Huawei Gave Its Blacklist Verdict By Posting 66 Percent Gain In Smartphone Shipments (forbes.com) 134
hackingbear writes: As reported by market researcher Canalys, Chinese tech giant and smartphone maker Huawei posted 66% annual growth, reaching a staggering 42% market share in China, which is the largest, albeit slightly shrinking, smartphone market in the world. A combination of keen pricing, technical innovation and patriotism has turned its strong domestic position into a dominant one, at the expense of Apple, whose market share has dropped to 5.1%, as well as other Chinese vendors such as Vivo and Xiaomi.
"Huawei is in a strong position to consolidate its dominance further amid 5G network rollout," Canalys commented. The Shenzhen tech giant knows that the impact of the blacklist is limited by unwavering support at home, where the headline loss of full-fat Android, its biggest international issue, has no impact -- Google's software and services are unavailable in China, while completely removing US-made semiconductors and components from its phones and networking gear.
"Huawei is in a strong position to consolidate its dominance further amid 5G network rollout," Canalys commented. The Shenzhen tech giant knows that the impact of the blacklist is limited by unwavering support at home, where the headline loss of full-fat Android, its biggest international issue, has no impact -- Google's software and services are unavailable in China, while completely removing US-made semiconductors and components from its phones and networking gear.
I expected that much (Score:2)
Huawei might be better off going full local in the long run.
Also they make good phones (Score:4, Insightful)
Huawei phones get great reviews. They have one of the best cameras on any smartphone, decent software and excellent build quality. They innovate too, getting rid of the notch etc.
Their affordable models are popular in the UK, along with Xaomi, Honor and other Chinese brands. Much better than the crap Alcatel and Nokia put out these days.
Re:Also they make good phones (Score:5, Informative)
Quite a few things wrong in your comment.
>Their affordable models are popular in the UK, along with Xaomi, Honor and other Chinese brands. Much better than the crap Alcatel and Nokia put out these days.
The Alcatel brand for mobile phones is licensed to TCL, which is a major Chinese electronics manufacturer.
Nokia is similar, but with the license to HMD, which is an Finnish company started by ex-Nokia people after the disastrous Microsoft acquisition of Nokia's handset business, their smartphones are usually well reviewed and most importantly selling well.
Honor is just a brand for Huawei.
The reason why Chinese manufacturers have been aggressively pushing overseas expansion is because the Chinese smartphone market is shrinking. Their prices won't remain low forever after this subsidised push because doing business in western markets is more that just selling on aliexpress or gearbest. The operating and support costs will catch up to them soon.
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that from the consumer's point of view Chinese phones are the high end and good-but-value models now. European brands like Alcatel and Nokia have been reduced to cheap junk level.
It's happened with TVs too. European brands that used to be associated with quality like Grundig, Alba and Hotpoint are down market crap now. New Chinese brands get good reviews. Similar to what happened with Japanese brands.
It's happening with cars too. Many European brands, especially British ones, have a kinda bad r
Re: (Score:2)
It's happening with cars too. Many European brands, especially British ones, have a kinda bad reputation. MG, now Chinese, is getting good reviews though.
It took China to figure out how to keep the smoke in the wires?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Beg your pardon? My Nokia 2.2 cost $150 and has a replaceable battery, a headphone jack, and Android One (meaning almost no manufacturer bloat and guaranteed 2 years feature updates 3 years security updates). Nokia's also pretty consistent about getting updates out at a reasonable pace. Not sure what your issue is with Nokia, I suspect you haven't u
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some Western phones come with Facebook pre-installed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And why do you worry that Chinese phones might have such backdoors but are sure that Western phones do not?
Re: (Score:2)
I noticed that the "budget" segment of the smartphone market in the US has gone to the toiled after Huawei's brands were chased away. Moto and Nokia brands have become noticeably worse, specially in the quality/testing environment.
Yay! (Score:3)
...while completely removing US-made semiconductors and components from its phones and networking gear.
Trade wars are good and easy to win.
-- Donald J. Trump.
