Is the US shooting itself in the foot by banning Huawei?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Apple's market share increased.


Because the market contracted and stopped buying the "others"? I should note that Apple sold less than over 3 million units YoY, or over 22% less from 2017, despite Single's Day, Christmas, and the first quarter of new models, iPhone XR, XS and XS Max, which is supposedly the best buying season of the year. Next successive quarters these new models become less new. Its like a movie, you get the best sales out of the gate, and then goes lower as time goes on. This means that iPhone sales are going to get lower from this point, unless Apple has to eat the bullet and start cutting prices drastically. Furthermore, new models are coming out from the Chinese field, including the much rumored Huawei P30, the Xiaomi folding phone, and the recently shown Meizu Zero.

I also wonder what happened to Xiaomi to have also lost so much sales YoY.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
The US has already shot itself on the foot somewhere when it comes to the availability of the best tech products.

Despite being the birthplace of Apple and Android, the smartphone market in the US feels like backwater and boring compared to the rest of the world, especially in China, Japan, Southeast Asia, India, and the best mobile tech hubs in the world, Hong Kong and Singapore. The selection of phones in the US is absolutely so boring, namely a choice between rotten Apples and Samsuck. Once in a while, you have a ray of light coming from OnePlus and the recent Pocophone F1, the OnePlus 6 and the Poco F1 made a big splash with phone enthusiasts in 2018, while you wonder WTF happened to Google's design talent when they came out with the Pixel 3.

Now you can blame two things to that. The first is the nature of the US carrier industry, and the carrier contracts that locks in a market. There is no true free market here, and honest to goodness market competition between product design and affordability. The second is worst --- the US patent troll industry --- where paper companies sue tech companies over dubious patents, and a highly questionable and oddball compared to the rest of the world, US court system that upholds these patent trolls. These patents could not stand a chance outside of the US as we have seen with many cases. The patent troll industry literally puts a tax on each phone sold in the US, making them cost higher than they should go for, at the expense of the American consumer.

Then you go on to other things. The US telecom industry isn't the best in the world for its contract prices, its mobile connection speeds, and in terms of coverage. Not the best, not the worst but somehow in the middle of the world with so many countries ahead of it, even Peru. Like hell, Mexico has a faster mobile connection speed than the US.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Not saying China is off the hook, as China is still among the worst when it comes to the Internet but this is due to the Great Firewall, but most importantly, the sheer density and population of China that makes mobile Internet improvement a constantly moving target and a great technological challenge.
 

s002wjh

Junior Member
Only for 2018 overall, and that despite the big drop in Q4. Pretty telling how big of a impact Trumps trade war had despite no official Chinese action targeting Apple.

Now imagine what it would be like if Beijing went after Apple like Washington is going after Huawei.
Apple doesn't make telecon equipment like Huawei. Its those communication center, data center, base station etc, US go after. Also Apple are assemble in China, if china go after apple, it will hurt chinese worker too.
 

s002wjh

Junior Member
The US has already shot itself on the foot somewhere when it comes to the availability of the best tech products.

Despite being the birthplace of Apple and Android, the smartphone market in the US feels like backwater and boring compared to the rest of the world, especially in China, Japan, Southeast Asia, India, and the best mobile tech hubs in the world, Hong Kong and Singapore. The selection of phones in the US is absolutely so boring, namely a choice between rotten Apples and Samsuck. Once in a while, you have a ray of light coming from OnePlus and the recent Pocophone F1, the OnePlus 6 and the Poco F1 made a big splash with phone enthusiasts in 2018, while you wonder WTF happened to Google's design talent when they came out with the Pixel 3.

the phone market doesn't make much profit anymore, which is why Samsung are concentrate on various semicondutors. Apple revenue are from mostly iphone.
 

localizer

Colonel
Registered Member
the phone market doesn't make much profit anymore, which is why Samsung are concentrate on various semicondutors. Apple revenue are from mostly iphone.
More US gov't interferes more China will move towards indigenous everything. If they wanted to keep China dependent they shoulda continued what they were doing and make Chiense people love them more. Much easier than trying to take down a nation of 1.4 billion people by telling them they're evil and have no place in the world.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Observe western propaganda in action.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Trudeau fires Canada's ambassador to China amid Huawei controversy

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has fired Canada's ambassador to China, John McCallum.

