Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Google's move to stop licensing its Android mobile operating system to Huawei could deal a huge blow to the Chinese tech giant's ambitions to become the top player in smartphones globally.
The U.S. tech conglomerate has suspended business activity with Huawei that involves the transfer of hardware, software and key technical services. Google made the move in order to comply with Washington's decision to put Huawei on the so-called Entity List, meaning American firms need to get a license to sell products to the Chinese firm.
...
Neil Shah, a research director at Counterpoint Research, said Huawei will have to rely on third-party Android app stores outside of China because Google Play will not be installed by default. That could be a problem.
"This makes a clear disadvantage for Huawei's own (operating system) vs the Android (operating system) shipped on Samsung or other phones firstly in terms of lack of all the apps available on the Google Play store, quality of apps (some might be dated), potentially less secure as they will not be screened by Google or follows Google's monthly secure patches and overall user-experience of the store," Shah said.
I still don't get what exactly the supposed problem is with Huawei, other than it being a leading competitor
While it will be a setback in the short term, ultimately it will only cause the opposite effect. Huawei are already working on their own "software ecosystem" as it is called these days.
If it is a state-owned company as many people claim (nobody really seems to know who owns it), they don't have the need to grow and deliver profits, unlike stock companies. The state will finance their R&D for as long as it takes to become completely independent from imported components. A state-owned company only serves to provide the infrastructure for the country, like postal service, public transport etc., which rarely make profits, either. Exporting is merely a bonus.
And if Huawei is independent of the Chinese government, all those accusations of espionage etc. are mute, anyway. The British secret service said they have had access to Huawei's source code for like a decade and never discovered any backdoors. They have also taken apart and tested Huawei hardware for years, found nothing suspicious.
And I suppose China will ban certain Western companies as well now on the same pretexts.
I still don't get what exactly the supposed problem is with Huawei, other than it being a leading competitor
While it will be a setback in the short term, ultimately it will only cause the opposite effect. Huawei are already working on their own "software ecosystem" as it is called these days.
If it is a state-owned company as many people claim (nobody really seems to know who owns it), they don't have the need to grow and deliver profits, unlike stock companies. The state will finance their R&D for as long as it takes to become completely independent from imported components. A state-owned company only serves to provide the infrastructure for the country, like postal service, public transport etc., which rarely make profits, either. Exporting is merely a bonus.
And if Huawei is independent of the Chinese government, all those accusations of espionage etc. are mute, anyway. The British secret service said they have had access to Huawei's source code for like a decade and never discovered any backdoors. They have also taken apart and tested Huawei hardware for years, found nothing suspicious.
And I suppose China will ban certain Western companies as well now on the same pretexts.
A 13-count indictment was unsealed earlier today in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, charging four defendants,[1] including Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (Huawei), the world’s largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer, with headquarters in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and operations around the world. The indicted defendants include Huawei and two Huawei affiliates — Huawei Device USA Inc. (Huawei USA) and Skycom Tech Co. Ltd. (Skycom) — as well as Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Wanzhou Meng (Meng).
The defendants Huawei and Skycom are charged with bank fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and conspiracy to violate IEEPA, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Huawei and Huawei USA are charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice related to the grand jury investigation in the Eastern District of New York. Meng is charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracies to commit bank and wire fraud.
...
“As charged in the indictment, Huawei and its Chief Financial Officer broke U.S. law and have engaged in a fraudulent financial scheme that is detrimental to the security of the United States,” said Secretary Nielsen. “They willfully conducted millions of dollars in transactions that were in direct violation of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, and such behavior will not be tolerated. The Department of Homeland Security is focused on preventing nefarious actors from accessing or manipulating our financial system, and we will ensure that legitimate economic activity is not exploited by our adversaries. I would like to thank ICE Homeland Security Investigations for their exceptional work on this case.”
“For years, Chinese firms have broken our export laws and undermined sanctions, often using U.S. financial systems to facilitate their illegal activities,” said Secretary Ross. “This will end. The Trump Administration continues to be tougher on those who violate our export control laws than any administration in history. I commend the Commerce Department’s Office of Export Enforcement, and our partners in the FBI, Justice Department, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security for their excellent work on this case.”
In one case described in the indictment unveiled Monday by the Justice Department, Huawei headquarters in China instructed its employees in the United States to steal the design of a mobile-phone-testing robot developed by T-Mobile. This was a valuable piece of intellectual property that Huawei wanted for its own robot. Huawei engineers were repeatedly encouraged to carry out theft, and, the indictment says, on May 29, 2013, a Huawei engineer visiting T-Mobile slipped a robot arm into his bag and walked out of the laboratory. Overnight, he photographed the device and took critical measurements before returning it the next day, apologizing that it was taken by “mistake.†Later, Huawei responded to T-Mobile about the incident with gross deception, saying the thefts were “a moment of indiscretion†and did not reflect company policy when, in fact, the data had been sent to headquarters. Huawei even created a bonus program for workers who stole information from competitors.
...
Doubts about Huawei are now being heard elsewhere, including in Australia, Poland, Britain and Germany. The next generation of connectivity — 5G networks — is far too important to put in the hands of a company that may work by lies and coverups.
Top management including CEO's is full of crooks, psychopaths and the like anywhere in the world, why would it be any different in China?
Also, that incident about the robot arm (kind of funny, actually) was 6 years ago, they should have sued Huawei back then because they might have changed their corporate culture by now. 6 years is a long time.
Why do I never hear of law suits against France for instance, which is also heavily involved in industrial espionage?
Top management including CEO's is full of crooks, psychopaths and the like anywhere in the world, why would it be any different in China?
Also, that incident about the robot arm (kind of funny, actually) was 6 years ago, they should have sued Huawei back then because they might have changed their corporate culture by now. 6 years is a long time.
Why do I never hear of law suits against France for instance, which is also heavily involved in industrial espionage?
Honestly, I wonder if there is any big media corporation (at least $500 million in assets or revenue) that has a CEO that is not corrupt in any stretch by any the definition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