Y'all tired of winning yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Naa, the Donald will find a way to claim this is actually a big win for his great strategy. Truth, honesty, or actually forward looking politics is not his thing, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump can go take a long walk off a short orange juicer but how much American content did that hardware actually have before? And wouldn't this have happened anyway, and probably not even over a much longer period? China has been developing their own processors for some time. They're not as fast as ours on a per-core basis, but networking is parallelizable.
Re: Yay! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you're both so wrong about everything. I'll just cover the big stuff. 1) trade war has set in motion events that have changed the trajectory of the Chinese economy forever. No longer do American companies default to China and some have started to move out, accelerating a process we've already seen in other places such as India that were once much cheaper. 2) the US has not lost anything, the Chinese are getting crushed or they wouldn't be at the negotiating table and making numerous public statements about how badly they want to resolve this situation in a face saving way. They haven't made a nasty anti-Trump comment in quite a while. They're broken and now trying to salvage the best deal,possible while the screws continue to be tightened. 3) neither of you said this but anyone who thinks China can wait forever is just silly. If they don't need the US and don't care about tariffs they wouldn't negotiate at all and certainly wouldn't be whining loudly about the tariffs. 4) all Chinese economic numbers are bullshit. Their GDP numbers are fantasy and even if accurate (lolololol) would include effort spent on their ghost cities and other large, wasteful projects of no value just to create "broken window theory" jobs. I have been studying Chinese economic everything for the last 20+ years every day. It's part of my job to do so. The crap you get you Twitter, Vox, and CNN/MSNBC/NYT/Wapo opinion pages should be ignored and filed appropriately. Those people know absolutely nothing about these topics. I put food on the table using that knowledge. It is not a political issue for me. I have to be correct or I starve.
You can bet your bottom dollar that (1) wherever American companies go after leaving China it's not going to be the US and (2) US companies now have a fierce competitor in Chinese companies because whatever the Chinese may have stolen in terms of IP from the US it is a moon cast shadow compared to the IP that US companies voluntarily handed the Chinese to save on labor costs.
Re: (Score:2)
"You can bet your bottom dollar that (1) wherever American companies go after leaving China it's not going to be the US"
China, with its claims in the China Sea and territories belonging to our allies, is probably our most significant geopolitical adversary and American business helped build them by shoveling money at them. We're much better off having our manufacturing done by countries aligned with us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, Trump is ruining our traditional alliances (although not irreparably if we get him out of office this next election) but we would still be better off with Western countries having those jobs than China. That's irrelevant though because why on earth would those manufacturing jobs go to other Western countries? That would be as unprofitable as bringing them back to the US.
We currently have many countries along the South China Sea that have a very favorable opinion of us as we're the only thing standing
Re: (Score:2)
I have been studying Chinese economic everything for the last 20+ years every day. It's part of my job to do so.
So you're an economist then. The only thing economists can do is to tell you tomorrow why what they predicted would happen today didn't happen. If economics was subject to the same standard of testing and verification as the scientific field is it would be outed as snake oil in no time at all.
China going inwards (Score:5, Insightful)
China, like Germany and Japan before it, have been running neo-mercantalist trade policies for a long time now. This is where you run structural trade surpluses with the rest of the world in the belief that this gives you some kind of strategic advantage. Japan does it because it needs to be able to import raw materials (it has a small land mass for the population) so the govt sees having high-tech exports the world wants as a position of resource security. That makes sense. Germany does it because they are obsessed with post war austerity economics. China did it because it wanted to 'pull in' consumer demand stimulus that they could not generate domestically, and, perhaps more importantly, it wanted to learn how to make things (steal tech if that's how you want to put it).
But apart from Japan, running a structural trade surplus is really quite silly. At the start, sure, you sell Mr/Ms American household some plastic junk and they sell you in exchange some of their mortgage debt, or the power plant down the road, or their best companies. But eventually you start running out of useful stuff to take in exchange for your plastic junk. So you have to buy worse and worse quality assets. Eventually you are buying negative yielding junk bonds, or massively overpriced houses, or treasury securities that the govt is quite openly printing money to compete with your purchasing of them. On top of all that Mr/Ms American household start getting upset that you own all their stuff, and perhaps start deciding to use their political vote to repatriate some of that stuff you bought.
