China rapidly narrows technology gap with S. Korea

[Dungeness]

The "truth" that you said is simply your own assumption. The experts in this field doesnt agree with you. I have given you evidence: both Panasonic boss and the other expert that you guys downplay because simply not according to what you want to believe.

The OLED is "technology promotion" is totally nonsense, because oled has been mass produced and selling. Even if it is still called promotion - so what?? It doesnt mean that we have to ignore the technological achievement.




You are WRONG and dummies.

WRONG, because It is not only LG that invest and produce OLED, most display maker also invest and produce OLED.

Dummie, because I have given you evidence, but again and again you ignore them or unable to discern maybe.

These are other company that produce or invest in OLED technology beside LG:
BOE Technology
CSOT
Visionox
Tianma
Sony
and many more ...


So stop BULSSYIT and pretend to be expert! find fact, and open your eyes widely to see the truth.

This is the FACT about OLED prospect

Investing in OLEDs: discover the next big thing
OLED is a new exciting technology, enabling thin, efficient and bright displays and lighting. Many people consider OLEDs to be the next-generation display, television and lighting tech. The potential sales of OLEDs in the next few years is billion of dollars. In fact, the OLED display market today is estimated at 600M$, and is forecasted to grow to 5.5B$ by 2015. OLED lighting will take off (hopefully) by 2011, and reach 6B$ in revenue in 2018.

OLED companies
There are many companies working on OLEDs, from big corporations like Sony, Samsung, LG, Kodak and GE, to small research and IP companies.
Investing in OLEDs: discover the next big thing | OLED-Info

I hope this is an opening eyes for you guys who are so myopic due to blind nationalistic and cannot accept the fact that other country is still ahead than you.
Show me evidence that saying otherwise if you still disagree



LOLs. You are a truly JOKER boy

Does China car success in America?

Live with fact! that China still fail to enter USA market, while at least Hyundai selling in USA and get good score in term of quality recently






But their technology is not Chinese achievement.




Then Sweden can say that Volvo technology is Sweded technology.




Because chinese car still low in quality.




From 2010, then Volvo technology already fall into chinese hand, but still chinese car's quality is bad?




Ohhh... is there any other sentence that saying Chinese car is already on par with international brand in term of quality?

I am admired with your joke talent





Doesnt matter. CLSA is not stupid - they test on 2 chinese leading (the best) car in 2014.




You really dont know what you are talking, and dummie.

I've told you most China display maker already produce OLED panel, and you keep saying that they are not producing their own OLED panel?

Find fact, educate your self before speak please.





It is so hillarious to see dummie and blind fanboy like you say other people clueless about business.
Please find fact, before you get humiliated further.

If everyone in India had your persistence on their regular jobs, India would have been a really shinning country today.

 

[Tiqiu]

You talk as if this -- reading and talking about -- is somehow unique, at least on this forum, and none of your fellow Chinese ever engaged in it. This is a military oriented forum, how many of you Chinese on this forum ever served and yet have no problems making pronouncements on military affairs ?


Speaking of being a real dimwit instead of just playing one...

What make you think that I am interested in changing you guys' minds ? I do not care if you guys buy my crap or not. This is about the silent readers. In a manner of speaking, I am arguing on their behalf.


No, I do not. But currently English is the WORKING LANGUAGE of STEM. At one point in Chemistry, if you want to learn and contribute to that science, you have to know German. I work with Chinese engineers on a daily basis and whenever I hear them on conference calls from the US back to China, their conversations are peppered with not only English words but entire phrases. Many of them even admitted that STEM is better served with/in/by English than their Chinese. So your question is meaningless.


Direct this at your fellow Chinese since it is they who are claiming that China's technology base is superior to JPN and SKR. So far, China have been very successful at learning, stealing, and robbing others not only of origin technologies, but also of derived (spin-off) technologies, and of core technologies.

Your friend Marty apparently does not understand the differences between origin, derived, and core technologies. He implied that gunpowder is a core technology that formed the foundation for other scientific discoveries. Fact: Gunpowder have not been used since the invention of cordite in 1890.

