operations would affect them too.
Further, the U.S.-Canada "branch economy relationship" has "truncated" the economy, limiting Canada's research and development activities and trading opportunities. Major U.S. enterprises not only prohibit their Canadian subsidiaries from carrying out R&D, but also demand the latter to pay for the cost of the activities in America. Under U.S. government pressure, Canadian-located American manufactures were barred from trading with Cuba.
In short, the U.S. is "choking" Canada's economy and polity, prompting successive Canadian governments, particularly Liberal, to diversify their economic relationship and walk a more independent geopolitical path. Jean Chretien was the first Liberal prime minister to lead large delegations to China. Paul Martin followed suit. The Justin Trudeau government is no exception and, in fact, has made it a priority to establish a free trade agreement (FTA) with China.
However, the desire to forge a close trade and investment relationship with China was again derailed by the U.S. with the arrest of Chinese high-technology conglomerate Huawei's chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou and the signing of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, a replacement for the existing North America Free Trade Agreement.
Arresting Ms. Meng sunk Sino-Canadian relations to a new low, not seen since Stephen Harper was elected prime minister. Shortly after assuming office, he accused China of stealing Canadian technological secrets, probably in reference to a Chinese-made mobile phone that looked similar to Canada's Blackberry. Harper also vowed not to "sell Canadian values for the almighty dollar," a statement interpreted as a signal to downgrade the Sino-Canadian relationship.
However, Harper made a "U-turn" on Sino-Canadian trade and investment relations in 2012, but only because the economy was slowing down and after pressure from the business community. In that year, the two countries completed negotiations on many deals that were in the making for over 20 years, illustrating how important China could be to Canada.
Section 32.10 of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) stipulates a trade partner must inform the others if it intends to form an FTA with a "non-market" economy and the latter (U.S.) have the right to terminate the agreement was meant to bar Canada from doing business with China. Because of its reliance on the U.S. economy, the threat would likely be enough to discourage any Canadian government from establishing a trade relationship with the Asian giant, at least in the foreseeable future.
U.S. 'imperial' reach extends to geopolitical realm
U.S. territoriality has extended to the geopolitical realm as well. For example, Canada along with the UK and France joining the U.S. in its "freedom of navigation operations" in the South China Sea can be construed as act of extraterritoriality. The waterway is over 10,000 kilometers from Canadian (British and French) shores.
What's more, China has not shown in any shape or form that it threatens Canadian (British and French) national security. Besides, why would the three want to irk China unnecessarily? They want rapprochement with China to boost their economic well-being after all.
Canada, of course, is not the only ally that is a victim of U.S. extraterritoriality. The U.S. has threatened reprisals against its Oceanic, Asian and European allies should they allow Huawei equipment to be installed in their 5G network.
Italy is being chastised for joining the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative. European Union countries such as Germany are being threatened with U.S. sanctions for going ahead with the Nord Stream Two pipeline, buying Russia natural gas instead of the more expensive U.S. product.
U.S. imposing extraterritoriality on other countries has existed since the World War Two, but not as blatant as under President Donald Trump. He (and his senior officials) openly demand friends and foes to toe the American line and threatens reprisals if they do not. For example, the U.S. under Trump has demanded China give up its development architecture and threatened to impose tariffs on all Chinese-made goods if it doesn't.
U.S. extraterritoriality has cost its allies and foes hugely. However, the problem of bullying friends might turn them into foes, as some European nations are beginning to oppose the world's only superpower. For example, Germany and other EU nations are defying U.S. pressure on banning Huawei from their 5G network and not sending ships to provoke Russia.
I've just bought a gorgeous Huawei MateBook X Pro. The best Windows laptop ... at a very affordable price of $1299. I didn't know Huawei also makes laptop until recently because all the Huawei news coverage and they had only entered the laptop market for a few years and has become one of the best. It also gives your MacBook a run for the money.
To be continued...
from a major retailer here:It's already on sale to the public?
It's already on sale to the public?
By and March 17, 2019
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s to prevent countries from using Huawei and other Chinese telecommunications equipment in their next-generation wireless networks has faltered, with even some of America’s closest allies rejecting the United States’ argument that the companies pose a security threat.
Over the past several months, American officials have tried to pressure, scold and, increasingly, threaten other nations that are considering using Huawei in building fifth-generation, or 5G, wireless networks. Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, has pledged to withhold intelligence from nations that continue to use Chinese telecom equipment. The American ambassador to Germany cautioned Berlin this month that the United States would curtail intelligence sharing if that country used Huawei.
The warnings stem from the United States’ concern that Huawei and other Chinese telecom companies are a significant security threat given Beijing’s control over the industry. Top officials have pointed to new Chinese security laws that require Huawei and other companies to provide information to intelligence officials, arguing China could gain access to the vast amounts of data that will ultimately travel over 5G, allowing Beijing to spy on companies, individuals and governments — an accusation Huawei has vehemently denied.
But the campaign has run aground. , Germany, India and the are among the countries signaling they are unlikely to back the American effort to entirely ban Huawei from building their 5G networks. While some countries like Britain share the United States’ concerns, they argue that the security risks can be managed by closely scrutinizing the company and its software.
The decisions are a blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to rein in Beijing’s economic and technological ambitions and to stop China from playing a central role in the next iteration of the internet.
American government officials are now looking for other ways to curb Huawei’s global rise without the cooperation of overseas allies, including possibly restricting American companies from supplying Huawei with key components that it needs to build 5G networks across the world.
“It is looking dicey. We are running out of runway,” said Mike Rogers, the former Republican congressman who led the House Intelligence Committee and who has long been a fierce critic of Huawei.
The United States is not ready to admit defeat, but its campaign has suffered from what foreign officials say is a scolding approach and a lack of concrete evidence that Huawei poses a real risk. It has also been hampered by a perception among European and Asian officials that President Trump may not be fully committed to the fight.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly undercut his own Justice Department, which unveiled against Huawei and its chief financial officer with accusations of fraud, sanctions evasion and obstruction of justice. Mr. Trump has suggested that the charges as part of a trade deal with China. The president previously on another Chinese telecom firm accused of violating American sanctions, ZTE, after a personal appeal by President Xi Jinping of China.
Those moves have only deepened concerns that the administration’s fight against Huawei is not really about national security and instead reflects its political and economic ambitions.
European and Asian officials have complained privately that recent American intelligence briefings for allies did not share any sort of classified information that clearly demonstrated how the Chinese government used Huawei to steal information, according to people familiar with the discussions. European officials have told counterparts that if the United States has evidence the Chinese government has used its companies to do so, they should disclose it.
One senior European telecommunications executive said that no American officials had presented “actual facts” about China’s abuse of Huawei networks.
Ren Zhengfei, the founder of Huawei, of having political motivations in leveling criminal charges against the company and has said the firm does not spy for China.