Posted on 07/20/2019 3:48:24 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
SHENZHEN, CHINA — In an exclusive interview, Ren Zhengfei, founder and CEO of Huawei, spoke out about the Trump administration’s move to target the Chinese tech giant and emphasized that it does not need U.S. companies in order to survive.
The wide-ranging interview with Yahoo Finance covered the impact of the Trump administration’s previous ban on U.S. companies from selling components to Huawei, whether Huawei poses a security risk to the U.S., and recent setbacks at Huawei’s U.S. research arm, Futurewei.
Despite those hurdles, Ren insisted, “If U.S, companies were to stop supplying us altogether, our production would not stop for a single day in the future. Rather, we would ramp up production. There's no lethal risk that threatens Huawei's survival at all.”
The CEO spoke to Yahoo Finance in his first video interview since last month’s G20 summit, when President Donald Trump walked back his decision to ban U.S. companies from selling equipment to Huawei. Impact of the entity list
On May 16, in a surprising move to some, the U.S. put Huawei on the so-called Entity List, effectively banning the Shenzhen-based firm from doing business with any U.S. companies. In addition to being the world’s biggest smartphone maker, Huawei also sells telecommunications equipment. After Trump put Huawei on the Entity List, Intel and Qualcomm couldn’t sell chipsets to Huawei, and Google’s Android system couldn’t provide updates to Huawei smartphones.
Speaking to Yahoo Finance, Ren acknowledged the company wasn’t fully prepared for being added to the list. Due to concerns about operating system updates, some markets saw Huawei smartphone sales fell as much as 40% in the first two weeks following the ban, according to Huawei executives.
However, after a review, Ren said, Huawei found it’s fully capable of shaking off its reliance on the U.S. for core products
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
Oddly enough, under the US incentive structure, a good number of ethnic Chinese notables have made it to the top of the IT ladder, including the heads of now defunct names like Wang Labs, AST Research, Computer Associates and ATI Technologies. And they are heads and/or founders of currently traded names like Broadcom, Marvell Technology, Advanced Micro Devices, Garmin and Nvidia Corporation. So on the question of whether our Chinese are better than their Chinese, I think ours can give theirs a run for their money.
* The movie Rising Sun, written by Michael Crichton, in the early 90's encapsulated what was known about Japanese industrial espionage efforts. The Japanese weren't the only players - the French and the Soviets were known to have fairly big operations, but Japan had the industrial capability to exploit state-of-the-art information, whereas the Soviets were way too far behind, and the French would have had to spend a lot of money catching up, equipment-wise, even with the secrets acquired.
How are they going to fabricate chips?
It isn’t as though you can just set up a fabrication plant from the get go and produce 10nm chips, or whatever the cellphone chips are now.
He has been indoctrinated into communist thought which has blinded him to the effects that communism has on human creativity and invention.
It is one thing to build an economy and companies on the technology developed by others, even to advance that technology a bit by theft of intellectual property and reverse engineering. But it is another thing altogether for a communist system (i.e., a central planning/authoritarian system as opposed to pure free market competition) to create, invent, and implement from scratch.
I have worked in companies in the U.S. that employed central planning and central authority and I have worked in companies at the opposite end of the spectrum that encouraged creativity and pushed decision-making down to the lowest effective level.
You can imagine the difference between the two in terms of adaptability to change and creativity.
The German military employed such a "decentralized/pushed-down decision making" strategy in WWII to great effect. Their term for this is "auftragstaktik." It generally means that
"the military commander gives subordinate leaders a clearly defined goal (the objective)..."Here is a good article on the subject from RealClearDefense: Auftragstaktik: Decentralization in Military Command"The subordinate leaders then implement the order independently. The subordinate leader is given, to a large extent, the planning initiative and a freedom in execution which allows a high degree of flexibility at the operational and tactical levels of command." Source
This kind of system doesn't work in communism because without central control, the leader loses power and the system breaks down.
Communism is control/power based. The goal of the system is the maintenance of power and control. In such a system, productivity is the result of the exertion of power and control.
The goal of free market systems is the increase in productivity by creative means. Power is diffused and control (i.e., decision making authority) is pushed down to the individual or group closest to the "front line" or problem.