It follows controversial comments Mr McCallum made about an extradition case involving a senior executive from the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei.

Mr Trudeau said in a statement he had asked John McCallum to step down, but did not offer a reason.

The detention of Meng Wanzhou, at the request of the US, angered China and soured Canada's relations with Beijing.

Ms Meng, Huawei's chief financial officer, is accused by the US of evading sanctions on Iran. Both she and Huawei deny those allegations.

What did Justin Trudeau say?
In a statement, the Canadian prime minister said: "Last night I asked for and accepted John McCallum's resignation as Canada's ambassador to China."

The veteran diplomat, Mr Trudeau added, had served Canadians honourably and with distinction with many positions in cabinet.

He also thanked the diplomat and his family for their service.

What about the ambassador's remarks?
Mr McCallum caused controversy on Tuesday when he publicly argued that the US extradition request for Ms Meng was seriously flawed.

The next day he issued a statement saying that he "misspoke" and regretted that his comments had created "confusion".

But on Friday he was quoted as saying it would be "great for Canada" if the US dropped the request.

Mr McCallum was appointed Canada's ambassador to China in 2017, stepping down as the immigration minister.

Canadian media say he was eager to take over the posting because of his strong personal connection to China.

Mr McCallum's wife is ethnically Chinese, and he had a large Chinese-Canadian population in his former constituency in Ontario.

Mr McCallum also served as Canada's defence minister in 2002-03.

What's the latest on Meng Wanzhou's case?
She was arrested on 1 December in Canada's western city of Vancouver at the request of the US.

She was later granted a C$10m (£5.7m; $7.6m) bail by a local court. But she is under surveillance 24 hours a day and must wear an electronic ankle tag.

_105288325_hi051026370.jpg
Image copyrightREUTERS
Image captionMeng Wanzhou denies all the allegations against her
Earlier this month, US officials confirmed they planned to pursue the extradition of Ms Wanzhou.

Washington has 60 days to file a formal demand for extradition, a deadline that will be reached 30 January.

China's foreign ministry has urged US officials to withdraw the arrest order and refrain from moving ahead with the extradition request.

Ms Meng's case has led to rising diplomatic tensions between Canada and China.

_104767556_composite.png
Image copyrightAFP
Image captionCanadian nationals Michael Spavor (left) and Michael Kovrig have been put under "compulsory measures"
Earlier this month,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
after a court said a jail term of 15 years was too lenient.

Two other Canadians - businessman Michael Spavor and former diplomat Michael Kovrg - were arrested following the detention of Ms Meng.

Some China analysts believe that the arrests were a tit-for-tat response to her detention, a claim Chinese officials have denied.

Noticed how the BBC effectively censored the ambassador’s words by summarising it as merely suggesting the American case was seriously flawed. That’s the heart and soul of the story, and they summed it up in one sentence and rapidly moved on.

You can bet that had someone said something bad about China, the BBC would quote every last word said, repeatedly.

Noticed how they inserted the first link to the Canadian claim that the case was not politically motivated.

And capped it all of with the case of the arrested Canadians to all but explicitly say the Chinese cases are politically motivated.

This is how the western MSM censors the news and propagate its propaganda - not by outright censoring the news, but by selecting the emphasis on what POV they allow to be told.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Observe western propaganda in action.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




Noticed how the BBC effectively censored the ambassador’s words by summarising it as merely suggesting the American case was seriously flawed. That’s the heart and soul of the story, and they summed it up in one sentence and rapidly moved on.

You can bet that had someone said something bad about China, the BBC would quote every last word said, repeatedly.

Noticed how they inserted the first link to the Canadian claim that the case was not politically motivated.

And capped it all of with the case of the arrested Canadians to all but explicitly say the Chinese cases are politically motivated.

