- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,542
- Reaction score
- 25,533
Mediatek also runs on ARM.
You are demonstrating a profound ignorance with regard to the sophistication of hardware IP, and just how difficult that is to build.
Economy Huawei News & Discussion: BT Will Build UK’s Emergency Network with "High-Risk Vendor" Huawei
- Thread starter Arkain2K
- Start date
You are demonstrating a profound ignorance with regard to the sophistication of hardware IP, and just how difficult that is to build.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 10,664
- Reaction score
- 4,606
I do know its arm design. People still think they can buy from Samsung(sk) and Mediatek(Taiwan). US pressuring Huawei will make China plan for a mips solution on the long run while trying to force a deal in short run to keep using ARM.
US is just kicking China closer to 2025
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...hat-cpu-architectures-can-huawei-actually-use
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,542
- Reaction score
- 25,533
You really don't know much about it. That was just established.
China has been "planning" a native architectural design for nearly 10 years, and they don't have anything to show for it. That should tip you off to just how hard it is to develop this technology. The Chinese can't. They suck at it. They always have. They know it. Their solution is to steal. Corporate espionage and IP theft (with their Communist government looking the other way) is their forte, not intellectual property development.
Their best chance at this point will likely come from the other side, which is using the AMD EPYC x86 architecture Obama let AMD "share" with the Chinese in exchange for injection capital, and do exactly what Intel and AMD are trying to do, right now, which is to whittle down x86 TDPs into ARM territory, and hopefully come out ahead in performance per watt when they eventually achieve this. I'm sure they already are.
Only thing is...Intel and AMD are doing that, right now, are way ahead, and they're good at it. You have to maintain the perspective that this is a market that's fortunes are won principally on a relative scale, not an absolute scale. The lion's share is taken by the company that is just slightly better than everyone else. After all, crappy processors from the present will steamroll top processors from a decade prior.
As far as absolute scale concerns, when even cheap knockoff processors (or the cheapest ARM processors) are "good enough" for modern users of smartphones, that horizon is coming regardless of any policy.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 33,422
- Reaction score
- 5,683
China can pour billions into MIPS and RISC-V from now til 2025 and they wouldn't still be anywhere near the same league as ARM. They will try to work out a deal and continue relying on ARM for years to come, because that is the only option.
But of course you would already knew that if you actually understood what that article says.
Kids, this embarrassing series of self-ownage in the dark and grasping for air is what it looks like when you attempt to participate in a topic of discussion that you're entirely clueless about.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 33,422
- Reaction score
- 5,683
Huawei gets banned from using microSD cards in future smartphones
The company was also "temporarily restricted" from the Wi-Fi Alliance.
Joe Maring | 24 May 2019
The company was also "temporarily restricted" from the Wi-Fi Alliance.
Joe Maring | 24 May 2019
https://www.androidcentral.com/huawei-gets-banned-using-microsd-cards-future-smartphones
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 10,664
- Reaction score
- 4,606
I made a simple comment,y sound very childish and defensive about a topic so general like tech. I have worked in tech for 25 years, network, why not discuss things with some courtesy and class.
You seem proficient in paste/copy and not discussing ideas
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 33,422
- Reaction score
- 5,683
LOL @ being "childish" and "defensive".
Why some Sherdoggers act this way instead of simply admitting that their stupid assertion is stupid after being called out and have absolutely nothing to back it up at the debate table is beyond me.
Simply put, the very notion of Smartphones "moving away from ARM" that you put forth is as ridiculous as Gaming desktops "moving away from x86", if you have any elementary knowledge in this tech space at all.
This is what's going to happen: China will make a deal to lift the ban, and Huawei - and everyone else in the smartphone business - will continue relying on ARM for decades to come. Why? Because all the alternatives (including MIPS and RISC-V) are unsuitable replacements that are light years behind ARM.
Judging on the China's past record (or should I say "failure") on attempting to create an indigenous SoC architectural design, even if they decide to pour billions into those alternatives, what they will have in 2025 will still be inferior to what ARM has to offer today, much less what ARM will have to offer five years from now.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 10,664
- Reaction score
- 4,606
Intel plans to move away from x86
Have a good day
Have a good day
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 52,707
- Reaction score
- 24,736
I can see the rationale for the rule. Without it, some posters would just be spamming threads, because it is easier and quicker to cut-n-paste threads than provide commentary. In my experience, cut-n-paste threads tend to lower the quality of a forum.
Also , some posters could just spam threads on matters that agree with their ideological leaning but can feign neutrality when criticized, claiming they were not making any statement, merely informing on current events.
A thread with commentary need not be biased in one direction, it can state observations and questions . But the bottom line is that the thread provides unique commentary. A thread also does need the individual's commentary, it can aggregate the relevant details of a subject matter and provide a synopsis .