So what are you left with? In exchange for all your hardwork making junk for them, you have a bunch of overpriced assets, stuck 7000 miles away within the jurisdiction of the greatest military power on earth, or a bunch of paper IOUs that that same military power is busy inflating too worthlessness.
China has wanted to turn its giant manufacturing engine inwards for a long time but doing this is no easy thing. In a way, Trump has given them a great opportunity to do so, because now as the economy grinds along trying to adjust to this new orientation, the Chinese govt can blame the pain on the USA. This will be far more palatable to the Chinese worker than some esoteric explanation about reducing the trade surplus.
In the end this is probably going to be better for everyone, though it does seem that as China finds it doesn't need to engage with the west as much, it will likely turn much more authoritarian (i.e. more like a North Korea). Given the US is still the military power to boot and won't be challenged on that for a while yet, that is really going to be a big tragedy for the average Chinese person. But for us in the west I do think it will similarly give us an opportunity to deal with the job automation 'problem' more seriously, and likely move towards a better place as well.
Sadly at some point as China builds up its military strength it's not at all unlikely we enter another cold war of sorts. But that is probably another decade away.
Re: (Score:1)
Germany is doing spectacularly well with their trade policies. They're rolling in the dough. China is doing better than it ever has in its 5000 year history. Your predictions of far off doom seem farfetched.
China blaming its problems on foreigners goes back to the incompetent and corrupt Qing dynasty, and won't change any time soon. It's better we stand up for ourselves instead of being giant pushovers. Chinese people respect that. Trump is actually admired for standing up for his own people. Obama was jus
Re: (Score:2)
Germany is doing awfully. It's basically been forced for last 15 years to keep paying off the countries that it needs in Euro to keep it artificially devalued without getting the sanctions that usually go on currency manipulators.
It's not doing it without reason either. Their primary cadre of hyper-productive workers started ageing out of workforce a few years ago, and will be out of it in a decade. And there's no replacement in sight. The fact that just a minor start of this ageing out that is already behi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>Yeah, just keep predicting doom while Germany racks up budget surplus after budget surplus.
Of course they do. Look at their demographic structure. They're currently at the tail edge of the massive wave of their large demographic bulge that contains a large amount of professional cadre of high paid 50-65 year old specialists, also known as the primary tax paying bracket of demographics, people who are at their top earning power and saving everything they can for their retirement. These are the people who
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the contary, it is in Germany's interest to stay in the EU and prop up the rest of the Eurozone to keep the Euro from strengthening otherwise their exports outside of the EU would fall, foreign-owed debt denominated in Euros would suffer defaults, etc. Switzerland not too long ago had a big problem with holding Polish debt when Swiss Francs appreciated greatly against the Polish Zloty. The debt was denominated in Swiss Francs but the collateral was denominated on Zloty so once the debt was underwater
Re: (Score:3)
Or the exact opposite. They have to prop them up because without them, Deutsche Mark appreciates to levels that current German economy would push it to, crashing the 60-percentile export based economy of modern Germany into one of the worst recessions it ever experienced.
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, China started a cold war years ago when it decided it wanted to replace the U.S. as the world's dominant power. It isn't so much that they want to take over the world as it is they want to stop the world from taking over the Communist Party....a bit like the old Soviet Union and very much like Russia with its Klepto-ist regime picking up the pieces from the damage the Communist Party there inflicted on Russia. By picking up the pieces, I don't mean reforming Russian, Putin and his cronies mer
Re: (Score:2)
"China, like Germany and Japan before it, have been running neo-mercantalist trade policies for a long time now."
Why is a neo-mercantalist like Donald Trump having such trouble dealing with other neo-mercantalists?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The the feudal lords will be members of the party, not the serfs.
Lenin was born a literal serf.
You'te still left with the USA's balls. (Score:2)
In a tight grip.
Aka it being in debt with you. A lot.
That is quite the lever to be on the long side of. No matter how powerful the US military is. ;)
Especially if you probably literally got more citizens than the US got bullets.
To me, it is all silly. Being dicks to each other only means harm. To them, to you, to everyone. And all because some big children are literally to underdeveloped at social interaction to get along.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask Japan how well that worked out in the 1980s. And no, you should "be a dick" to oppressive governments. They don't like you. They would kill you if they could. Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to get rid of oppressive governments is to make their citizens rich. Rich people don't like being oppressed. Poor people are too worried about finding food. Maslow's Pyramid.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a little bit the opposit.
