What's new

China cannot rely on foreign technology for national security purposes

No. You are wrong. Xiaomi is worth 100 bil in market cap not because it is selling smartphone but because of their vision.

For Xiaomi, the real money is not in gadgets
170467.jpg
Rita Liao
2 months ago
5531525690115_.pic_-750x563.jpg


Xiaomi’s bus stop advertisement in Shenzhen: “Technology on one facet, art on the other.” / Image credit: Tech in Asia

It’s official. Chinese behemoth Xiaomi has applied to sell its shares on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, seeking to raise US$10 billion at a valuation of US$100 billion.

That would make the eight-year-old firm China’s third-most valuable technology company, trailing behind leader Alibaba and second-placer Tencent, as of this writing.

Xiaomi has long been known for its affordable handsets, but it’s not really banking on them – and connected devices in general – to make money. Company CEO and founder Lei Jun describes the firm’s business model as a “triathlon”, where it invests in companies producing hardware and devices, sells the products through its online and offline stores, and offers services for product users on the internet.

The internet services, according to the hardware giant’s playbook, will drive the bulk of its revenues down the road.

Not your average hardware company
From inception, Xiaomi has prided itself on offering “value for price.” Now it’s making good on that promise – indefinitely.

In late April, Lei announced that the company would put a five percent net profit margin cap on its hardware products, including smartphones and gadgets like hoverboards and air purifiers.

Although it’s low, the single-digit figure is “above average in China’s hardware industry,” Alex Huang, Asia-Pacific chairman of Segway-Ninebot, tells Tech in Asia. Huang’s company makes hoverboards for Xiaomi and is a top player in its field after acquiring its American counterpart three years ago.

Henry Chang, senior marketing manager at Xiaomi’s smart-home device manufacturer, Lumi United Technology, has the same view. “Hitting a five percent margin is difficult for Chinese hardware companies.”

In other words, selling hardware isn’t that lucrative in China.

Zooming in on smartphones, Xiaomi is dwarfed by its rivals – both locally and globally. While the company earns a meager US$2 in profit for every phone shipped, according to data collected by Counterpoint Research, its Chinese peers Vivo and Oppo – which also focus on affordable smartphones – earn about seven times that. For further comparison, Apple’s profit per unit shipped stands at a staggering US$151.

For now, gadgets remain Xiaomi’s major source of income, but this is expected to change soon.



Screen-Shot-2018-05-07-at-4.08.51-PM-750x732.png



By 2019, Xiaomi aims to widen the share of its internet services beyond that of hardware, a freelance technology writer familiar with the matter wrote in a blog post.

As Lei pointed out in his speech at Yale Center Beijing last fall, “If we don’t offer internet services, our model would be the same as any hardware company, and our company wouldn’t be sustainable.”

Being cheap
Unlike most hardware firms, Xiaomi doesn’t make gadgets itself. It employs an “ecosystem” approach, where it invests in device manufacturers like Lumi United and Segway-Ninebot, which then carry out Xiaomi’s product requests.

To ensure that the startups stick to its core values of quality and affordability, Xiaomi sends engineers to work alongside them. The startups accept low margins in exchange for huge sales volumes that come with joining the Xiaomi ecosystem. As of the fourth quarter of 2017, Xiaomi was the world’s third-largest wearables company by shipment, according to IDC.

See: Inside Xiaomi: The perks and perils of startups that join its ecosystem

The finished products are then sold via Xiaomi’s online retail channels and its growing network of brick-and-mortar shops across China, as well as in developing countries such as India. Having in-house channels helps Xiaomi save on distribution fees, a common stumbling block for phone brands.

These strategies have allowed Xiaomi to gain price advantage over its rivals. The company’s IPO filings show that its average phone costs only US$138, while an average iPhone has surged to nearly US$800.

Cashing in
While internet services are expected to be the main revenue driver, Xiaomi’s ability to amass users for those services depends on how many devices it can sell via its retail channels.

Amidst slowing online retail growth in China, the company has been ramping up its physical presence, a move that other internet giants like Alibaba and JD have also made. Offline channels, coupled with aggressive overseas expansion, have played a huge role in Xiaomi’s comeback in 2017, following several quarters of depressing smartphone sales.

