Miscellaneous News

[supersnoop]

China Geely saved Sweden Volvo.
Wingtech saved Nexperia from closing and laying off dozen of thousand employees.
Midea saved KUKA from going under.

If a Chinese company is allowed to buy an European company is because the European think that the company is going to sink no matter what and they hope the Chinese buyers stay with the losses and then they act all surprised when the Chinese management manage no only to save the company but to make it thrive and then they do the Nexperia thing they can't accept that.

A note, Geely in fact bailed out Ford as much as saved Volvo. Ford was facing serious financial difficulties, Volvo was a money losing operation. Geely was willing to pay a premium.

If the companies were successful, then they would not be buyout targets, whether the buyer is Chinese or someone else. I don't think there is an issue with accepting it for the most part. In the case of MG, it was known to be a corpse, so the surprise was certainly there, but there is no issue with acceptance.

Dutch are a special kind of crazy

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Why is China the "highest" threat to the Netherlands?

China’s ambition to reform the world order, “according to its own autocratic ideology,"

Are they trying to blame China for Trump or something?

Seemed a rather even-handed and even positive story on MG under SAIC ownership to me. For those with an historical attachment to the brand, it's an entirely legitimate question as to just how much British design and engineering heritage remains in MG's current lineup of vehicles. So far as I can Google, the answer is not much. SAIC/MG's offices in the UK appear to employ only a few dozen people. That's nothing like Volvo's workforce in Sweden, Mini's workforce in the UK (another formerly British brand now owned by BMW), or even Ford's engineering workforce in Australia. That's not a criticism, it's just a fact.

I've glimpsed a few MG Cybersters on the streets here. It's an attractive and reportedly fairly competent vehicle, but I wonder if it might've been a better idea to go for something smaller and cheaper, with less power and a greater focus on handling, closer in concept to the old MG TF roadster (Mazda MX-5 is another comparison point).

The difference is that Geely bought a functioning company in Volvo. Nanjing Motor (subsequently bought by SAIC) had bought Longbridge, but everything they had was woefully out of date and parts of the company had been broken off as part of bankruptcy proceedings.

 

[GZDRefugee]

China Geely saved Sweden Volvo.
Wingtech saved Nexperia from closing and laying off dozen of thousand employees.
Midea saved KUKA from going under.

If a Chinese company is allowed to buy an European company is because the European think that the company is going to sink no matter what and they hope the Chinese buyers stay with the losses and then they act all surprised when the Chinese management manage no only to save the company but to make it thrive and then they do the Nexperia thing because they can't accept that.

At this point, Chinese companies deserve to get betrayed. The pattern is glaringly obvious yet they refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[tokenanalyst]

At this point, Chinese companies deserve to get betrayed. The pattern is glaringly obvious yet they refuse to acknowledge it.

The case of Volvo was very successful, Don´t know about KUKA but Nexperia was another level of think tank stoogery.

 

[siegecrossbow]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Hasan_Piker/comments/1suyiy0
I’d donate 5,000 Xi-bucks to a livestream of Hasan putting a shock collar on Ben Shapiro.

 

[Lethe]

The difference is that Geely bought a functioning company in Volvo. Nanjing Motor (subsequently bought by SAIC) had bought Longbridge, but everything they had was woefully out of date and parts of the company had been broken off as part of bankruptcy proceedings.

Like I said, I'm not criticising MG/SAIC. They've obviously made a considered decision about just how British their MG vehicles need to be (not very) and it seems to be working out well for them, both in the UK and throughout Europe more broadly, as well as here in Australia. But you can't begrudge the older man from the doco who grew up with his British MGs observing that these new MGs are Chinese vehicles with a familiar badge, particularly when he seems to be more-or-less correct.

When GM pulled the plug on Holden local manufacturing here in the mid-teens, they brought in a rebadged Opel Insignia from Germany as the new Holden Commodore. By all accounts it was a fairly competent vehicle, and in retrospect the V6 AWD wagon configuration was an underappreciated offering, but folks were just not interested. We knew that Holden was dead and that Commodore was dead and that this new vehicle was not a real Commodore. GM killed Holden off entirely around 2020. For better or worse, folks develop symbolic associations and emotional attachments with the vehicles they drive. Companies are happy to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

of those favourable associations as they can, but those associations can also turn against them. In any case, I'm sure MG's sales figures in Europe more than compensate for a minority of grumpy old-timers.

 

[tokenanalyst]

 

[Thecore]

At this point, Chinese companies deserve to get betrayed. The pattern is glaringly obvious yet they refuse to acknowledge it.

If Chinese entities can quickly suck out valuable IP, then any devious actions taken by the host countries of these acquired companies down the road is an acceptable loss. This might be exactly be accusation that western governments foist on Chinese companies, but screw em. If they're too slow to block the acquisitions in the first place, then it's their own fault. Ain't no such thing as fair in love and war (which China is de-facto in vis-a-vis Europe in the economic realm).

 

[pmc]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2049650324189942061

i am not sure what new info gain from this video. these Apache were ordered much earlier. flying high without drones and no ejection seat. Apache type chopper simply not suitable anymore.
see video. how lightly they are armed and short range targeting. this unlikely to change. when there is less fuel there is less need for rockets. helicopter mission is hitting smaller individual targets. when these chopper in air defense role they fly high and look down for drones thats what new radar for Ka-52M. that RCF round range is 4km.

 

[Kalum Pupeter]

Apple posts record March quarter results on 28% sales jump in China​

Greater China -- covering the mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan -- continued the strong sales it saw during the December quarter, recording a 28.1% year-over-year revenue increase to $20.5 billion.

Cook's successor faces the task of maintaining strong iPhone sales in China while diversifying its supply chain away from the country.
Nikkei Asia previously

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

will likely not accelerate the supply chain shift, at least not in the next 12 months, partly to ensure a smooth leadership transition but also due to difficulties it has run into elsewhere, primarily in India.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Can someone explain why the PRC leadership allows Apple to generate such enormous profits in China when there appears to be little to no direct benefit in return, especially while Chinese companies are denied comparable access to US markets? What is the underlying strategy here? Is this a deliberate long-term policy, a pragmatic economic calculation, or simply institutional inertia?

If Chinese firms like Huawei and others have faced years of restrictions, bans, and political pressure from the US government and its establishment, wouldn’t it make more strategic sense for China to respond in kind by removing Apple from the Chinese market rather than continuing to give it such lucrative access?

 

[Mar ling]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Can someone explain why the PRC leadership allows Apple to generate such enormous profits in China when there appears to be little to no direct benefit in return, especially while Chinese companies are denied comparable access to US markets? What is the underlying strategy here? Is this a deliberate long-term policy, a pragmatic economic calculation, or simply institutional inertia?

If Chinese firms like Huawei and others have faced years of restrictions, bans, and political pressure from the US government and its establishment, wouldn’t it make more strategic sense for China to respond in kind by removing Apple from the Chinese market rather than continuing to give it such lucrative access?

If Apple were directly removed from the Chinese market, it wouldn't adopt YMTC flash and CXMT memory.