The well off (middle class) don't act as they are doing well. It's those desperate enough that will do the radical thing and fight the government.
There may be some really rich people on the top of that, but with out the masses of people with nothing to lose, you got no foot solders to make things happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement isn't supported well by history. It's rare to have a violent revolution that leads to a successful, more liberal, regime change. The US has a bit of an odd point of view on that because the American revolution is one of the only examples.
Even violent revolutions are generally fomented and led by elites. It does help to have some desperate people around, but they don't need to be all that desperate. The American revolution and civil war are good examples of that.
Re: (Score:2)
But that bloody and violent period ultimately lasted from May 1789 to December 1848.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's the classic example. France was sort of headed along the path that other European countries took, limiting the powers of the monarchy and abolishing Feudalism through peacefulish means. Then the actual violent revolution hit. After killing a bunch of people there was a dictatorship, then an "elected" council that killed everyone when they lost, then Napoleon took over and proclaimed himself emperor. After Napoleon was kicked out, *then* France got down to successfully liberalizing.
The revolutio
Re: (Score:2)
I've got my sources from the early works of Hobsbawm, who gives a decent overview of the political and economic landscape of that time and how it changes in the process.
After Napoleon I was kicked out some other things happened. Monarchy returned again with the Bourbon Restoration followed by the July Monarchy.
Then the 2nd French Republic was formed with a proper constitution. Which again didn't last very long until Napoleon III declared himself emperor.
Re: (Score:2)
" "The best way to get rid of oppressive governments is to make their citizens rich".
How do you make that happen under a repressive, authoritarian regime that makes "1984" look like a "how to" guide instead of a warning? A regime that ultimately controls the means of production, regardless of how reformed and capitalist they want to appear.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, western democracies all did it. If you think communist China is tightly controlled, you should read about feudalism.
China itself has liberalized considerably since their communist revolution, and that revolution was a pretty big step up from what went before. Don't believe all the American propaganda you hear. As a citizen of a western democracy, you wouldn't want to live in communist China, but you'd probably much prefer it to any regime that went before.
Re: (Score:2)
Summary: trade surpluses are a terrible idea because you only end up with all the other guys' stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong and biased in numerous points:
This is where you run structural trade surpluses with the rest of the world in the belief that this gives you some kind of strategic advantage.
China's trade surplus with the world is $383 billion [worldstopexports.com], but most of which is surplus to the USA at $323 billion. Therefore China's surplus to the rest of the world is only $60 billion, or 2.6% of its $2.29 trillion exports. Hardly anything "structural" whatever that means.
Japan does it because it needs to be able to import raw materials (it has a small land mass for the population) so the govt sees having high-tech exports the world wants as a position of resource security.
So is China [worldstopexports.com].
China did it because it wanted to 'pull in' consumer demand stimulus that they could not generate domestically,
That's true for any country, unless it can do what you describe later in your comment: printing "a bunch of paper IOUs that that same military power is busy inflating too worthlessness
Re: (Score:2)
OPEC Oil (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Who's your boss? (Score:2)
A shot not across the bow but in the foot (Score:3)
Re: A shot not across the bow but in the foot (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Smart people trade with their enemies, no matter what. Dumb people think that is something you "should not do".
Re: (Score:2)
Um, right. WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
Have a look at history.
Re: (Score:2)
I did. We didn't trade with the Germans during WWI or WWII. What are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
There is a bit of a difference between "enemy" and "people you are at war with". Are you intentionally playing dumb here?
As to trading before the US entered the war, see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying we're in the midst of WWIII right now?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just lost sales, it forces China to accelerate its home-grown chip development and manufacturing.
Fortunately ARM isn't a US company so they can keep making ARM CPUs, but they have their own high performance CPU designs too now and of course there is RISC-V. Coupled with huge numbers of engineers and the advantage of being native Chinese speakers for software/datasheets/support, they can basically build their own market simply because they have more people living in China than the whole of the US, C
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately ARM isn't a US company so they can keep making ARM CPUs, but they have their own high performance CPU designs too now
Do they? They're in the third spot on the Top500 with 10 million cores, the first and second spot are both POWER9 systems, with 2.4 million and 1.5 million cores respectively. They only seem to have mediocre-performance CPUs from where I'm sitting, they have to use four times as many cores just to come in third.