3341521807517_.pic_hd-750x469.jpg

Xiaomi’s flagship store in Shenzhen. / Image credit: Xiaomi

“When customers shop for Xiaomi phones at its storefronts, they may also end up buying its non-phone products like a power bank or a suitcase, and vice versa,” notes James Yan, research director at Counterpoint Research.

Margins for offline retail may be low – it costs a lot more to operate physical outlets – but the sales volume will be huge, he adds.

Once consumers get on Xiaomi’s cheap devices, the firm presents a more aggressive payment schedule. For instance, it lures users to buy software from its app store, make purchases inside its games, or pay for customized themes to jazz up their Xiaomi operating systems. Those who own Xiaomi’s smart-home devices may opt to pay for its suite of entertainment services, akin to how Apple users pay for its content.

When customers shop for Xiaomi phones at its storefronts, they may also end up buying its non-phone products like a power bank or a suitcase, and vice versa.
On the business side, brands can buy ads pushed to Xiaomi software, and developers can pay to get their apps pre-loaded onto Xiaomi devices.

With a gross margin of roughly 60 percent, the internet services segment was already the main driver behind Xiaomi’s operating profit last year, which more than tripled to US$1.92 billion, according to its filings.

Moving up the income ladder
As rosy as the plan sounds, Xiaomi will need to diversify its user base to sustain growth. The brand is particularly popular amongst China’s lower-income population, which means less generous spenders. Xiaomi, along with Oppo and Vivo, account for 70.5 percent of the smartphone consumption by Chinese people with a monthly salary less than US$628, according to a research by MobData.

“Xiaomi will soon hit the ceiling on the lower-income group,” suggests Flora Tang, an analyst at Counterpoint Research.

Xiaomi’s foray into lifestyle products might help. Its ecommerce platform Youpin focuses on affordable premium goods, such as a smart scale that can calculate one’s body fat. This approach could appeal to China’s sophisticated consumers.

[The] challenge of Xiaomi is that it’s trying to do something that hasn’t been done before by either Apple or Fitbit: becoming a software company built on hardware.
According to big data company Jiguang, over half of the users on premium ecommerce apps live in China’s first- and second-tier cities. Youpin is ranked third among these apps.

“I think the challenge of Xiaomi is that it’s trying to do something that hasn’t been done before by either Apple or Fitbit: becoming a software company built on hardware,” contends Benjamin Joffe, general partner at HAX.

Lei once said that it’s hard to define what Xiaomi is without knowing what the company does. Following the giant’s flotation, the world will be watching more closely how its triathlon model plays out.

Currency converted from Chinese yuan. Rate: US$1 = RMB 6.37
What is wrong? Doesn't changes n addresses what I have stated. If XM indeed plans for a efficient ecosystem using the same amount of effort that they put into creating devices for their Mi Home series into processors for their phone, they would not be so reliant on Qualcom.

I'm typing all these on my Redmi 5 Plus btw.

No. You are wrong. Xiaomi is worth 100 bil in market cap not because it is selling smartphone but because of their vision.

For Xiaomi, the real money is not in gadgets
170467.jpg
Rita Liao
2 months ago
5531525690115_.pic_-750x563.jpg


Xiaomi’s bus stop advertisement in Shenzhen: “Technology on one facet, art on the other.” / Image credit: Tech in Asia

It’s official. Chinese behemoth Xiaomi has applied to sell its shares on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, seeking to raise US$10 billion at a valuation of US$100 billion.

That would make the eight-year-old firm China’s third-most valuable technology company, trailing behind leader Alibaba and second-placer Tencent, as of this writing.

Xiaomi has long been known for its affordable handsets, but it’s not really banking on them – and connected devices in general – to make money. Company CEO and founder Lei Jun describes the firm’s business model as a “triathlon”, where it invests in companies producing hardware and devices, sells the products through its online and offline stores, and offers services for product users on the internet.

The internet services, according to the hardware giant’s playbook, will drive the bulk of its revenues down the road.

Not your average hardware company
From inception, Xiaomi has prided itself on offering “value for price.” Now it’s making good on that promise – indefinitely.

In late April, Lei announced that the company would put a five percent net profit margin cap on its hardware products, including smartphones and gadgets like hoverboards and air purifiers.