This is how the western MSM censors the news and propagate its propaganda - not by outright censoring the news, but by selecting the emphasis on what POV they allow to be told.
100% agrees. This was what I was saying a few post back.
This is how the west propoganda machine works. It's never to ban things immediately. It's simply mis-information, part quotes, mis-quotes and last resorts lies.
I mean the BBC is a great example. Whenever the BBC quotes reports from other countries media the British government don't agree with. It always say thinks like "state media. Government mouthpiece" look at the example of the recent Saudi case. They got treated with kids glove. If that was China. They would have thrown the kitchen sink at it.
Another thing is when BBC quotes "state media, government mouthpiece". It does it without any sense irony.
I mean, come on! What dies BBC stand for? British broadcasting cooperation. Paid for by the British taxpayer with appointments by the British government. If that's not the monthpiece of a state media, I don't know what is!
But, of course they keep repeating to their audience how impartial they are. Almost everyday they repeat this. So as the old saying goes. " if a lie gets repeated many times........ you know the rest"
if this ambassador thing was the other way round, and China sack their ambassador. The westen MSM will go overtime in demonising China as authoterian state hell bend on clamping down freedom, descent and liberty. With photos of the 4th June incident thrown in.
And to milk it out as long as possibe. They will get the nobel prize committee readied the Nobel prize for the ambassador in a few years time!
 

s002wjh

Junior Member
More US gov't interferes more China will move towards indigenous everything. If they wanted to keep China dependent they shoulda continued what they were doing and make Chiense people love them more. Much easier than trying to take down a nation of 1.4 billion people by telling them they're evil and have no place in the world.
Problem is no US or it's allies will trust china telecommunications completely . it's like asking the like of Cisco to build core telecommunications network in China . The smartphones phones don't have profit s as before. US already considered china as it's near peer rival.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
Problem is no US or it's allies will trust china telecommunications completely . it's like asking the like of Cisco to build core telecommunications network in China . The smartphones phones don't have profit s as before. US already considered china as it's near peer rival.

Then it is basically a stalemate. US can’t offer the tech itself but it is also unacceptable to buy it. Usually in such a situation you’d just try to be more positive with the other country and double check whatever they send over, that’s what China did itself on some things during the 80s.
 

weig2000

Captain
Good article from The Economist on US's extraterritorial justice and long-arm jurisdiction. The primary reason TE got into this reporting is because a lot of European corporations have become the target of the US, but it does shed light on this usually murky area and the game the US plays.

Uncle Sam’s game
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Canada’s arrest of Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s finance chief, is the latest example

20190119_WBD001_0.jpg

Print edition | Business
Jan 17th 2019 | PARIS

VANCOUVER AIRPORT is an unlikely venue for the genesis of a global spat. But repercussions from the detention by Canadian authorities of Meng Wanzhou while in transit there on December 1st are still spreading. Ms Meng, finance chief of Huawei, and daughter of the giant tech company’s founder, Ren Zhengfei, was arrested at the request of American prosecutors investigating the firm’s alleged business ties with Iran, which is under American sanctions. Chinese authorities have arrested a number of Canadians in response; this week a court sentenced another to death for drug- smuggling (see
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
).

Ms Meng is not accused of breaking Chinese laws, nor those of Canada. That matters little. Since the turn of the century, America has ramped up judicial programmes whose reach is not restricted by its borders. Focused on enforcing its sanctions, reducing corruption in poor countries and fighting money-laundering and terrorism financing, it has found ways of prosecuting companies and their executives far beyond its shores. Ms Meng, who is out on bail and preparing to fight extradition in a hearing expected next month, could face decades in jail.

America’s aims are often laudable. Much wrongdoing has been brought to light, and probably prevented, as a result of its actions. But the continued growth of such programmes is raising questions about the fairness of America imposing its mores in overseas jurisdictions. Most of the companies caught in its legal net are foreign, often European. Some come from countries in which doing business with Iran, for example, would be no problem were it not for America’s stance. As a result, critics who decry what they call America’s financial imperialism are looking for ways to limit its reach.

Policymakers and business figures in Europe are peeved at having to heed American laws, and they suspect other motives. “European companies are increasingly impacted by the extraterritoriality of US sanctions,” says Pierre Gattaz, head of BusinessEurope, the European Union’s main employer federation. “Moreover, these are increasingly instrumentalised to promote economic interests,” he adds. There are instances where America’s long legal reach may have given an edge to its own firms over foreign rivals, as in the case of General Electric’s purchase of Alstom of France in 2014 (see
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). Ever mindful of diplomatic norms, President Donald Trump has linked Ms Meng’s legal fate to the prospects of America getting a good deal in trade talks with China.