Re: (Score:2)
Nationalism: Still stupid. (Score:2)
Some guy in China, some guy in the US, some, guy in Germany, or Russia ... at the end of the day, he's just some guy.
We are all told tales of 10% and 90% imaginary monsters around the world. Mostly to our disadvantage.
I should choose the overall best option. No matter where it is from and where I am from.
Yes, teamwork is an advantage. But that is not correlating with national borders nowadays.
Nationalism is the same as those buddhists that light themselves on fire. Self-harm caused by trigger-based reality
Re: (Score:1)
Total BS. If China took over your country they would cut your balls off and throw you in a gulag for not being Chinese. Stupid westerners think the world is full of rainbows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Only the most egregiously stupid westerners started using "boomer" as an insult.
Covering your eyes much ? (Score:1)
... at the end of the day, he's just some guy.
What about the other part of the day ? Why do you hide/hate the other part of the day ?
Topic doesn't match body text (Score:2)
This is "annual growth". This means it's for phones dumped before sanctions actually hit.
It's well known that Huawei dumped essentially everything it could on the market when it found out that it's getting cut off, because you can't really sell phones in the West and a few other major regions without Google Play.
Yet topic pretends really hard that this is about Huawei beating the blacklisting.
LOL what? (Score:1)
Do you think they usually would have just kept them in a warehouse and slowly sold them a little bit at a time? They are one of the highest volume phone producers in existence. They make as many as they can and sell it as quick as they can and make more. High volume lower margins. Do you really not know anything about Chinese manufacturing?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you aware that logistics actually work on a distributor system, and yes, distributors at the end of long delivery chains have large stocks when it comes to major phone makers like Huawei?
Because if you don't, you're going to have sell "out of stock" until the next container ship with this particular load arrives. And that's unacceptable image damage for a major phone brand.
Re: (Score:2)
>Which do you think is going to be more profitable for the distributors
When you know that you have a very limited window to sell before it closes? You stack up and dump. Basic economics.
Protectionism backfires (Score:2)
Almost universally. Anybody with some clue about economics knows that. It has happened time and again in history. The person responsible for the current protectionist efforts against China has no clue about real economics though and makes the usual time-honored dumb mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
That is complete Ayn Rand bullshit nonsense that globalists keep pushing but this case isn't protectionism anyway. Are you not aware of why Huawei is on a blacklist?
Re: (Score:2)
I am well aware why Huawei is on that blacklist: The US telecommunications industry is far behind and cannot compete on merit. Of course, that is not the cover-story (i.e. "lie") used to "explain" things.
Re: (Score:1)
Total BS. If that were the case we would have blacklisted a ton of foreign telecom companies. Huawei is hardly cutting edge. There are a lot of cutting edge vendors out there. The Chinese government is dangerous and so is Huawei.
Re: (Score:3)
And if you actually believe that is the reason then you are beyond help.
Re: (Score:2)
Baloney. Otherwise he would have blacklisted a ton of Chinese companies. WTF.
Stupid (Score:2)
Who cares? If we didn't have the blacklist they would probably have had 200%+ growth. Yes, Chinese brands dominate China because the government makes Chinese manufactured products cheaper in China. Have you ever bought electronics in Asia? It is typically more expensive than anywhere else. And that includes Korea and Japan. Stop cheering on the Chinese government. They aren't your friend.
Well of course! (Score:2)
Sales of fearless leader Winnie the Pooh's favorite pre-compromised phone brand skyrocketed. Comply or your social credit will tank, your life will be double plus ungood.
Re: (Score:2)
As compared to US Hardware that is pre-compromised by the NSA? Heck someone is going to spy on me anyway, let me get the cheaper hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially, overt authoritarian behavior is okay because more subtle versions exist elsewhere. Got it, you're an apologist.
Re: (Score:2)
Doing the exact same behavior is worse because its done by non White people. OK got it. You are a racist.