Although it’s low, the single-digit figure is “above average in China’s hardware industry,” Alex Huang, Asia-Pacific chairman of Segway-Ninebot, tells Tech in Asia. Huang’s company makes hoverboards for Xiaomi and is a top player in its field after acquiring its American counterpart three years ago.

Henry Chang, senior marketing manager at Xiaomi’s smart-home device manufacturer, Lumi United Technology, has the same view. “Hitting a five percent margin is difficult for Chinese hardware companies.”

In other words, selling hardware isn’t that lucrative in China.

Zooming in on smartphones, Xiaomi is dwarfed by its rivals – both locally and globally. While the company earns a meager US$2 in profit for every phone shipped, according to data collected by Counterpoint Research, its Chinese peers Vivo and Oppo – which also focus on affordable smartphones – earn about seven times that. For further comparison, Apple’s profit per unit shipped stands at a staggering US$151.

For now, gadgets remain Xiaomi’s major source of income, but this is expected to change soon.



Screen-Shot-2018-05-07-at-4.08.51-PM-750x732.png



By 2019, Xiaomi aims to widen the share of its internet services beyond that of hardware, a freelance technology writer familiar with the matter wrote in a blog post.

As Lei pointed out in his speech at Yale Center Beijing last fall, “If we don’t offer internet services, our model would be the same as any hardware company, and our company wouldn’t be sustainable.”

Being cheap
Unlike most hardware firms, Xiaomi doesn’t make gadgets itself. It employs an “ecosystem” approach, where it invests in device manufacturers like Lumi United and Segway-Ninebot, which then carry out Xiaomi’s product requests.

To ensure that the startups stick to its core values of quality and affordability, Xiaomi sends engineers to work alongside them. The startups accept low margins in exchange for huge sales volumes that come with joining the Xiaomi ecosystem. As of the fourth quarter of 2017, Xiaomi was the world’s third-largest wearables company by shipment, according to IDC.

See: Inside Xiaomi: The perks and perils of startups that join its ecosystem

The finished products are then sold via Xiaomi’s online retail channels and its growing network of brick-and-mortar shops across China, as well as in developing countries such as India. Having in-house channels helps Xiaomi save on distribution fees, a common stumbling block for phone brands.

These strategies have allowed Xiaomi to gain price advantage over its rivals. The company’s IPO filings show that its average phone costs only US$138, while an average iPhone has surged to nearly US$800.

Cashing in
While internet services are expected to be the main revenue driver, Xiaomi’s ability to amass users for those services depends on how many devices it can sell via its retail channels.

Amidst slowing online retail growth in China, the company has been ramping up its physical presence, a move that other internet giants like Alibaba and JD have also made. Offline channels, coupled with aggressive overseas expansion, have played a huge role in Xiaomi’s comeback in 2017, following several quarters of depressing smartphone sales.

3341521807517_.pic_hd-750x469.jpg

Xiaomi’s flagship store in Shenzhen. / Image credit: Xiaomi

“When customers shop for Xiaomi phones at its storefronts, they may also end up buying its non-phone products like a power bank or a suitcase, and vice versa,” notes James Yan, research director at Counterpoint Research.

Margins for offline retail may be low – it costs a lot more to operate physical outlets – but the sales volume will be huge, he adds.

Once consumers get on Xiaomi’s cheap devices, the firm presents a more aggressive payment schedule. For instance, it lures users to buy software from its app store, make purchases inside its games, or pay for customized themes to jazz up their Xiaomi operating systems. Those who own Xiaomi’s smart-home devices may opt to pay for its suite of entertainment services, akin to how Apple users pay for its content.

When customers shop for Xiaomi phones at its storefronts, they may also end up buying its non-phone products like a power bank or a suitcase, and vice versa.
On the business side, brands can buy ads pushed to Xiaomi software, and developers can pay to get their apps pre-loaded onto Xiaomi devices.

With a gross margin of roughly 60 percent, the internet services segment was already the main driver behind Xiaomi’s operating profit last year, which more than tripled to US$1.92 billion, according to its filings.

Moving up the income ladder
As rosy as the plan sounds, Xiaomi will need to diversify its user base to sustain growth. The brand is particularly popular amongst China’s lower-income population, which means less generous spenders. Xiaomi, along with Oppo and Vivo, account for 70.5 percent of the smartphone consumption by Chinese people with a monthly salary less than US$628, according to a research by MobData.