Mind you, I do not mean that when cordite was invented, the use of gunpowder immediately stopped. It just simply mean that when there comes a superior alternative, the use of the original product will decline over time. Cordite is superior to gunpowder in so many ways that gunpowder today is quite a museum artifact.

Gunpowder was an origin technology. It gave people the hint that if you mix A, B, and C together, you will get a product that does something. So with cordite, instead of A, B, and C, we have E, F, and G. Cordite is a derived (spin-off) technology. Since then, we have plenty of formulations of products that produces the same result as gunpowder.

Gunpowder and cordite are themselves core technologies. A core technology can be discarded when a superior core technology is available. Can be, but not necessarily so. Example is in rocketry when there are parallel propellent methods: solid and liquid fuel. Each have advantages the other does not. Each is superior to the other only in certain environment and circumstance. So when there is no clear superiority in most environments and circumstances, parallel core technologies will co-exists.

Now...Is magnetic a derived technology from gunpowder and cordite ? No, it is not. Magnetism is an elemental physical phenomena that exists everywhere in the universe, whereas gunpowder and cordite are man-made composites. They may or may not exists in alien civilizations.

We are starting to use magnetics to propel bodies. The US Navy is fielding a magnetic gun soon. Gunpowder and cordite are explosives to send a body into motion. Magnets are used to do the same thing. But then so is the wagon and wheel combination that sends a body into motion. So is magnetics a derived technology from the wagon and wheel combination ? No, it is not. The magnetic gun is closer to gunpowder and cordite in the IDEA of sending a body into motion, but since its components have no physical relations and similarities to both gunpowder and cordite, it is an origin technology.

What is an 'advanced' society comes from the amount of origin/derived technologies developed to become core technologies, and the availability or scope of those technologies to the people. The Soviet Union was not an 'advanced' society. Yes, there were ICBMs, nuclear submarines, and a space program.

But here is a list of derived technologies from the American space program...

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/pdf/spinoff2008.pdf

Anything from the Soviet and Chinese space programs ? How common among the Russians and Chinese homes are ICBMs and nuclear submarines ? Can you explain why the microwave oven could not have come from the Soviet Union and your China ?

If you want to discuss arrogance, look at your fellow Chinese in this forum. The amount of original and spin-off technologies from SKR and JPN surpassed China and serves the people in exactly what Kennedy said in that NASA link: '...used for the progress of all people.' Your China have yet to match up to those two countries.


Yeah...Tell that to your fellow Chinese. Hopefully it would temper their arrogance a bit.


The first-mover have the advantage of being the trend setter and standards bearer. The late-mover have the advantages of learning from the mistakes of those before. But your fellow Chinese are not interested about Chinese technological progress from an academic perspective. They are more interested in using the current Chinese progress to beat down others, even to racialist tunes.

Take the buildings in Shanghai and a few other major Chinese cities, for example. Your fellow Chinese boasts about those tall buildings and criticized US cities as old and decrepit. Laughable is their ignorance.

Take two plots of land, A and B. Land A is barren and undeveloped or under developed, while land B have existing houses and other structures. You cannot simply build anything you want on B. The land and the society that lives on it cannot deviate from existing building laws and codes. The plumbing is already built. The property lines and their legal obligations and rights already established. On land A, you can do anything you want, but whatever you build, you will be using the same technologies as the people have on land B. So just because the newer buildings on land A have more flashy lights and fancier plumbings, there have been no real technological advancements in civil engineering, architectures, constructions, and so on. So you cannot justifiably claimed that the people on land A is more 'advanced' than the people on land B. But such claims are exactly what your fellow Chinese have done.

The Chinese on this forum are not interested in technology from a philosophical perspective as you implied in your question about long term implications for China. They are more interested in using the technological progress in China to beat their chests and to beat each other off.

Are you being real with you self? You seriously think people would buy into you self crowned title nonsense of representing the silent readers. From what I see you Americans may have a self confidence issues as you would not go alone in everything. Does your Collective West include Japan and Korea besides Russia? Safety in numbers Psyche is on best display.