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 52,707
- Reaction score
- 24,736
It is good of Trump and the US to take an adversarial stance against Huawei and pressure others to do so. It is a no brainer that Huaweii is deeply symbiotic with the Chinese State security apparatus, and so will try and get away with as much as possible in the interest of furthering Chinese dominance.
Reading the content in the O.P. , it comes as no surprise. What would be surprising is if Huaweii WAS NOT attempting to snoop on customers. I work under the assumption that all major Chinese corporations, especially ones involved in telecommunication , software and security equipment to have created some means of tracking what their customers outside of China are up to.
Reading the content in the O.P. , it comes as no surprise. What would be surprising is if Huaweii WAS NOT attempting to snoop on customers. I work under the assumption that all major Chinese corporations, especially ones involved in telecommunication , software and security equipment to have created some means of tracking what their customers outside of China are up to.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 18,290
- Reaction score
- 4,185
This is a piece everyone should read. Note the difference in perspective between Adam Khan’s opinion - borne of real world experience with China - and Sherdog’s wannabe economists who form their opinions on 80 year old papers and opinions written by men who didn’t live to see what we’re dealing with today.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/financ...ews/huawei-akhan-semiconductor-202413843.html
Huawei is a 'national security threat' that tried to steal my tech: Akhan Semiconductor CEO
“I don't think that the U.S. has actually been aggressive,” Khan said. “I think that Huawei has been aggressive against the United States and the U.S. has been very muted in this response. What I would like to see is more conversation around American intellectual property, and how much has been stolen versus what we can do to prevent future instances.”
Khan says he and his company became embroiled in a U.S. Justice Department criminal investigation against Huawei when a sample of his proprietary diamond-coated glass, sought after by the world’s largest mobile device manufacturers as next generation technology, was returned from Huawei, in pieces.
“It came back inside the box, you could hear glass breaking against it,” Khan said. “We open it back up and then putting the pieces together, you could see there was large portions of the glass missing.”
Khan hopes the U.S.’s current sanctions against China end up serving a secondary purpose.
“I think for right now, it's not really speaking to protecting American innovation,” he said. “I think right now, it's just a national security threat, and they're kind of pigeonholing it there. But I do see that it’s part of a broader discussion that needs to be brought to light.”
To critics who argue that the U.S. could ultimately harm its own economy through sanctions against Chinese companies that force more Chinese innovation and in turn decrease reliance on American manufacturers, Khan disagrees.
“I don't think their position is as strong as perhaps they're portraying,” he said. “They are very reliant upon our core technologies, and not just electronics, and not just chips themselves. The metallurgy, the way we actually form the phones, the ceramics, I mean, these are all American know-how.” So long as European partners are aligned with the U.S., Khan said, aggressive sanctions against China do not increase risk.
“They will attempt to have their own capability, but China has already spent over $300 billion, trying to get semiconductor capability internally, and they have largely failed. It's that very reason why they're going so far as stealing technologies, because acquisition and R&D is not working,” Khan said. “I’d be strained to name one good Chinese chip company at the moment.”
To those who say the U.S. has not produced enough evidence of Chinese attempts to steal U.S. intellectual property, or pose a threat to national security, Khan points to a January 2018 Le Monde report claiming that China installed backdoor technology on a computer network to transfer data from the African Union’s servers in Addis Ababa to Beijing, a U.S. indictment filed against Huawei alleging theft of T-Mobile’s intellectual property (TMUS), plus claims that Vodafone found hidden backdoors in Huawei equipment, which Vodafone denied in a statement to BBC.
As for Khan, his company is now in a race against time to bring his own technology to market before Huawei does. During a recorded call, he said, Huawei’s representative admitted that Huawei had exported his sample to China in violation of a written agreement between the parties, and in violation of an Industry Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC) regulation that prohibits sending the material outside of the U.S.
“We've made it very difficult, there are trade secrets involved beyond just what's patent protected, so we know from a chemical standpoint, there's still a lot of groundwork to be done,” Khan said. “We estimate, at the soonest, maybe 18 to 24 months from that February timeframe where would we be seeing a copycat.”
An FBI investigation into Akhan’s case is ongoing. Khan says his company anticipates filing a separate civil action against Huawei, immediately after the Justice Department files criminal charges.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/financ...ews/huawei-akhan-semiconductor-202413843.html
Huawei is a 'national security threat' that tried to steal my tech: Akhan Semiconductor CEO
“I don't think that the U.S. has actually been aggressive,” Khan said. “I think that Huawei has been aggressive against the United States and the U.S. has been very muted in this response. What I would like to see is more conversation around American intellectual property, and how much has been stolen versus what we can do to prevent future instances.”