“Xiaomi will soon hit the ceiling on the lower-income group,” suggests Flora Tang, an analyst at Counterpoint Research.

Xiaomi’s foray into lifestyle products might help. Its ecommerce platform Youpin focuses on affordable premium goods, such as a smart scale that can calculate one’s body fat. This approach could appeal to China’s sophisticated consumers.

[The] challenge of Xiaomi is that it’s trying to do something that hasn’t been done before by either Apple or Fitbit: becoming a software company built on hardware.
According to big data company Jiguang, over half of the users on premium ecommerce apps live in China’s first- and second-tier cities. Youpin is ranked third among these apps.

“I think the challenge of Xiaomi is that it’s trying to do something that hasn’t been done before by either Apple or Fitbit: becoming a software company built on hardware,” contends Benjamin Joffe, general partner at HAX.

Lei once said that it’s hard to define what Xiaomi is without knowing what the company does. Following the giant’s flotation, the world will be watching more closely how its triathlon model plays out.

Currency converted from Chinese yuan. Rate: US$1 = RMB 6.37
What is wrong? Doesn't changes n addresses what I have stated. If XM indeed plans for a efficient ecosystem using the same amount of effort that they put into creating compatible devices for their Mi Home series into processors for their phone, they would not be so reliant on Qualcom.

Alibaba was originally making money via it's on internet avenue, it's B2B platform, yet it has since diversified into semiconductors now- a different division from it's internet cozy nest.

I repeat again:

U said I'm wrong,

So what is wrong?
 
Last edited:
.
What is wrong? Doesn't changes n addresses what I have stated. If XM indeed plans for a efficient ecosystem using the same amount of effort that they put into creating devices for their Mi Home series into processors for their phone, they would not be so reliant on Qualcom.

I'm typing all these on my Redmi 5 Plus btw.


What is wrong? Doesn't changes n addresses what I have stated. If XM indeed plans for a efficient ecosystem using the same amount of effort that they put into creating devices for their Mi Home series into processors for their phone, they would not be so reliant on Qualcom.

I'm typing all these on my Redmi 5 Plus btw.
Huawei licenses from ARM and depends on TSMC for Chip manufacturing, much has been accomplished but I wouldn't call Huawei self sufficient. Chip manufacturing is capital and knowledge intensive, even Apple still depend on Samsung to a large degree. Xiaomi is burning tons of cash expanding globally, chip manufacturing probably least effective use of capital. ZTE ban is still an anomaly rather than the norm, and that's a risk Xiaomi will have to tackle in the future. If you are looking for a possible breakthrough in Chip design, AI probably is the future. Bitmain is a company people should pay attention if they IPO, flush with cash and innovative technology.
 
.
What is wrong? Doesn't changes n addresses what I have stated. If XM indeed plans for a efficient ecosystem using the same amount of effort that they put into creating devices for their Mi Home series into processors for their phone, they would not be so reliant on Qualcom.

I'm typing all these on my Redmi 5 Plus btw.


What is wrong? Doesn't changes n addresses what I have stated. If XM indeed plans for a efficient ecosystem using the same amount of effort that they put into creating compatible devices for their Mi Home series into processors for their phone, they would not be so reliant on Qualcom.

Alibaba was originally making money via it's on internet avenue, it's B2B platform, yet it has since diversified into semiconductors now- a different division from it's internet cozy nest.

I repeat again:

U said I'm wrong,

So what is wrong?
You are wrong because you think Xiaomi vision is to sell smartphone. They are not like I said. Smartphone business is just one division of their electronic gadget. Xiaomi sells a bunch of other gadget from audio, powerband, air conditioner, home appliance, etc.. Basically they sell all kinds of consumer electronics with the vision to provide these users with software base services. They have similar vision to early Google in providing Android for free in order to sell ads.