———Huawei——
Where the trade battle tire meets the road.
Does America need Huawei ? Not as a soverign espionage agency
Does Huawei need America? No, China is much bigger and there is the rest of the world
Does Huawei need America? No, China is much bigger and there is the rest of the world
Can America provide ourselves with a state of the art 5G network without Huawei? Or will we lag behind? I honestly don't know.
You well stated the dilemma
[Does Huawei need America? No, China is much bigger and there is the rest of the world]
Re China’s telco biz, any government not bought by Beijing will reject putting that equipment in its network. While a number of European governments fall into that box, they’ll change their minds once their major companies start suffering economic losses due to the leakage of trade secrets and contract negotiations.
I've worked for a fortune 500 tech company for 30 years, I can tell ya...purging Huawei is a really good thing.
Unfortunately, the communist Chinese government through Huawei, which incidentally is largely controlled by the Chinese government, has stolen intellectual property for years allowing them to get where they are today.
Huawei...don't let the door hit’cha where the lord split’cha.
[Can America provide ourselves with a state of the art 5G network without Huawei? Or will we lag behind? I honestly don’t know. ]
Yours is a small-minded luddite position. This issue might not be of importance to you but it is to massive numbers of Americans. And 5G is way more than junky Hollywood productions.
The question is, does America want to lag behind China as a technological power or do we want to lead?
Huang CEO has not chosen wisely.
[The question is, does America want to lag behind China as a technological power or do we want to lead?]
Link please.
“And 5G is way more than junky Hollywood productions.”
The company I work for is heavily involved in building out the infrastructure to support 5G. And while 5G has some very real advantages to it there are also serious downsides, too. 5G has the potential to carry huge amounts of data but the drawback is drastically reduced signal range.
You literally need to put antennas every block and support every single antenna with fiber connections. In urban areas the cost to lay a single FOOT of fiber approaches $3,000. So while 5G will eventually be deployed in densely populated areas it’s not going to be cost feasible to roll it out anywhere but there. There’s simply no ROI. Not yet anyway.
Our Ops guys joke that we are actually a sidewalk and paving contractor that happens to leave fiber optic cable behind when we are done. And they’re right.
L
You want me to provide a poll that says Americans like high-speed internet? Please...
Was every FReeper born during the Hoover Administration? Sometimes I wonder about this place.
Fortunately for most here, 5G will not be required to yell out clouds.
Many of us here are technology minded, and are aware of “Moore’s Law” which simply stated that the processing power of microchips doubled in strength every single calendar year. That may remain true, but few buyers now require that level of processing power, as the electrical power required to drive the ever increasing speed of the chips, along with the cost of cooling the chips, became exceedingly expensive.
Therefore, decisions were made by both buyers and sellers alike, to start focusing on reduced electrical power and cooling requirements on the majority of computer chips being developed. The technology was ubiquitous and had simply matured to the point where speed was no longer the primary driver.
We’ve probably reached a similar point in cellular technology. Obviously you’re much more informed on that business than I, and 5G is unquestionably the future and being invested in by the big players, but increased speed is hardly a necessity at this point for most users. It will be nice, of course, but not worth the risk of allowing the Chinese to infect our infrastructure at such a low level. We can wait, and should, if needed.
[You want me to provide a poll that says Americans like high-speed internet? Please...]
What they don’t have is cheap high speed wireless internet on the go. It’s available, but it ain’t cheap.
That’s what 5g aims to remedy. The principal application is watching videos on the go. It’s such a niche function that I’m skeptical that it’s worth letting China listen in on our communications day in and day out.
Leading the race is of little benefit if you have no brakes or steering wheel.
Allowing China access to all U.S. Military and Industrial secrets is the road to ruin.
Without the Worlds Tech Huawei would still be using 2 tin cans and a string
“So on the question of whether our Chinese are better than their Chinese, I think ours can give theirs a run for their money.”
Some of “Our Chinese” have been caught walking out the door with gobs of US technology on more than one occasion. Security at some US firms seems to assume that senior researchers and engineers are essentially honest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.