Economic Truce? What will Huawei, China and East Asia do now?With the economic truce, will Huawei hold off the launch of its OS, building of its own chipsets and building of its own eco-system? The next question ringing in many people's mind is does Huawei really have an OS that works and the means to build the chipsets and eco-systems in the first place or was it just a face saving hype typical of Chinese character?
The credentials of Huawei will indirectly affect the credentials of China.
If Huawei doesn't launch its tech capabilities, this may embolden US. The tech taunt previously by Huawei cannot be taken too lightly for with or without the capability to launch its OS, make its chipsets and build its eco-system, the US is likely to attempt to make sure that you Chinese can't do all these at all eventually. The sanctions may come again in future especially if the US is certain that you Chinese cannot respond.
For East Asia, it is good for China to share the chipset production capacity out with fellow East Asians in particular with the Indochinese. Let them play a part in this arena. China can consider having 2 OS competing with one another healthily. One of these two OS can include minority participation from one or two South East Asians such as Philippines and/or Indonesia subject to some terms and conditions being met while another OS is made up of Chinese phone manufacturers and telco players from Taiwan, Hong Kong no matter how small. The idea is to spread the interest and generate inclusivity.
If China and Huawei do have the means genuinely don't forget the part on tech fashion and culture. Design these for Asia-Europe lifestyle. Bridge the people. The problem is not technology but economics due to the "network effects" of platform technologies such as Microsoft Windows, Google Android, Intel x86 PC and ARM SoC. For Huawei and other Chinese OEMs, they pretty much have no choice but to adopt those foreign technologies if they want to take advantage of their network effects. Inside China, Huawei and other Chinese OEMs should create their own platform technologies to serve the domestic market. After the local ecosystem is established, those platforms can then be exported abroad. Chinese examples of platform technologies with their "network effects" are: 1. Alibaba's taobao and Alipay; 2. Tencent's QQ and WeChat. If Huawei can come up with its own OS/CPU instead of relying on Android/ARM SoC, then that would create powerful "network effects" similar to the Wintel PC platform. Of course, Huawei would then need partners to help build the ecosystem around its OS/CPU platform. sfphoto Post time: 2019-7-3 01:33 static/image/common/back.gif
Chinese examples of platform technologies with their "network effects" are: 1. Alibaba's taobao and ...
There will not be shortage of willing partners to work with Huawei even with incumbents Google and Apple having the lead for now.
It is important to distinguish between replacing Google or Apple and co-existing with them. When people aren't threaten with the thought of losing their convenience and comfort, people will accept. People always like to see what is over the other side until they found that there is nothing sophisticated or special. Next is the sense of belonging, the logical usefulness, the reach and versatility of communication etc. all that embodies a natural society that human needs or simply put all walks of life that is available from the OS and its eco-system. This latter one does not relate solely to technology but it is the sociological behavior and needs that dictate the technology.
Huawei and China needs to communicate with the world starting with neighbors. US doesn't have neighbors in essence. Mexico has been bullied into a submissive character and Canadians as can be seen with Meng Wanzhou's detention, doesn't have a mind of its own. Thus US's OS is designed according to its conditions. China is different. China has neighbors whom China must live together with that it cannot possibly ignore and China must progress peacefully albeit all the threats and challenges thrown upon it by incumbent powers such as the US and the Anglos. Hence Huawei's approach should take into consideration China's needs and that of its neighbors. All new introductions will have problems and people will compare - it is a question of accepting and responding to the negative comments to keep people's interest and hope intact. It is no different from launching phones after phones. The proximity of China's neighbors will require China to consider with care their feelings. That's why expectations in and around China of China and Huawei should not be underestimated. This post was edited by Kbay at 2019-7-3 11:46
First it was ZTE, then Huawei.
Which Chinese tech next?
Don't trust and put your tech knowhow reliance on the US ever again. They are cheats and thieves.
Huawei MUST carry out its Plan B.
Roll out its own OS platform.
Use its own chipsets.
Ignore Trump's rubbish offer to "re-supply" the company.
The arrogance of the dotard is unbelievable!
The US seems to be moving towards decoupling but it is a bad strategy because there will be direct counteracting reactions and indirect asymmetric reactions.
From a global standpoint, decoupling duplicates efforts, wastes resources and time, increases costs, reduces the sharing of ideas for mutual benefit, weakens platform growth from reduced demand markets, nationalistically closes off markets, and spikes competition until animosity is reached beyond which conflicts will arise thereby decreasing the subsequent mutual wish for resolution.
Moreover, technology advancement is challenged by the natural decrease in marginal returns from research for those in countries which are trying to make new advances on the back of previous advances; however it is the opposite case for countries which are advancing based on their new paradigms and frameworks of being emerging and newly industrialized economies which can learn from the lessons and mistakes in the technology development histories of those other countries.
Furthermore, technologies are foremost global solutions and value creators. Technology thrives on a multitude of parts and platforms and spreads by diversity of functions. A single device is often made from many different parts made and sourced from many countries spread across the globe. The platform of that device may have been designed in one place with applications designed on it but there will be other platforms with similar functions which can (a) best the performance of the first-mover platforms, and (b) also allow the same applications to be usable therein.
This means using technology to extort sovereign interest beneficial to one's trade only is counterproductive to the growth firstly of one's own industries, and secondly the industries of the world with which one must cooperate because of the basic feature of technology advancement - global integration of both product and market.
Twinned to global supply chain is global demand market. Because marginal returns from technology research are reducing, the only way to ensure each new product coming on-stream can make sufficient money to recoup costs, support enterprise value and safeguard futures is to facilitate not militate against the integration of technologies and their markets wherever it makes sense from a cost perspective. After all, the bigger the available market, the faster and bigger the chance to get back enough returns to continue the progress. If this is hindered, technology industries will recess, technical jobs will fall and talent will move to other less demanding industries, globally blunting one of the spearheads of progress that define this century.
The mistake the US policy-makers are making is failing to see how its technology industries can cooperate with the technology industries in other countries so that as they grow with US inputs, they increase the R&D pools of funds and talents of the US industries which can then become better at adding new values to the parts, platforms and products of their joint-venture overseas partners or other players in the same technology segments. The values here are both vertically integratable and horizontally diversifiable.
After all, the underlying feature of all technologies is constant-improvement. And the fundamental aspect of constant improvement is value-addition.
Therefore if one ponders what has been written here, the only real reason why the Trump administration alone has adopted an aggressive, antagonistic and extortionate approach towards China's imperatives in her technology development is to stop China's rise soley on account of her type of government organization even when US technology industries and markets are friendly and open to more cooperation with China's technology industries and markets.
But that type of government organization which the US rightwing hawks hee-haw against has for her President someone who has said while on visits to the remotest regions of the country, "Poverty eradication is one of the biggest concerns in my heart".
Would those who have only owned hotels, casinos and golf-courses be able to contemplate and appreciate that?