Huawei licenses from ARM and depends on TSMC for Chip manufacturing, much has been accomplished but I wouldn't call Huawei self sufficient. Chip manufacturing is capital and knowledge intensive, even Apple still depend on Samsung to a large degree. Xiaomi is burning tons of cash expanding globally, chip manufacturing probably least effective use of capital. ZTE ban is still an anomaly rather than the norm, and that's a risk Xiaomi will have to tackle in the future. If you are looking for a possible breakthrough in Chip design, AI probably is the future. Bitmain is a company people should pay attention if they IPO, flush with cash and innovative technology.
Nahhhh... Right now Huawei had a license agreement with ARM to produce the Kirin but moving forward, they like to switch to Chinese Cambricon 1P architecture. AI is the name of the game and will shape how new chip architecture will function for future mobile and server base computer power.

TSMC is a manufacturer and Taiwan. They will never ban China as that will be disaster for their industry relying on Chinese consumer base for survival. Not to mention, their rival Samsung can fabricate as well.
 
.
Innovation patent applications in China reaches 751,000 this year

(People's Daily Online) 16:00, July 12, 2018

FOREIGN201807121604000008949870289.jpg



The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) held its regular press conference for the third quarter in Beijing on July 10.

This is the first release of statistics related to patent, trademark and geographical indicators since the reform of the SIPO. The data shows that in the first half of 2018, China's intelligent property rights index achieved rapid growth, showing a positive trend in development.

The quantity of patent applications for inventions and their authorization reached 751,000 and 217,000 in China respectively. The application of trademark registrations has now reached 3.59 million, with 10 newly accepted applications for the protection of geographical indication products.

The statistics show four features related to the growth of patents, trademarks and geographical indications during the first half of 2018. The first is the steady progress of the utilization and creation of intellectual property rights. The number of invention patents being authorized grew by 6.5 percent and possession rose by 19.5 percent year-on-year.

The second feature is that domestic enterprises' status as the country's main innovator continues to consolidate, with enterprises contributing 66.9 percent of all applications for innovation patents.

The third point is that overseas patent applications from Chinese enterprises increased by 80.69 percent this year, which puts China third among the countries listed under the Madrid system.

The last highlight is the improvement of protection to intellectual property rights. The action of administrative law enforcement in patent dispute cases increased by 41 percent and the number of investigated cases regarding illegal trademarks reached 13,600, which has established a better business and innovation environment.

http://en.people.cn/n3/2018/0712/c90000-9480432.html

***

The key to reduce dependency on foreign technology is to innovate. China has a clear vision on that. That's the very reason the US has been waging the economic war. If China were not doing the right thing, the US would not squeak and shrill.
 
.
Wrong analysis.

In fact it is not only China, but also japan korea and europe are the same they still depend on US in some area of technology.
How the hell was it 'wrong'? :lol:

I did not say only China depended on US technology, did I? Whether other countries depends on US or not, does not take away the fact that China depends on US and will continue to do so for at least another decade. You have a reading comprehension problem.

The reason is because US control the market of the core tech. But as you should be able to see, it is China from the rest who has capability to break US dominance.
I did not say that China do not have that capability, did I? But that capability is not the point, which is that Chinese manufacturers are deep enough into dependency on US technology that it will take at least another decade before that capability can manifest itself.

https://www.scmp.com/tech/china-tec...reliant-us-core-technology-some-time-so-world

Eye opening article.

If China’s long term goal is to develop its own core technologies to lessen dependence on a geopolitical rival like the US, acquiring chip design skills is only the first step. It also needs an indigenous semiconductor manufacturing industry – and doing that is far more difficult.
The highlighted is significant. China DO NOT have a complete and true indigenous semicon manufacturing industry. The first step in having a complete and true indigenous semicon industry is -- SILICA.

Here...Have a taste of what it takes to refine silica and finally into usable wafers...

http://www2.ensc.sfu.ca/~glennc/e495/e495l2j.pdf

The word 'sand' is actually a casual usage in semicon manufacturing.

https://pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/refining-silicon
Metallurgical Grade Silicon

Silica is the dioxide form of silicon (SiO2) and occurs naturally in the form of quartz. While beach sand is also largely quartz, the most common raw material for electronic grade is high purity quartz rock.
See that? QUARTZ ROCK.

To be independent, China must mine her own quartz ores.

To continue with the SCMP article...

...the wafer foundries that fabricate Kirin chips mostly rely on equipment from US companies.