Re: (Score:2)
And that kind of reasoning is what we call whataboutism. And while dumb people really love that "he who is without sin cast the first stone" to quoque, it's still a fallacy. It neither asks for proof of the claim neither does it provide any disprove of the claim, it just deflects by pointing a finger at someone else (usually at the one who made the claim).
It's also a fallacy because you use it as some kind of false di
Re: (Score:2)
While the Germans have provided clear proof that CISCO compromised hardware was used to spy on Merkel , there are only smear campaigns agains Huawei and no proof yet that Huawei hardware has ever been used to spy
Markets matter (Score:2)
During the Cold War the USSR learnt the lesson - doesnt matter if you are ahead in tech, markets matter. Eventually the country will the larger population (USA) will catch up and surpass you. Only way to keep a lead in tech is to keep selling to the large markets so that they dont develop home grown competitors. Wall off your tech from the large markets and soon you will be behind and in a generation you will be buying tech from the same large market country.
With internet knowlwedge is freely available. May
Who knows (Score:2)
Good for Apple, in the long term? (Score:2)
As Apple's marketshare in China decreases, it becomes less important to them to bend over backwards to please the government.
Next they need to move manufacturing somewhere else, and they can have leverage again. Assuming they really ARE shifting to services, they're probably better off not offering services in China anyway.
Then again, this might just be outright bad for them, full stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Now is the time to tackle privacy invasive and democracy corrupting censoring Google with Huawei Linux Phone, as long as the core aps are there, that's all that really counts and FOSS apps will go there en masse. A real challenge for what as become privacy invasive Android, who does Google turn into the obedient you or the phone or both, obeying Google.
A major manufacturer producing millions of Linus Phones, make no mistake that is going to be a game changer as other manufacturers can follow suite and payin
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Patents are an international thing, agreed to by treaty. China has signed some of these treaties (Patent Cooperation Treaty of 1970 for example) and is bound to them in the spirit of international cooperation if not in also in a legally enforceable sense (WTO can bless retaliatory tariffs for example).
Also, free speech means people can whine about anything. And we can weigh those opinions accordingly. The US stole the cotton gin. During a time when British patents couldn't realistically be enforced outside
Re: (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia: Several modifications were made to the Indian roller gin by Mr. Krebs in 1772 and Joseph Eve in 1788, but their uses remained limited to the long-staple variety, up until Eli Whitney's development of a short-staple cotton gin in 1793.
So what do you have to back up that the U.S. stole the cotton gin?
I'll play this game (Score:1)
So what do you have to back up that the U.S. stole the cotton gin?
Under which legal framework do you wish to pursue this case? Late 18th century law or today's law?
Let's say under today's first-to-file system we have a novel invention patented in 1794. Versus different historic versions of a device that attempts to accomplish the same goals, but without Whitney's alterations. Those may independently have patents, and it is a different case if Whitney's gin depends on patents(?) of Krebs or Eve.
Re: yea sure right. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a problem with the US Patent system where we often too many lame Patents are created. Most of them are just vague predictions on what may be popular in the next 20 year.
For example: Wireless charging for your electric car. RFID in street signs to aid in self driving cars. A new way to moderate and rate videos...
Then wait for the prediction to come true, wait for some companies to become wealthy from it, then sue them for patent infringement.
That is patent trolling.
Stealing your IP, is
Re: (Score:1)
Re: yea sure right. (Score:2)
Any Press is Good Press (Score:2)
But because of all the press Huawei has gotten attention. For the American and European Consumer who doesn't believe what Trump says, mostly because he lies too much, so his point has no credit. However because we have heard there is a Phone as good if not better in some areas than you Samsung or Apple product, which is cheaper the Consumer will look and consider the product.
While I am sure
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Huawei is a well known brand in all of Asia with over 180,000 employees and $100+ in revenue. Billboards everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to justify your opinion. The Chinese government clearly, objectively, and demonstrably steals tech from everyone they can, and they spy on whoever they can, because the Chinese government would like nothing better than to destroy the Western way of life and make everything just like China instead. Anyone who denies this is either a fool or one of Chinas' tools. For all the problems and flaws
Re: (Score:3)
Re: yea sure right. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)