It is America’s central role in the global economy that gives it the exorbitant privilege of imposing its way in boardrooms across the world. Some forms of sanctions merely ban companies trading in embargoed countries from selling to America. Other programmes, notably the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which battles against corporate graft, can result in prosecutions in criminal courts.

Several elements tie together America’s various legal forays abroad. The first is their creeping extraterritoriality. American law starts with a presumption against application of its statutes beyond its borders. But prosecutors have wide authority over how the laws are interpreted. They have adopted an ever-more-expansive interpretation of who is subject to American law, lawyers say.

A banking transaction that ultimately passes through New York—as many do, given the centrality of American dollars to global trade—can give prosecutors a toehold to inspect it. If two executives outside America use Google’s Gmail to communicate about a bribe, say, American prosecutors can claim that the Americanness of the email provider can make it their business.

The global banking system also gives America an advantage. Lenders have been hit hard by American prosecutors, notably BNP Paribas, a French lender walloped in 2014 with an $8.9bn fine for facilitating trade with Sudan, Cuba and Iran. Deutsche Bank was fined $425m in 2017 for helping launder $10bn from Russia. No surprise that most banks would sooner denounce a dodgy client to America’s authorities than keep doing business with them.

Along with companies, some banks have had to agree to “monitors”—independent observers paid for by the firm but reporting to American authorities—as a condition of avoiding prosecution. According to the Wall Street Journal, it was one such monitor at HSBC (which agreed to monitoring after being fined $1.9bn in 2012 for allowing Mexican drug cartels to launder money through its systems) who notified American prosecutors of suspicious transactions at Huawei. It is the charge that she may have tricked banks into, in effect, busting sanctions, which Huawei denies, that seems to be dogging Ms Meng.

It seems plain to foreign critics that America disproportionately targets foreign companies. Over three-quarters of the $25bn it has exacted in fines for money-laundering, sanctions-busting and related offences has been against European banks, 15 of which have paid over $100m each, according to Fenergo, a consultancy. American banks have been fined less than $5bn over such misdeeds (though they have been clobbered for other transgressions, such as fraud connected with subprime mortgages). Anti-corruption probes also fall disproportionately on foreign firms. Of the ten biggest FCPA fines, only two have fallen on American companies (see table).
  • 20190119_WBC172.png
Proving America treads more lightly at home than abroad is tricky. There may be good reason for the asymmetry. Petrobras, the scandal-laden Brazilian oil and gas firm that recently became the largest FCPA fine recipient, seems worthy of its crown, for example. Europe tolerated corruption at its firms for longer, and their proclivity for doing business in tricky parts of the world may still trip them up. American companies pride themselves on the thoroughness of their FCPA compliance programmes. Meanwhile, the Huawei arrest is an exceedingly rare example of a big Chinese company coming within the ambit of American authorities. (“Because Chinese firms never bribe anyone, of course,” snarks a European boss, who suspects geopolitical factors are at play).
The sanctions against Iran, which America reimposed unilaterally three years after a global embargo was lifted, in particular angered European companies. Total, a French energy group, and Siemens, a German engineering outfit, were among those who have reluctantly had to forgo opportunities in a market which European firms have long coveted. Their political allies worry that extraterritoriality could become weaponised under Mr Trump to help American firms overseas. France and Germany are leading efforts for their companies to be able to keep trading with Iran, through a state-backed “special purpose vehicle”, although progress is slow.

America’s activism is prompting other countries to improve their own graft-busting. “Often, the US has taken on corruption cases because others have been unwilling or unable,” says Robert Amaee of Quinn Emanuel, a law firm. That may be changing. Britain has hired an FBI alumna, Lisa Osofsky, to head its Serious Fraud Office, and is now starting to push companies into American-style settlements rather than taking them through protracted court cases. From Singapore to France, anti-bribery investigators are co-operating with their American peers—and getting a cut of the fines levied from companies in return. If you can’t beat them, join them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top