Applied Materials, KLA-Tencor and Lam Research – all based in Silicon Valley – accounted for more than 55 per cent of the so-called front end wafer fab equipment market in 2017, according to The Information Network. Japan’s Tokyo Electron and Europe’s ASML together took 38 per cent.

So Huawei, like ZTE, still relies on core US technology – as does every company in the world that uses silicon in its products.
I work with ALL of the named equipment suppliers. I created qualifications testing regimes for their hardware into our processes.

For China to have a complete and true indigenous semicon industry, China must be able to sever ALL ties with these companies AFTER she created her own testing/processing equipment and AFTER those new hardware have been proven in a few manufacturing environment, not in the labs. Bad testing/processing equipment will result in bad products.

The difference between you and me is -- DETAILS.

I know the details. You do not. That is why the best you can come up with is the vague 'capability' without having a clue of what really involved.

But of course, just like your lie about your 'aviation studies', you are going to tell us of your 'semiconductor manufacturing studies'. :lol:
 
.
How the hell was it 'wrong'? :lol:

I did not say only China depended on US technology, did I? Whether other countries depends on US or not, does not take away the fact that China depends on US and will continue to do so for at least another decade. You have a reading comprehension problem.


If you know that world depend on some US technology, then your previous argument become irrelevant.

And you fail to identify that this is not because of chinese deficiency but more because of US special technology ban to China, that prevent China to compete with other developed country in certain technology (wafer foundry).

I did not say that China do not have that capability, did I? But that capability is not the point, which is that Chinese manufacturers are deep enough into dependency on US technology that it will take at least another decade before that capability can manifest itself.

https://www.scmp.com/tech/china-tec...reliant-us-core-technology-some-time-so-world

Eye opening article.


The highlighted is significant. China DO NOT have a complete and true indigenous semicon manufacturing industry. The first step in having a complete and true indigenous semicon industry is -- SILICA.

Here...Have a taste of what it takes to refine silica and finally into usable wafers...

http://www2.ensc.sfu.ca/~glennc/e495/e495l2j.pdf

The word 'sand' is actually a casual usage in semicon manufacturing.

https://pveducation.org/pvcdrom/manufacturing/refining-silicon

See that? QUARTZ ROCK.

To be independent, China must mine her own quartz ores.

To continue with the SCMP article...


You failed to grasp what article said :lol:

The most difficult in supply chain of Chip products is not making Silica where China is capable, but on the foundry technology and the equipment, it is because US is in leading position while the pace of technology progress is still following moore's law, and US ban on selling these equipment to China.

China can produce wafer but her technology is still on 28nm a 1 or 2 generation behind which is good for low end electronics products but cannot compete with high end one, while the leader in this world like Taiwan, and Korea is working with 7nm. So it takes time for China to be on par with Taiwan & Korea, but it is achievable.

I work with ALL of the named equipment suppliers. I created qualifications testing regimes for their hardware into our processes.


LOL. so you still expect people to believe on you after your fraud and funny physics all this time? :laugh:

For China to have a complete and true indigenous semicon industry, China must be able to sever ALL ties with these companies AFTER she created her own testing/processing equipment and AFTER those new hardware have been proven in a few manufacturing environment, not in the labs. Bad testing/processing equipment will result in bad products.


China critical dependency on US is only on chip! like those from intel and qualcomm.

But Huawei have made breakthrough with their Kirin, and China also has loongson and shenwei + recently release processor with AMD tech.

For the foundry at the moment china can use TSMC from Taiwan. China has possibility to reach TSMC level in mid of next decade, as she is developing technology in foundry and equipments.

If US ban all chinese electronics vendor now chinese vendors will suffer, but if US ban her next or 2 years later the story will be changed a lot, as perhaps Huawei Kirin will be ready for other chinese vendors too.

The difference between you and me is -- DETAILS.

I know the details. You do not. That is why the best you can come up with is the vague 'capability' without having a clue of what really involved.

But of course, just like your lie about your 'aviation studies', you are going to tell us of your 'semiconductor manufacturing studies'. :lol:


Your failure to grasp the article indicate that you are making another fraud again about your working experience in semicon industry :lol:
 
.
China critical dependency on US is only on chip! like those from intel and qualcomm.

But Huawei have made breakthrough with their Kirin, and China also has loongson and shenwei + recently release processor with AMD tech.