My degrees are not in social science or engineering so I am not going to walk into a lengthy academic discussion about the history of technological and social development of countries. Your opinion about China’s technology status reflects the extent of your closed minded mentality which stalls you from going ahead. I guess looking backward does give you certain degree of comfort as nostalgia does to people losing hope. However most Chinese are forward looking and confident about our technological future as there are many breakthroughs being made on daily basis. Like you said adaptation is need, for the U.S of course.

Like most Chinese posters here, I am also proud of those modern skyscrapers, sleek HSR, 5-star infrastructures in the scale unseen in history or on other places. You would understand this feeling if you were to expand your vision beyond what was built to how was built against all odds.

Also if you put everything in a bigger context beyond the forum then you would understand why most Chinese posters behave in the way they are behaving. For many decades, you America has been waging a biased and prejudiced China-bashing campaign and now you are complaining the Chinese for not being rational, who is dimwit here?

 

[CAPRICORN-88]

The "truth" that you said is simply your own assumption. The experts in this field doesnt agree with you. I have given you evidence: both Panasonic boss and the other expert that you guys downplay because simply not according to what you want to believe.

The OLED is "technology promotion" is totally nonsense, because oled has been mass produced and selling. Even if it is still called promotion - so what?? It doesnt mean that we have to ignore the technological achievement.

You are WRONG and dummies.

WRONG, because It is not only LG that invest and produce OLED, most display maker also invest and produce OLED.

Dummie, because I have given you evidence, but again and again you ignore them or unable to discern maybe.

These are other company that produce or invest in OLED technology beside LG:
BOE Technology
CSOT
Visionox
Tianma
Sony
and many more ...


So stop BULSSYIT and pretend to be expert! find fact, and open your eyes widely to see the truth.

This is the FACT about OLED prospect

Investing in OLEDs: discover the next big thing
OLED is a new exciting technology, enabling thin, efficient and bright displays and lighting. Many people consider OLEDs to be the next-generation display, television and lighting tech. The potential sales of OLEDs in the next few years is billion of dollars. In fact, the OLED display market today is estimated at 600M$, and is forecasted to grow to 5.5B$ by 2015. OLED lighting will take off (hopefully) by 2011, and reach 6B$ in revenue in 2018.

OLED companies
There are many companies working on OLEDs, from big corporations like Sony, Samsung, LG, Kodak and GE, to small research and IP companies.
Investing in OLEDs: discover the next big thing | OLED-Info

I hope this is an opening eyes for you guys who are so myopic due to blind nationalistic and cannot accept the fact that other country is still ahead than you.
Show me evidence that saying otherwise if you still disagree

LOLs. You are a truly JOKER boy

Does China car success in America?

Live with fact! that China still fail to enter USA market, while at least Hyundai selling in USA and get good score in term of quality recently

But their technology is not Chinese achievement.
Then Sweden can say that Volvo technology is Sweded technology.
Because chinese car still low in quality.
From 2010, then Volvo technology already fall into chinese hand, but still chinese car's quality is bad?
Ohhh... is there any other sentence that saying Chinese car is already on par with international brand in term of quality?

I am admired with your joke talent
Doesnt matter. CLSA is not stupid - they test on 2 chinese leading (the best) car in 2014.
You really dont know what you are talking, and dummie.
I've told you most China display maker already produce OLED panel, and you keep saying that they are not producing their own OLED panel?

Find fact, educate your self before speak please.
It is so hillarious to see dummie and blind fanboy like you say other people clueless about business.
Please find fact, before you get humiliated further.

Frankly I have NO IDEA why you are still here arguing about a product that is produced by both South Korea as well as China companies. The technology belongs to a US company. I failed to understand your point?

As I mentioned before, it is not a case where Chinese companies are unable to produce OLED but it is matter of supply and demand.

On the other hand, China appears to have the upper hand with the release of the 10K Video technology over South Korea companies.

Using insulting and obnoxious languages against your opponent does not help you to win your argument whatever your point is?

I gather you are not a fan of Chinese product. It is NOT because they fail to meet up to international standard e.g. even the Toyota Chairman acknowledged he was caught surprise at the advancement of Chinese made cars including the quality but a case of your own personal prejudice.