Khan says he and his company became embroiled in a U.S. Justice Department criminal investigation against Huawei when a sample of his proprietary diamond-coated glass, sought after by the world’s largest mobile device manufacturers as next generation technology, was returned from Huawei, in pieces.
“It came back inside the box, you could hear glass breaking against it,” Khan said. “We open it back up and then putting the pieces together, you could see there was large portions of the glass missing.”
Khan hopes the U.S.’s current sanctions against China end up serving a secondary purpose.
“I think for right now, it's not really speaking to protecting American innovation,” he said. “I think right now, it's just a national security threat, and they're kind of pigeonholing it there. But I do see that it’s part of a broader discussion that needs to be brought to light.”
To critics who argue that the U.S. could ultimately harm its own economy through sanctions against Chinese companies that force more Chinese innovation and in turn decrease reliance on American manufacturers, Khan disagrees.
“I don't think their position is as strong as perhaps they're portraying,” he said. “They are very reliant upon our core technologies, and not just electronics, and not just chips themselves. The metallurgy, the way we actually form the phones, the ceramics, I mean, these are all American know-how.” So long as European partners are aligned with the U.S., Khan said, aggressive sanctions against China do not increase risk.
“They will attempt to have their own capability, but China has already spent over $300 billion, trying to get semiconductor capability internally, and they have largely failed. It's that very reason why they're going so far as stealing technologies, because acquisition and R&D is not working,” Khan said. “I’d be strained to name one good Chinese chip company at the moment.”
To those who say the U.S. has not produced enough evidence of Chinese attempts to steal U.S. intellectual property, or pose a threat to national security, Khan points to a January 2018 Le Monde report claiming that China installed backdoor technology on a computer network to transfer data from the African Union’s servers in Addis Ababa to Beijing, a U.S. indictment filed against Huawei alleging theft of T-Mobile’s intellectual property (TMUS), plus claims that Vodafone found hidden backdoors in Huawei equipment, which Vodafone denied in a statement to BBC.
As for Khan, his company is now in a race against time to bring his own technology to market before Huawei does. During a recorded call, he said, Huawei’s representative admitted that Huawei had exported his sample to China in violation of a written agreement between the parties, and in violation of an Industry Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC) regulation that prohibits sending the material outside of the U.S.
“We've made it very difficult, there are trade secrets involved beyond just what's patent protected, so we know from a chemical standpoint, there's still a lot of groundwork to be done,” Khan said. “We estimate, at the soonest, maybe 18 to 24 months from that February timeframe where would we be seeing a copycat.”
An FBI investigation into Akhan’s case is ongoing. Khan says his company anticipates filing a separate civil action against Huawei, immediately after the Justice Department files criminal charges.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 52,707
- Reaction score
- 24,736
Another example of Huawei stealing foreign technology.
Huawei is a 'national security threat' that tried to steal my tech: Akhan Semiconductor CEO
American company developed a proprietary diamond coating for glass, which appealed to smartphone manufacturers. The company sent a sample to Huawei, but Huawei returned the sample in pieces, with chunks of it missing. I assume Huawei broke the glass thinking the company may not notice there were pieces missing.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/huawei-akhan-semiconductor-202413843.html
Edit
Just noticed @Gunny beat me to it.
Huawei is a 'national security threat' that tried to steal my tech: Akhan Semiconductor CEO
American company developed a proprietary diamond coating for glass, which appealed to smartphone manufacturers. The company sent a sample to Huawei, but Huawei returned the sample in pieces, with chunks of it missing. I assume Huawei broke the glass thinking the company may not notice there were pieces missing.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/huawei-akhan-semiconductor-202413843.html
Edit
Just noticed @Gunny beat me to it.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 18,290
- Reaction score
- 4,185
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2018
- Messages
- 8,873
- Reaction score
- 5
This should make people appreciate the industry a little more. There has never been the slightest bit of hyperbole in the (hundreds of) posts discussing it, nor in regards the insane degree of complexity that comes with engineering and manufacturing such advanced industrial high technology.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2010
- Messages
- 20,615
- Reaction score
- 7,417
Thought I put this here.
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...nopoly-found-in-violation-of-us-antitrust-law
Qualcomm Ruled a Monopoly, Found in Violation of US Antitrust Law
...
Judge Koh largely sided with the FTC’s findings and arguments and has hit Qualcomm with multiple requirements. One of the major findings is that Qualcomm is not allowed to use its “no license, no chips” strategy that required customers to license Qualcomm patents in order to purchase its microprocessors. The company is also prohibited from striking exclusivity deals with companies like Apple, and from refusing to license its patents according to FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) terms.
“Qualcomm’s licensing practices have strangled competition in the CDMA and premium LTE modem chip markets for years, and harmed rivals, OEMs, and end consumers in the process,” Koh writes.