For the foundry at the moment china can use TSMC from Taiwan. China has possibility to reach TSMC level in mid of next decade, as she is developing technology in foundry and equipments.

If US ban all chinese electronics vendor now chinese vendors will suffer, but if US ban her next or 2 years later the story will be changed a lot, as perhaps Huawei Kirin will be ready for other chinese vendors too.

Yes, there is massive investment going on in this field, thanks, in part, to the ZTE affair. China had somehow a blind trust in the global supply chain and did not perhaps pushed strongly. However, semiconductors are still one of the core 10 technologies identified in Made in China 2025.

The recent and ongoing events will only speed up Made in China 2025 goals for semiconductors a few years early. But, eventually, there will be parity.

@qwerrty
 
.
You failed to grasp what article said
And you failed to grasp the implication of my post.

In semiconductor, China is vulnerable from wafer start to wafer end. You are just too dense to see it. But of course, what do you know other than what your Chinese friends tells you.

...you are making another fraud again about your working experience in semicon industry
Not one of you can post about the semicon industry like I can. And you all know it. :enjoy:
 
.
https://www.scmp.com/tech/enterpris...e-technology-breakthrough-belies-its-weakness
“Quickly earning money is a trend among many Chinese entrepreneurs. We have seen many original equipment manufacturers in China earn easy money by building products that do not require sophisticated technologies,” said Li Yi, chief fellow at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences.
Maybe am mistaken, but it is likely that Shanghai is NOT an American or European city. And the name 'Li Yi' does not have that Anglo-Saxon tone to it. :lol:

“Many of these entrepreneurs bail out on making huge long-term investments in industrial design and advanced manufacturing.”

Such short-term approach has partly negated recent government investments as well as strategic mergers and acquisitions in major segments of the domestic hi-tech industry, particularly in semiconductors.
The problem for the Chinese semicon industry came from a combination of many factors. Greed and shortsightedness is not worth talking about since those things occurs whenever capitalism is allowed. What make the Chinese semicon industry vulnerable is China's internal market -- the ordinary Chinese consumers. This is not unique in history but for now it is a problem for China. The short term approach encourages rapid growth but it also encourages entrepreneurs to exit the market and as they leave, they are confident that there will be those who can replace them, and they are correct, but the replacements have the same short term quick profit mentality. Each cycle have the new entrepreneurs increases the dependency on foreign suppliers, including those of the intellectual types, aka mercenary experts. It is easier, quicker, and faster to market to hire a foreign expert than to raise one in-house. Forcing foreign companies to joint ventures and stealing their intellectual properties does not help the long term view as each advances that were aided by intellectual theft, domestic experts increases their dependency on foreign sources to steal.

Li, from the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, credited Huawei Technologies for producing Kirin, its own chipsets for smartphones.

“Kirin may not be the best chip set available in the market, but it could guarantee that Huawei is not left with nothing to depend on, making it more of a strategic investment,” Li said.
The operative word here is 'could', implying insecurity. This does not guarantee that foreign companies will not produce anything better, after all, this is capitalism. If the backup is not as good as the primary, that is reason why it is the backup. And Huawei continues to rely on foreign technology for its primary.
 
.
And you failed to grasp the implication of my post.

In semiconductor, China is vulnerable from wafer start to wafer end. You are just too dense to see it. But of course, what do you know other than what your Chinese friends tells you.


In fact the wafer technology that I am speaking about which is foundry and equipments, not the silica mining etc like you said. :lol:

And LOL. You can't say it is vulnerable if China doesnt depend on it yet, while China still depend on TSMC and other from overseas; means US ban on wafer equipment to China doesnt impact significantly; and you are too dense to understand about it :laugh:

Not one of you can post about the semicon industry like I can. And you all know it. :enjoy:


After you failed to grasp the article + previous frauds, how could people believe on your current claim that you are presently working in semicon industry? :laugh:

Most probably you just copy paste from another source without deep understanding - as usual, that explains why you always mismatch :lol:
 
. .
China critical dependency on US is only on chip! like those from intel and QUALCOMM.:omghaha:

But Huawei have made breakthrough with their Kirin, and China also has loongson and shenwei + recently release processor with AMD tech.