But am I surprise by Toyota's Chairman made a few years ago at a Autoshow in China. It is quite logical in view of massive fund available for the R&D. All dictated by sales and profitability.

Spy Shots showing the spectacular new dashboard of a new variant of the Zotye T600 SUV. The dash has gone completely digital with an LCD display for the dials, a giant LCD in the center console, and a HUD display in front of the driver.

When someone informs you like a truthsayers, he is not a fanboy or dummy as you called. Perhaps time to reflect yourself in the mirror.

 

[gambit]

...who is dimwit here?

From what I just read -- YOU are.

 

[Tiqiu]

From what I just read -- YOU are.

Fair enough. I gave you my perspectives, you gave me yours.

It is so hillarious to see dummie and blind fanboy like you say other people clueless about business.
Please find fact, before you get humiliated further.

The yard stick to measure one country's technology level is military technology, not civil, certainly not OELD.

For defense, countries or companies backed by state would pour all available resources with no regard to the costs whatsoever to develop weapons giving them the edge over rivals. Saturn 5 in the 60s and F35 nowadays are the best examples.

Whereas for civil, especially for home appliances, costs of production and commercial viability/marketability are the primary consideration for any company as it is decisive to their fate. Thus products of the market leader we consumers see may not necessarily represent the best technology. For instance, in the 1970s Japan became the market leader in many consumer goods categories, electronics, precision machinery and automobiles to name a few. The West was puzzled by the fact that they were beaten while their technologies were not inferior to the Japan’s. The subsequent studies revealed that much of the success of Japan’s triumph was attributed to a set of new cost reduction techniques Japan had invented such as Kaizen Costing and JIT. Many Japan firms adopted these and were able to produce consumers’ goods of affordable price with the level of functionality or features commensurate to the price. It was not the supremacy of Japan’s technology, it was these cost control techniques that made Japan success.

South Korea followed suit and so did China. So in this regard Japan deserved credit. Kaizen Costing and JIT are widely used in the cost accounting text books nowadays. People may not know Kaizen is actually the Chinese word “改善” with the same meaning of continuous improvement.

Maybe it is time for someone to be upgraded with a MBA perhaps.

 

[Martian2]

Are you being real with you self? You seriously think people would buy into you self crowned title nonsense of representing the silent readers. From what I see you Americans may have a self confidence issues as you would not go alone in everything. Does your Collective West include Japan and Korea besides Russia? Safety in numbers Psyche is on best display.

My degrees are not in social science or engineering so I am not going to walk into a lengthy academic discussion about the history of technological and social development of countries. Your opinion about China’s technology status reflects the extent of your closed minded mentality which stalls you from going ahead. I guess looking backward does give you certain degree of comfort as nostalgia does to people losing hope. However most Chinese are forward looking and confident about our technological future as there are many breakthroughs being made on daily basis. Like you said adaptation is need, for the U.S of course.

Like most Chinese posters here, I am also proud of those modern skyscrapers, sleek HSR, 5-star infrastructures in the scale unseen in history or on other places. You would understand this feeling if you were to expand your vision beyond what was built to how was built against all odds.

Also if you put everything in a bigger context beyond the forum then you would understand why most Chinese posters behave in the way they are behaving. For many decades, you America has been waging a biased and prejudiced China-bashing campaign and now you are complaining the Chinese for not being rational, who is dimwit here?

Gambit does not represent the average American.

The average American is not ethnically Vietnamese.

Gambit's views are indicative of a tiny minority (e.g. Vietnamese with American passports).

 

[antonius123]

After we were flooded with jokes from some joker, , now it is time to hear to what Experts in this field talking about OLED prospect.

World Organic LED Market
Opportunities and Forecasts, 2014 - 2020


OLED also known as organic light emitting diode is a flat light emitting technology developed by placing thin organic film between two conductors. OLED technology is garnering more acceptance among end users as it is thinner, brighter, lightweight, power efficient and offers higher contrast compared to LCDs. OLEDs offer wide viewing angles, faster response times, higher contrast ratios and more saturated colors to enhance viewing experience of end users. OLED is one of the most promising display and lighting technologies that has the capability of offering power efficiency lighting and is superior compared to the fluorescent tubes and incandescent bulbs. OLED technology helps end user to create flexible display and lighting panels. OLEDs are more expensive than LED and LCD products. However, price of these products would decrease gradually once the products get more acceptance among the end users.

Various emerging and developed economies around the world are working towards switching to energy efficient lighting solutions. Experts have predicted that OLED technology would meet the required performance and pricing targets, which would facilitate smooth transition from conventional to efficient lighting solutions. Moreover, government and industry funding for R&D is expected to boost the process of addressing the technological challenges of the world OLED lighting solution.

The report segments the OLED market based on application, display type, applications of OLED display panel, OLED lighting end users and geography. Based on application, the OLED market is segmented into display and lighting. Based on display type, the world OLED display market is segmented into AMOLED and PMOLED. Television and monitors, smartphone, notebooks and tablets, automotive and others are the major application areas of OLED display. Based on end users, the world OLED lighting market is segmented into commercial, residential and industrial. Further, by geography the market is segmented into North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and LAMEA (Latin America, Middle East and Africa).

Some of the key players profiled in the report are LG Electronics Inc., Koninklijke Philips N.V., OSRAM GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Panasonic Corporation, Novaled GmbH, Au Optronics Corp., E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Cambridge Display Technology Limited and Universal Display Corporation.

Organic LED Market Key Benefits:

• The study provides an in-depth analysis of the OLED market with current and future trends to elucidate the imminent investment pockets in the market
• Current and future trends adopted by the key market players are highlighted to determine overall competitiveness of the market
• Porters Five Forces analysis and SWOT analysis of the key market players are provided to illustrate the business strategies adopted by buyers and suppliers
• The report provides information regarding key drivers, restraints and opportunities with their impact analysis for the forecast period
• Various operating segments of the OLED market are carefully analyzed to measure the potential of the emerging market
• The quantitative analysis of the market through 2014-2020 is provided to elaborate the market potential

OLED Market Segments
The market is segmented based on application, OLED display type, OLED display application, OLED lighting market by end users and geography.

BY APPLICATION

• Display
• Lighting

BY TYPE

• PMOLED
• AMOLED

BY APPLICATION

• Television and Monitors
• Smartphones
• Notebooks and Tablets
• Automotive
• Others

BY END USERS

• Commercial
• Residential
• Industrial

BY GEOGRAPHY

• North America
• Europe
• Asia Pacific
• LAMEA

KEY PLAYERS

• LG Electronics Inc.
• Koninklijke Philips N.V.
• OSRAM GmbH
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Panasonic Corporation
• Novaled GmbH
• Au Optronics Corp
• E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
• Cambridge Display Technology Limited
• Universal Display Corporation

Organic LED Market size, share & analysis of OLED technology

 

[Jlaw]

Something interesting that most PDF members do not know is this:

 

[antonius123]

@ Xun Zi, capricorn, martian, oprih, keel, etc.

Yuhuuuuuuu .... for your opening eyes please ..

OLED is not a failed product with very small market demand and gloomy future as you thought all this time. In fact OLED has very bright future

Global OLED Market Expected to Reach $ 37.2 Billion by 2020
Posted on December 24, 2015, 6:00 AM, by Craig DiLouie, under Lighting Industry, Research.

According to a new report published by Allied Market Research titled, World Organic LED Market – Opportunities and Forecasts, 2014 – 2020, the world OLED market is estimated to generate revenue of $37.2 billion by 2020, registering a CAGR of 18.3% during the forecast period 2015 –2020. Enhanced picture quality, high energy efficiency, increasing demand for eco-friendly products and growing government regulations will support this growth.

Display is one of the major application areas of OLED technology and accounted for approximately 96.9% market share of the total OLED market in terms of revenue in 2014. The second application area of OLED is general lighting, which is expected to witness a considerable growth over the forecast period. The report segments the World OLED lighting market into commercial, residential and industrial sector. Among all, commercial segment was the highest revenue generating end user segment, accounting for $245.4 million in 2014. However, industrial OLED lighting end-user application segment is forecasted to see the highest CAGR of 53.8% during the forecast period and reach $463.6 million by 2020.

Key findings:

* World OLED market is expected to grow rapidly owing to increased adoption of OLED technology into smartphones, television and lighting applications.
* Lighting application of OLED technology expected to grow at a CAGR of 45.8% during the forecast period 2015-2020, owing to rapid technological advancement.
* The Asia-Pacific market is expected to see tremendous growth for OLED technology. The region will account for nearly 35.9% of the total market by 2020, growing at a CAGR of 16.8%

Global OLED Market Expected to Reach $ 37.2 Billion by 2020 | LightNOW


Any other move to dodge ?

 

[j20blackdragon]

Does China car success in America?

Live with fact! that China still fail to enter USA market, while at least Hyundai selling in USA and get good score in term of quality recently



But their technology is not Chinese achievement.

Then Sweden can say that Volvo technology is Sweded technology.

Because chinese car still low in quality.

From 2010, then Volvo technology already fall into chinese hand, but still chinese car's quality is bad?

Ohhh... is there any other sentence that saying Chinese car is already on par with international brand in term of quality?

I am admired with your joke talent

Doesnt matter. CLSA is not stupid - they test on 2 chinese leading (the best) car in 2014.

Get it through your thick skull. The owner of a company owns all the technology. Engineers are employees. The CEO is an employee. The country of Sweden doesn't own Volvo. You think Sweden is the Soviet Union or something?

I don't think you fully grasp the level of collaboration between Volvo and China.

Volvo is getting $11 billion in funding from China to build a range of new cars.
http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21615677-volvo

Volvo and Geely have multiple joint R&D centers.

"The new R&D centre will employ about 200 full-time engineers from Sweden and China."
UPDATE 1-Geely and Volvo to set up R&D centre in Sweden| Reuters

CHINA: Volvo and Geely open new R&D centre in Shanghai | Automotive Industry News | just-auto

Volvo is planning to sell Chinese-made cars in the US. These are coming from Chinese factories.
Volvo launches China-made car in United States - CNN.com

Volvo is opening its first US car factory with Chinese money.
Chinese-owned Volvo to open its first U.S. car plant - Mar. 30, 2015

Keep in mind that the 2016 Volvo XC90 is the first model produced under Chinese ownership. It is also the first model in about a decade to be free of all Ford Motor Co. components. And already it is winning tons of awards. You think this is coincidence?

The 2016 Volvo XC90 just won the coveted North American Truck/Utility of the Year.
Volvo's XC90 wins auto industry's top SUV prize

The 2016 Volvo XC90 is rank #1 in U.S. News Luxury Midsize SUVs.
Best Luxury Midsize SUVs Rankings | U.S. News Best Cars

The 2016 Volvo XC90 is the 2016 Motor Trend SUV of the Year.
2016 Volvo XC90 is the 2016 Motor Trend SUV of the Year

2016 Yahoo Autos Ride Of The Year: Volvo XC90
2016 Yahoo Autos Ride Of The Year: Volvo XC90

"Cars.com just named Volvo's stunning XC90 our Best of 2016 winner."
We Bought a 2016 Volvo XC90

5 Awards, 5 Reasons Why 2016 Volvo XC90 is the Best Luxury SUV [Photo] : Science & General News : Latinos Health

You can keep pretending Volvo is not a Chinese company if you want. But Volvo didn't achieve half of the things I listed above when they were under Ford ownership. Don't forget that Volvo was a nearly bankrupt company when they were under Ford control. Ford paid $6.4 billion for Volvo in 1999 and sold the company for $1.8 billion to China.

I challenge you to show me one vehicle in Hyundai's entire line up that's better than the 2016 Volvo XC90.

Why would China ever want to replicate Hyundai's failure in the US? Hyundai Motor America began selling cars in the USA in 1986 and today most Americans still consider Hyundai a cheap car brand. Hyundai's market share is smaller than Nissan in the US and you have to give out a 10 year/100,000 mile warranty just to keep up. Hyundai is a joke.

With the purchase of Volvo, China just skipped several decades of pain that Hyundai experienced and we leapfrogged you instantly. Who is the real winner?

 

[gambit]

The yard stick to measure one country's technology level is military technology, not civil, certainly not OELD.

Wrong. It is the opposite.

For starter...There is no such thing as 'military technology', just technology adapted for military use. It is very rare that a technology have strictly military use, an ICBM is example.

Now...The real yardstick to measure any country's technology level is the scope and depth of as many 'tech' items as possible into ordinary lives. For your immature argument, the analogy is to measure a country's literacy level is not how many ordinary people can read/write, but how many of its leadership can. Nobody would accept that. In the old days, there were kings that were illiterate, completely dependent upon priests and bureaucrats to knowledge.

Top 10 insane emperors in ancient China - China.org.cn

Zhu Youxiao (1605-1627), Emperor Xizong, was the 15th emperor of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). He took over the throne in 1620 at the age of 15 and was seduced by his nanny Madam Ke. Zhu, probably suffering from learning problems, was illiterate and could hardly understand basic affairs. Zhu was a good carpenter, but in no way a qualified or competent emperor.

Understandably for what they alleged to be and do, priests have always been associated with knowledge, especially arcane knowledge. They were zealots in keeping knowledge confined to their own class.

Are you going to argue that a country's literacy rate should be measured by how many of its political and military elites can read/write ?

Maybe it is time for someone to be upgraded with a MBA perhaps.

Maybe...How about you go first considering you admitted you have no education about technology in general, and now you are grossly wrong on how to assess a country's technology level ?

Why would China ever want to replicate Hyundai's failure in the US?

The US market is the best market to make profit and to assess one's brand, especially when it comes to the automobile.

Hyundai Motor America began selling cars in the USA in 1986 and today most Americans still consider Hyundai a cheap car brand.

Cheap does not mean a failure. If the goal is market penetration, inexpensive (not cheap) is the way to go. That was how Toyota and Nissan did it.

Hyundai's market share is smaller than Nissan in the US...

And larger than BMW considering how BMW have been in the US market for far longer.

...and you have to give out a 10 year/100,000 mile warranty just to keep up. Hyundai is a joke.

This criticism is a joke. Hyundai's market share have been steadily INCREASING.

Porsche, Hyundai get high marks for customer satisfaction : FUTURE TECH : Tech Times

 

[Keel]

.

10 Best Countries in Nanotechnology
Published on September 14, 2015 at 1:20 pm by TY HAQQI in Lists
10 Most Technologically Advanced Countries in the world.


Using sources such as Cientifica and Gatech, we have compiled a list of countries which have been ranked in accordance with the money they spend on nanotechnology and the number of papers published by them. This is because of the fact that these two factors are integral in determining the success of a country in the field of nanotechnology.

10. India
Total nanotechnology spending: $100,000,000
Rank based on spending: 10
Number of papers published: 581
Rank based on papers published: 9

The second largest democracy has a host of issues such as eradicating poverty, but has still managed to spend a significant amount of money on nanotechnology, resulting in the country making improvements in the field.

9. Taiwan
Total nanotechnology spending: $200,000,000
Rank based on spending: 9
Number of papers published: 603
Rank based on papers published: 8

While Taiwan may not be the largest or the most technologically developed country in the world, but it has realized the importance of nanotechnology, devoting a considerable amount to the field and making successful developments in the area as well.

8. United Kingdom
Total nanotechnology spending: $250,000,000
Rank based on spending: 8
Number of papers published: 1225
Rank based on papers published: 6

One of the powerhouses of Europe, it is not surprise that the United Kingdom features on this list. However, many would expect such a well-developed and technologically advanced country to feature higher on this list. Unfortunately, while the UK has excellent infrastructure to support nanotechnology, the country has not provided as much funding as would be reasonably expected from a country of its stature.

7. Russia
Total nanotechnology spending: $1,800,000,000
Rank based on spending: 2
Number of papers published registered: 413
Rank based on papers published: 10

It may not be as powerful as it once was, but Russia has also understood the benefits of pursuing scientific discoveries. However, the money spent is not being efficiently utilized, explaining the disappointing number of papers published by the country.

6. France
Total nanotechnology spending: $800,000,000
Rank based on spending: 6
Number of papers published: 998
Rank based on papers published: 7

The city of love is also on the forefront of the technology race, consistently increasing the amount dedicated to the field of nanotechnology. The amount has seen the country reap benefits as evidenced by the number of papers published.

.

 

[Keel]

5. South Korea
Total nanotechnology spending: $400,000,000
Rank based on spending: 7
Number of papers published: 1461
Rank based on papers published: 5

While it may not have the power, wealth or infrastructure if compared to other countries featuring on the list, South Korea has managed to make a name for itself in the nanotechnology field. This is mainly due to the fact that while South Korea has a limited budget overall, it has outspent the UK by nearly 3 times on nanotechnology research.

4. Germany
Total nanotechnology spending: $850,000,000
Rank based on spending: 5
Number of papers published: 1767
Rank based on papers published: 4

The Germans are known for their efficiency and they have managed to showcase their dominance in this field too.

S-F/Shutterstock.com



3. Japan
Total nanotechnology spending: $850,000,000
Rank based on spending: 4
Number of papers published: 2626
Rank based on papers published: 3

Known as the home of technology, Japan has left no stone unturned in order to make sure that it is able to develop and extract the true potential of nanotechnology, as evidenced by the number of papers published by the country.

2. China
Total nanotechnology spending: $1,300,000,000
Rank based on spending: 3
Number of papers published: 2898
Rank based on papers published: 2

In its competition to become the biggest economy in the world, China has ruthlessly attempted to master nanotechnology, pouring vast sums of money into the research.

1. United States of America
Total nanotechnology spending: $3,00,000,000
Rank based on spending: 1
Number of papers published: 6,926
Rank based on papers published: 1

The United States is the undisputed king of nanotechnology, and is just another example of why the country is regarded as the only real world superpower. It is definitely the best country in nanotechnology.

.

 

[Aepsilons]

Known as the home of technology, Japan has left no stone unturned in order to make sure that it is able to develop and extract the true potential of nanotechnology, as evidenced by the number of papers published by the country.

Of course, afterall, this is JAPAN we are talking about.

 

[Keel]

Apple, Chinese makers lead wearables market surge
AFP | Dec 4, 2015, 08.33 AM IST
Although Apple has not disclosed sales of the smartwatch which went on sale earlier this year, IDC estimated t... Read More

WASHINGTON: The global market for wearable tech surged in the third quarter, fueled by the Apple Watch and gains from Chinese manufacturers, a market tracker said Thursday.

The research firm IDC said some 21.7 million wearables were sold in the past quarter, a jump of 197%.

Fitness tracker maker Fitbit maintained the top spot with a 22.2% market share and unit sales of 4.7 million, according to IDC.

Although Apple has not disclosed sales of the smartwatch which went on sale earlier this year, IDC estimated the tech giant sold 3.9 million units for a market share of 18.6%.

Chinese electronics firm Xiaomi vaulted into third place with a 17.4% market share, as unit sales surged more than 800%, IDC said.

Garmin, the Swiss maker of GPS equipment and consumer technology, was the number four vendor with a 4.1% share, followed by Chinese electronics firm BBK at 3.1% .

"The early stages of the wearables market have led to tight competition among the leading vendors, and Chinese vendors have seized upon market momentum to grab market share," said IDC analyst Ramon Llamas.

"China has quickly emerged as the fastest-growing wearables market, attracting companies eager to compete on price and feature sets. In addition, multiple vendors have experimented with a broad range of products and applications."

IDC said Fitbit led the market with its Fitbit Charge and Fitbit Surge fitness trackers, making gains in the corporate wellness market.

Apple managed a slight increase from the previous quarter, mostly the result of additional markets coming on line, according to IDC.

Xiaomi's inexpensive Mi Band was a hit in the past quarter, with more than 97% of its sales in China, the research firm said.

Garmin held a strong position by focusing on wearables for running, golf, swimming, hiking, and aquatics while BBK and its XTC subsidiary focused exclusively within China, and with just one device, a children's phone watch, IDC said.

.