Qualcomm is specifically required to meet the following obligations:
Qualcomm must not condition the supply of modem chips on a customer’s patent license status and Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with customers in good faith under conditions free from the threat of lack of access to or discriminatory provision of modem chip supply or associated technical support or access to software.
Qualcomm must make exhaustive SEP licenses available to modem-chip suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms and to submit, as necessary, to arbitral or judicial dispute resolution to determine such terms.
Qualcomm may not enter express or de facto exclusive dealing agreements for the supply of modem chips.
Qualcomm may not interfere with the ability of any customer to communicate with a government agency about a potential law enforcement or regulatory matter.
In order to ensure Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies, the Court orders Qualcomm to submit to compliance and monitoring procedures for a period of seven (7) years. Specifically, Qualcomm shall report to the FTC on an annual basis Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies ordered by the Court.
Qualcomm was found to have made exclusivity deals with Apple, Blackberry, LGE, Samsung, and Vivo. It interfered with regulator investigations when it paid Samsung $100M to shut that company up over supposed antitrust violations. Koh noted that Qualcomm has a history of misbehavior, noting: “Qualcomm’s failure to alter its unlawful licensing practices despite years of foreign government investigations, findings, and fines suggests an obstinance that a monitoring provision may address.”
...
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...nopoly-found-in-violation-of-us-antitrust-law
Qualcomm Ruled a Monopoly, Found in Violation of US Antitrust Law
...
Judge Koh largely sided with the FTC’s findings and arguments and has hit Qualcomm with multiple requirements. One of the major findings is that Qualcomm is not allowed to use its “no license, no chips” strategy that required customers to license Qualcomm patents in order to purchase its microprocessors. The company is also prohibited from striking exclusivity deals with companies like Apple, and from refusing to license its patents according to FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) terms.
“Qualcomm’s licensing practices have strangled competition in the CDMA and premium LTE modem chip markets for years, and harmed rivals, OEMs, and end consumers in the process,” Koh writes.
Qualcomm is specifically required to meet the following obligations:
Qualcomm must not condition the supply of modem chips on a customer’s patent license status and Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with customers in good faith under conditions free from the threat of lack of access to or discriminatory provision of modem chip supply or associated technical support or access to software.
Qualcomm must make exhaustive SEP licenses available to modem-chip suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms and to submit, as necessary, to arbitral or judicial dispute resolution to determine such terms.
Qualcomm may not enter express or de facto exclusive dealing agreements for the supply of modem chips.
Qualcomm may not interfere with the ability of any customer to communicate with a government agency about a potential law enforcement or regulatory matter.
In order to ensure Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies, the Court orders Qualcomm to submit to compliance and monitoring procedures for a period of seven (7) years. Specifically, Qualcomm shall report to the FTC on an annual basis Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies ordered by the Court.
Qualcomm was found to have made exclusivity deals with Apple, Blackberry, LGE, Samsung, and Vivo. It interfered with regulator investigations when it paid Samsung $100M to shut that company up over supposed antitrust violations. Koh noted that Qualcomm has a history of misbehavior, noting: “Qualcomm’s failure to alter its unlawful licensing practices despite years of foreign government investigations, findings, and fines suggests an obstinance that a monitoring provision may address.”
...
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 33,422
- Reaction score
- 5,683
Indeed, even a giant like Intel called it quit the mobile race against ARM, after spending billions to shore up the now-discontinued Atom.
Intel were so convinced that their x86 prowess in the desktop and server segment can easily be shoehorned into low-powered/high-performance mobile devices, they actually sold their ARM-based X-Scale chip division, which turns out to be one of the worst blunders in tech space.
Had they keep X-Scale and spend that $10 billions into developing a worth-while LTE modem instead, they wouldn't be shut out of the smartphone market like right now.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2018
- Messages
- 8,873
- Reaction score
- 5
They kind of found themselves in the situation almost every other SC firm realizes and concludes when they've ever contemplated taking a slice out of Intel's pc and server dominance - that it's just a waste of time and resources.
A blunder and defeat but I never worry about Intel long term. They're the OG of the industry and their 7 nm process technology is back on track now. Fab 42 here is finished, just a matter of materials and machinery installation. It'll be huge boon to the local economy too, already has been.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2018
- Messages
- 8,873
- Reaction score
- 5
Sometimes it feels like Intel carries an immense burden maintaining complete end-to-end control of the production process. So many other firms are either fabless or on the foundry side of the industry. The former allows for a lot more breathing room to zone in strictly on research and design while the latter focuses almost solely on process tech and advanced manufacturing. Intel does all of it independently.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 13,045
- Reaction score
- 5,228
I still scratch my head at how Intel stocks are a burning pile of garbage when the company itself is a pillar in the industry.