For the foundry at the moment china can use TSMC from Taiwan. China has possibility to reach TSMC level in mid of next decade, as she is developing technology in foundry and equipments.

If US ban all chinese electronics vendor now chinese vendors will suffer, but if US ban her next or 2 years later the story will be changed a lot, as perhaps Huawei Kirin will be ready for other chinese vendors too.




Your failure to grasp the article indicate that you are making another fraud again about your working experience in semicon industry :lol:

Well, the best you can do is to "Accuse" other people for being a fraud, coincidentally, this is what fraud always do.

And the red part is incorrect. Was mobile phone in China use one of these?

800px-SIM_Card.jpg


If Chinese mobile phone use ONLY this, then you have a bigger problem then CPU, because forget CPU, unless you don't want to use the Subscriber Identity Modula (otherwise known as SIM), your phone is simply, well, NOT A MOBILE PHONE, because there are NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE other than SIM in the world, used to have CDMA (which is a US/Japan technology) but SIM is the only thing left.

Forget about CPU, with one of these, which mean China have always depend on 2 things. SIM technology itself or the UICC, which is LICENSED from European Telecommunication Standard Institute, which although is not American company, you still run the risk of being sanction. But the receiver of SIM (or SIM interface bus) build in your phone, that is an AMERICAN technology, and currently the manufacturer dominating this is Qualcomm

Unless China stop using SIM technology (Which dated back in 1990s when we first have our GSM network back then.) There are tons of technology is patented to everywhere but China (like Roaming, which is a KT patent, GPS on SIM which is an American patent and so on) plus other third party access on mobile phone (like Blue Tooth, Wifi)

LOL:laugh:
 
Last edited:
.
RFID technology monitored by foreign companies.
Hey; if Facebook Zuckerberg aka Sucker can sell Facebook users data info then y cant foreign companies industries sell those data gathering related to China?
 
.
What is 'z up' and where is it applicable?

You are forgetting that you are talking to Mr "I am the right path" here

He don't need to know what "Z up" or whatever you need to know In industry to know better than you lol. Because he is the chosen one and his word are always right, and your's regardless of actual experience, is always wrong lol.
 
.
Well, the best you can do is to "Accuse" other people for being a fraud, coincidentally, this is what fraud always do.

And the red part is incorrect. Was mobile phone in China use one of these?

View attachment 485871

If Chinese mobile phone use ONLY this, then you have a bigger problem then CPU, because forget CPU, unless you don't want to use the Subscriber Identity Modula (otherwise known as SIM), your phone is simply, well, NOT A MOBILE PHONE, because there are NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE other than SIM in the world, used to have CDMA (which is a US/Japan technology) but SIM is the only thing left.

Forget about CPU, with one of these, which mean China have always depend on 2 things. SIM technology itself or the UICC, which is LICENSED from European Telecommunication Standard Institute, which although is not American company, you still run the risk of being sanction. But the receiver of SIM (or SIM interface bus) build in your phone, that is an AMERICAN technology, and currently the manufacturer dominating this is Qualcomm

Unless China stop using SIM technology (Which dated back in 1990s when we first have our GSM network back then.) There are tons of technology is patented to everywhere but China (like Roaming, which is a KT patent, GPS on SIM which is an American patent and so on) plus other third party access on mobile phone (like Blue Tooth, Wifi)

LOL:laugh:


Hellow .. meet Chinese' Eastcompeace, a large simcard producer:
https://www.gadgetsnow.com/tech-new...rd-supplier-in-India/articleshow/17620664.cms
:laugh:

C] Worldwide SIM card Manufacturers Analysis/Key Competitors :-

1 Gemalto
2 Giesecke & Devrient
3 Morpho
4 Oberthur Technologies
5 Bluefish
6 Datang
7 DZCARD
8 Eastcompeace
9 ST Incard
10 Kona
11 Watchdata
12 Wuhan Tianyu
13 XH Smartcard (Zhuhai) Co. Ltd

http://www.telcoprofessionals.com/p...t-2016-global-leading-manufacturers-gemalto-m

That means at least 5 of 13 SimCard manufacturers are from China.

So no, Europe's ban on exporting sim cards to China wont' make her smartphone vendor collapse. That means the accusation is based on your incompetence :laugh:
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom