Google suspends some business with Huawei(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Google suspends some business with Huawei
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-tech-alphabet-exclusive/exclusive-google-suspends-some-business-with-huawei-after-trump-blacklist-source-idUSKCN1SP0NB
503 comments
>The best place to siphon data in 2019? Your phone.
But can't you reverse engineer your phone and see what it's doing? And can't you monitor the network data it's sending? With a backdoor in long haul transport gear, academics, researchers, random hackers, watchdog groups, journalists, competitors, etc, don't have the ability to monitor for bad behavior.
But can't you reverse engineer your phone and see what it's doing? And can't you monitor the network data it's sending? With a backdoor in long haul transport gear, academics, researchers, random hackers, watchdog groups, journalists, competitors, etc, don't have the ability to monitor for bad behavior.
AFAIK nobody has reverse-engineered even parts of the radio-firmware, the separate OS which has memory access to your other OS. Linux/Android/Iphones OS, is really just a guest, a side-show to what the radio-firmware can and is doing, ie spying.
This is not true anymore. Some android phones (samsung, google), have DMA disabled and modern iphones (around 2016?) use USB or SDIO without DMA.
I honestly believe that the theoretical DMA backdoor attack (and most other similar attacks) have been mitigated thoroughly. I am much more concerned about secretly held 0days (RCE) and most concerned about warrantless orders against cloud storage.
https://www.apple.com/business/site/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.... p41
I honestly believe that the theoretical DMA backdoor attack (and most other similar attacks) have been mitigated thoroughly. I am much more concerned about secretly held 0days (RCE) and most concerned about warrantless orders against cloud storage.
https://www.apple.com/business/site/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.... p41
> without DMA [...] 0days (RCE)
> https://www.apple.com/business/site/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.... p41
Are you citing "To protect the device from vulnerabilities in network processor firmware, network interfaces including Wi-Fi and baseband have limited access to application processor memory. When USB or SDIO is used to interface with the network processor, the network processor can’t initiate Direct Memory Access (DMA) transactions to the application processor. When PCIe is used, each network processor is on its own isolated PCIe bus. An IOMMU on each PCIe bus limits the network processor’s DMA access to pages of memory containing its network packets or control structures."? Correct?
The attention to hardware isolation and separation is appreciated, but I don't hold my breath for iBoot and SEPOS protecting an iPhone from powerful adversaries.
Are you citing "To protect the device from vulnerabilities in network processor firmware, network interfaces including Wi-Fi and baseband have limited access to application processor memory. When USB or SDIO is used to interface with the network processor, the network processor can’t initiate Direct Memory Access (DMA) transactions to the application processor. When PCIe is used, each network processor is on its own isolated PCIe bus. An IOMMU on each PCIe bus limits the network processor’s DMA access to pages of memory containing its network packets or control structures."? Correct?
The attention to hardware isolation and separation is appreciated, but I don't hold my breath for iBoot and SEPOS protecting an iPhone from powerful adversaries.
Blocking DMA is separate from 0days. One is a design decision, the other is a still-unavoidable consequence of complicated software.
I think that these mechanisms completely frustrate "bulk" in-field collection efforts; for example, scanning all phones at DUI checkpoints.
No technical control is perfect. If you personally piss off a nation state adversary, they are more likely to yeet you off to a black site and hit you with a wrench until you cough up your passcode.
Surely, someone will break iBoot, and surely, someone will break SEPOS. And surely, someone will chain a kernel exploit with a userspace exploit [0]. And surely, someone will leak the signing keys for a widely deployed cheap android phone [1]. And surely, someone will push 777 permissions to a cloud provider [2]. And most surely, powerful government adversaries will hold brutal exploits close to their chest in the service of power and politics [3].
So I guess, if you want to breath freely: host your infrastructure yourself where feasible. Choose providers who respect your privacy. Make a modest but financially fair donation to the EFF. Become politically active. Use better practices - not best - to avoid fatiguing yourself in the windmill chasing effort of being Perfectly Secure. Most importantly, stay awake and aware and ready to fight.
0 https://github.com/Cryptogenic/Exploit-Writeups/blob/master/...
1 https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/16/dji_private_keys_le...
2 https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/17/salesforce-says-a-major-issu...
3 https://www.wired.com/story/eternalblue-leaked-nsa-spy-tool-...
I think that these mechanisms completely frustrate "bulk" in-field collection efforts; for example, scanning all phones at DUI checkpoints.
No technical control is perfect. If you personally piss off a nation state adversary, they are more likely to yeet you off to a black site and hit you with a wrench until you cough up your passcode.
Surely, someone will break iBoot, and surely, someone will break SEPOS. And surely, someone will chain a kernel exploit with a userspace exploit [0]. And surely, someone will leak the signing keys for a widely deployed cheap android phone [1]. And surely, someone will push 777 permissions to a cloud provider [2]. And most surely, powerful government adversaries will hold brutal exploits close to their chest in the service of power and politics [3].
So I guess, if you want to breath freely: host your infrastructure yourself where feasible. Choose providers who respect your privacy. Make a modest but financially fair donation to the EFF. Become politically active. Use better practices - not best - to avoid fatiguing yourself in the windmill chasing effort of being Perfectly Secure. Most importantly, stay awake and aware and ready to fight.
0 https://github.com/Cryptogenic/Exploit-Writeups/blob/master/...
1 https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/16/dji_private_keys_le...
2 https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/17/salesforce-says-a-major-issu...
3 https://www.wired.com/story/eternalblue-leaked-nsa-spy-tool-...
By LE capable firmware you mean that the FBI had a backdoor to eavesdrop? Wow.
Yes indeed [0].
[0] https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/10000/10008/fe...
[0] https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/10000/10008/fe...
Lawful Intercept is not a backdoor:
> The surveillance is performed through the use of wiretaps on traditional telecommunications and Internet services in voice, data, and multiservice networks. The LEA delivers a request for a wiretap to the target's service provider, who is responsible for intercepting data communication to and from the individual. The service provider uses the target's IP address or session to determine which of its edge routers handles the target's traffic (data communication). The service provider then intercepts the target's traffic as it passes through the router, and sends a copy of the intercepted traffic to the LEA without the target's knowledge.
Responding to lawful warrants and subpoenas is everyone’s obligation, and has been for hundreds of years under American law, and English law before that. The government is entitled to almost any evidence—it just has to follow the proper process to get it. Lawful intercept just supports that process. That’s also why the FBI having access to US data is fundamentally different than Chinese back doors in US networks. US law enforcement has legal ways to access data flowing in networks to perform their legitimate law enforcement functions. The Chinese have no legitimate reason to access data in US networks.
> The surveillance is performed through the use of wiretaps on traditional telecommunications and Internet services in voice, data, and multiservice networks. The LEA delivers a request for a wiretap to the target's service provider, who is responsible for intercepting data communication to and from the individual. The service provider uses the target's IP address or session to determine which of its edge routers handles the target's traffic (data communication). The service provider then intercepts the target's traffic as it passes through the router, and sends a copy of the intercepted traffic to the LEA without the target's knowledge.
Responding to lawful warrants and subpoenas is everyone’s obligation, and has been for hundreds of years under American law, and English law before that. The government is entitled to almost any evidence—it just has to follow the proper process to get it. Lawful intercept just supports that process. That’s also why the FBI having access to US data is fundamentally different than Chinese back doors in US networks. US law enforcement has legal ways to access data flowing in networks to perform their legitimate law enforcement functions. The Chinese have no legitimate reason to access data in US networks.
Lawful intercept isn't itself a backdoor, but it did provide one that was exposed via Snowden. In this case I'll call a spade a spade: many lawful intercept tools were used as backdoors, or overreach of legal authority. Again, keep in mind the context of my original comment: the years 2010-2011 which was pre-Snowden. The FBI may have stepped in with a heavy hand for many reasons but those reasons may have included inclusion of another large ISP in programs like PRISM.
PRISM was literally a system for handling the paperwork for lawful intercepts. There are instances of the USG exceeding its authority, but you've somehow managed to cite one of the few leaked programs that had an almost purely lawful purpose.
While I respect your opinion I don't agree.
First of all PRISM was not purely "a system for handling paperwork for lawful intercepts", see [0].
Second your assertion assumes that somehow all requests within these programs abided by "lawful purpose", which we also know is not true. Whether FISA rubber stamps were lawful is subjective and your opinion but not fact. Your answer purports a black and white perspective on the past which I simply don't find appropriately represents all the shades of grey presented by all of the legal angles during this time.
[0] https://dzone.com/articles/nsa-prism-%E2%80%93-mother-all-bi...
First of all PRISM was not purely "a system for handling paperwork for lawful intercepts", see [0].
Second your assertion assumes that somehow all requests within these programs abided by "lawful purpose", which we also know is not true. Whether FISA rubber stamps were lawful is subjective and your opinion but not fact. Your answer purports a black and white perspective on the past which I simply don't find appropriately represents all the shades of grey presented by all of the legal angles during this time.
[0] https://dzone.com/articles/nsa-prism-%E2%80%93-mother-all-bi...
It's not a 'just your opinion, man' sort of thing - more or less nobody seems to have thought PRISM was unlawful. Rand Paul, I think, made some noises about suing at the time and eventually did file some sort of suit that ended up not being about PRISM.
But it is... You're conflating two different things: the legal position accepted by the government and the reality. I don't think PRISM was legal, in my opinion, you can have an opposing view. People write opinions on lawfulness of all kinds of topics prior to making legal arguments regarding. And many do think it is unconstitutional / illegal [0] [1].
[0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/20/public_advocate_fbi...
[1] https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surv...
Just because it was never settled that way doesn't change the history of it.
[0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/20/public_advocate_fbi...
[1] https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surv...
Just because it was never settled that way doesn't change the history of it.
It wasn't legal because it completely violates the 4th amendment in the mind of any reasonable person. The government said that was okay, but really it wasn't okay, and we all know that it was unConstitutional under even the most liberal interpretation of the 4th amendment.
No, I'm sorry, what's happened here is that you (and "el Reg") don't know what PRISM is, but only innuendo about it, and so you've mistaken it for other USG programs that do offer instances of the government enabling "unlawful intercept". PRISM is a paperwork handling service for FISA 702 directives, not the backdoor into Google that Glenn Greenwald initially thought it was. But a lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is still grinding its way through the top of your "Read It Later" list.
You could have made the argument you were trying to make colorably and defensibly. All you had to do was not try to sound like you'd been "read in" to NSA's SIGINT programs. But, like I said above: you managed to cite one of the few NSA program examples that is in fact totally banal and, ironically, an almost perfect example of lawful intercept.
You could have made the argument you were trying to make colorably and defensibly. All you had to do was not try to sound like you'd been "read in" to NSA's SIGINT programs. But, like I said above: you managed to cite one of the few NSA program examples that is in fact totally banal and, ironically, an almost perfect example of lawful intercept.
So... 702 and PRISM aren't still being litigated? It's fun to watch you twist reality with this type of non-informational response. I get with the above you'd like people to assume that, instead, you've been "read in" on the subject matter. <golf clap> But not all of what you've outlined here is the _whole truth_.
These are words, I acknowledge that they are, but they're assembled in an order that make it hard for me to understand what they mean.
As I said above: it's not hard to come up with cases where NSA is doing things that appear to contravene US law, but you managed to cite the one instance where all they're managing is paperwork.
As I said above: it's not hard to come up with cases where NSA is doing things that appear to contravene US law, but you managed to cite the one instance where all they're managing is paperwork.
Meh, if there is a backdoor it will be used, a warranty is a nicety and not required when the government steps in, including the US government. They break the law all the time, as was indicated by PRISM and numerous other illegal surveillance processes. All governments do it, it's just that China is turning it into an art form and flagrantly doing it and letting us all know they are building up a database on their own people to decide whether they are good people or not. Blocking Huawei is strictly to protect the USA's military interests, it's not about privacy. Cisco and Qualcomm may build in back doors but they are the USA sanctioned backdoors. That why Big H is getting the boot during 5G rollout
Doesn’t seem like a backdoor AFIACT—just support for handling a request from the government. (Distinction being that the ISP manually tells their equipment to intercept data instead of the government having technical access.)
[deleted]
So, the US having freedom really was just a meme after all.
TLS is still legal. So is routing all your traffic through Tor if you think the metadata is relevant.
I can't imagine much useful material comes from wiretapping these days. Maybe once in a while, but the real value largely exists in the application layer, which is obtained in a different way.
I can't imagine much useful material comes from wiretapping these days. Maybe once in a while, but the real value largely exists in the application layer, which is obtained in a different way.
When TLS is everywhere, what's the most reasonable way for law enforcement to surveil suspects?
Bottom-up. The FBI sees that you're having a TLS conversation at X time with a server in Facebook's IP range, so they just go ask Facebook for what you were doing at that time.
Foreign-hosted services seem like they'd be hard to crack, but it's extremely likely their data flows though Cloudflare, Amazon, GCE, or a similar US-based company.
Foreign-hosted services seem like they'd be hard to crack, but it's extremely likely their data flows though Cloudflare, Amazon, GCE, or a similar US-based company.
[deleted]
Following the requirements of a judge is not necessarily antithetical to Freedom. Even in societies where freedom is values, conspiracy to murder (say) tends to be frowned upon.
But Cisco hasn't conspired to murder anyone.
No, not at all. It was an extension of lawful wiretaps in to the digital age. CALEA required that manufacturers add the ability for lawful intercept to be done on their equipment by the providers that purchased them.
Law enforcement still had to go to a judge, get a court order, and take it to the ISP. The ISP could then configure the devices to siphon off traffic from a single customer to a collection device.
The same functionality and process has existed in phone networks basically since they became electronically switched.
Law enforcement still had to go to a judge, get a court order, and take it to the ISP. The ISP could then configure the devices to siphon off traffic from a single customer to a collection device.
The same functionality and process has existed in phone networks basically since they became electronically switched.
While your statement on CALEA is true it also isn't the correct history. What CALEA put in place was designed for lawful intercept but we also know there were programs in use going against said law [0].
Remember the context of my conversation was 2010-2011 which was pre-Snowden. It's likely state, local and national agencies have less of an interest, today, at route/switch infrastructure simply because of the post-Snowden crypto push.
[0] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvp8ga/the-fbi-wants-to-w...
Remember the context of my conversation was 2010-2011 which was pre-Snowden. It's likely state, local and national agencies have less of an interest, today, at route/switch infrastructure simply because of the post-Snowden crypto push.
[0] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvp8ga/the-fbi-wants-to-w...
PRISM was a confusing program because neither the people reporting on it, or the tech companies impacted understood how it worked. The claim was the NSA had direct access in to providers networks, and the companies claimed they did not - the "logical" conclusion was an abuse of CALEA or similar access granted to FBI.
It was later discovered the NSA capability was the direct result of tapping fiber optic cables between international data centers, nothing to do with lawful intercept capabilities.
It was later discovered the NSA capability was the direct result of tapping fiber optic cables between international data centers, nothing to do with lawful intercept capabilities.
We never got the full picture on PRISM. We do know that at least a part of the program was a direct result of tapping fiber much of the program also went redacted. I've posted this before but during 2010 the main data center I had access to was closed one evening and the next morning we had a mobile server rack tied back to main routing gear via fiber which was in a mobile rack, blacked out and fully tamper taped. We knew a three letter agency was installing it and all floor access was revoked for that evening as well as being in the building. This was not off long haul fiber but was off of main routing infrastructure. I don't believe PRISM was purely fiber taps and that these programs had deeper hooks. Unfortunately I don't have any evidence beyond the assumption based on the facts I had been given and what I physically saw. I've used and installed a lot of long haul gear and have seen and installed many fiber taps in my day, this implementation was hardly passive in nature. But, that's just first hand knowledge of a random patron of the Internet.
I can assure you that every telecom equipment has lawful interception capabilities. Some countries even mandate a standard log format for metadata (Turkey does that). It's just one of the features that the operators ask for when getting their equipment, because they have to comply with local law enforcement.
Pretty much every developed country has some framework for collecting electronic data pursuant to legal process: https://tmt.bakermckenzie.com/-/media/minisites/tmt/files/20.... Country after country has decided that the government should have access to that information to perform legitimate government law enforcement functions. (The process can be abused, sure, but the functionality must be present to permit entirely proper and lawful requests for data.) And that is deeply rooted in precedent and practice. If you were a maritime shipper in the 1700s, you’d have to respond to law enforcement requests for information about the goods you transported on behalf of suspects. What’s not proper is when a foreign country that performs no law enforcement function in a jurisdiction tries to “siphon data.” Trying to draw an equivalence between the two is entirely fallacious.
> If you were a maritime shipper in the 1700s, you’d have to respond to law enforcement requests for information about the goods you transported on behalf of suspects
Tell me if I am mistaken, but in these specific case it looks more to me like forbidding customers and companies from using foreign made secure vaults because the government can't force them to secretly provide a master key.
Then sure, the argument is also valid that these vault makers could be providing a master key to their respective governments, but that would be a different argument and different enforcement.
Tell me if I am mistaken, but in these specific case it looks more to me like forbidding customers and companies from using foreign made secure vaults because the government can't force them to secretly provide a master key.
Then sure, the argument is also valid that these vault makers could be providing a master key to their respective governments, but that would be a different argument and different enforcement.
This is fine as long as they get a warrant. As long as that's not the case then such searches should be considered unconstitutional.
What most people forget is that in a war the other party shoots back. It may take some time but it will happen and sometimes when you do not expect it. I think that Trump's move with banning Huawei is bad for the US in the mid and long run.
>What most people forget is that in a war the other party shoots back
Yes, and these actions are the US finally shooting back after enduring years of industrial espionage, forced technology transfers, and market access restrictions.
Yes, and these actions are the US finally shooting back after enduring years of industrial espionage, forced technology transfers, and market access restrictions.
Would any down voters care to expand?
The assertion that there's going to be consequences seems... inevitable? To me at least.
The assertion that there's going to be consequences seems... inevitable? To me at least.
sometimes whoever shots first wins
I’m not betting on US, pun intended.
Anything to substantiate that? Or do you mean "not betting" in the sense that you have no insight into either side being an obvious winner?
The competency of the current U.S. administration is my substantiation.
[deleted]
This might provide some context as to why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JrF2X4Db84
After 9-11, the FBI's mandate was expanded from investigating terrorist attacks to include preventing them from occurring.
After 9-11, the FBI's mandate was expanded from investigating terrorist attacks to include preventing them from occurring.
[deleted]
In a way, this helps Apple (and other Android vendors) and in a way, it hurts it. Huawei phones recently have shipped market leading cameras that blow pretty much all other Android and iPhone cameras out of the water. They took a commanding lead as a premium device manufacturer. Hurting their non-China markets gives breathing space to others.
However, if I were Apple, I'd be really worried about retaliation. Apple is wholly dependent on manufacturing in China and its supply chain, and even small disruptions could cause huge mounts of pain.
However, if I were Apple, I'd be really worried about retaliation. Apple is wholly dependent on manufacturing in China and its supply chain, and even small disruptions could cause huge mounts of pain.
The last thing China wants during a trade war is to have the 3 million people in Apple's supply chain unemployed and angry.
This particular leverage is also why iMessage isn't blocked in China.
This particular leverage is also why iMessage isn't blocked in China.
iMessage isn't blocked in China because it doesn't need to be. China passed a law forcing Apple to put all Chinese users' iCloud data in a Chinese datacenter. Since Apple allows for account recovery, they store account keys in that datacenter. Anyone with privileged access to certain production resources in iCloud China should be able to access basically all Chinese users' data.
The one exception is apparently Apple's keychain as per https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2018/01/16/icloud-i.... But, if the hardware used to enforce the security is different in China, even that could be cracked.
The one exception is apparently Apple's keychain as per https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2018/01/16/icloud-i.... But, if the hardware used to enforce the security is different in China, even that could be cracked.
IIUC if you disable iCloud backup of iMessages, you're safe here. This is because iMessage is E2EE enforced by the Secure Enclave when iCloud backup of iMessages is disabled.
More likely because Apple gave China the master encryption keys: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/25/apple-moves-icloud-encrypt...
iMessage is end-to-end encrypted.
If you really believe that China doesn't have a deal with Apple that nerfs this in China, I have a bridge to sell you.
China, a country which mandates spyware be installed on phones. Which uses deep packet inspection to block access to foreign websites, that bans VPNs in app stores. China, a country which forces the population of Xinjiang to install Jingwang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingwang_Weishi), a spyware app so they can grab your on-device files. Which has deployed facial recognition cameras in many cities. Which blocked access to Wikipedi because it switched to HTTPS.
That China, you think, is going to allow all of that to be circumvented just by buying an iPhone? Right. Chinese Government: "You're not allowed to use VPNs. But if you're in Xinjiang, and you need privacy, we recommend buying an iPhone, since it doesn't work with Jingwang, nor deep packet inspection. Just tell the police you have an iPhone, and we'll wave the usual regulations we impose on Android devices."
Last time I was in Xinjiang, people there had iPhones. No one believes iMessage would be snoop proof.
China, a country which mandates spyware be installed on phones. Which uses deep packet inspection to block access to foreign websites, that bans VPNs in app stores. China, a country which forces the population of Xinjiang to install Jingwang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingwang_Weishi), a spyware app so they can grab your on-device files. Which has deployed facial recognition cameras in many cities. Which blocked access to Wikipedi because it switched to HTTPS.
That China, you think, is going to allow all of that to be circumvented just by buying an iPhone? Right. Chinese Government: "You're not allowed to use VPNs. But if you're in Xinjiang, and you need privacy, we recommend buying an iPhone, since it doesn't work with Jingwang, nor deep packet inspection. Just tell the police you have an iPhone, and we'll wave the usual regulations we impose on Android devices."
Last time I was in Xinjiang, people there had iPhones. No one believes iMessage would be snoop proof.
It doesn't matter what you believe because Apple said that was the case in court filings during the FBI legal fight. Tim Cook reaffirmed that in an interview with Vice last fall.
What Apple says about what they do in the US, and what they do in China, are two different things. And what Tim Cook reaffirmed is irrelevant, what matters is how the iMessage protocol works.
As far as I can tell, the way iMessage works according to Apple's documentation, is that endpoints generate 1280-bit RSA encryption keys, hold the private keys on the device, but publish the public keys to a centralized IDS Directory Server. Note that their published security documents curiously don't say anything about man-in-the-middle mitigation, and indeed, MITM attacks against iMessage on IOS9 were publicly documented.
Now, what do you know about where the IDS servers are located in China, and who controls them? Because if Apple doesn't control them, and control them in a way that makes them impossible to spoof, then it is easy for the Chinese government to attack iMessage.
Thus, Tim Cook could say "We haven't put any backdoors into iMessage for the Chinese government and it is end to end encrypted" and it would be a true statement, but also Apple engineers could know full well the IDS in China could be subject to a MITM.
A plausible way this could happen, after Apple moved the iCloud keys to China, is that the Chinese government could request to intercept communications from a particular user, and the public keys of every recipient that user communicates with could be replaced with a MITM key so they can rely the messages and see the unencrypted content.
We don't know, but what we do know is that iMessage has been attacked with MITM before, and we know the PRC isn't going to let unbreakable encryption be sold to Uighurs in Xinjiang. It defies logic.
As far as I can tell, the way iMessage works according to Apple's documentation, is that endpoints generate 1280-bit RSA encryption keys, hold the private keys on the device, but publish the public keys to a centralized IDS Directory Server. Note that their published security documents curiously don't say anything about man-in-the-middle mitigation, and indeed, MITM attacks against iMessage on IOS9 were publicly documented.
Now, what do you know about where the IDS servers are located in China, and who controls them? Because if Apple doesn't control them, and control them in a way that makes them impossible to spoof, then it is easy for the Chinese government to attack iMessage.
Thus, Tim Cook could say "We haven't put any backdoors into iMessage for the Chinese government and it is end to end encrypted" and it would be a true statement, but also Apple engineers could know full well the IDS in China could be subject to a MITM.
A plausible way this could happen, after Apple moved the iCloud keys to China, is that the Chinese government could request to intercept communications from a particular user, and the public keys of every recipient that user communicates with could be replaced with a MITM key so they can rely the messages and see the unencrypted content.
We don't know, but what we do know is that iMessage has been attacked with MITM before, and we know the PRC isn't going to let unbreakable encryption be sold to Uighurs in Xinjiang. It defies logic.
So they said and you believed.
iMessage is encrypted in transit and at rest. However, that doesn't matter if your attacker (the Chinese government) has the encryption keys
The article refers to icloud encryption keys, not imessage keys.
If imessages are backed up to icloud, then the govt will have keys to see them. But if a user doesn't back up, I was under the impression not even apple could decrypt iMessages.
If imessages are backed up to icloud, then the govt will have keys to see them. But if a user doesn't back up, I was under the impression not even apple could decrypt iMessages.
iMessage (public) keys are "backed up" to IDS directory services. This is how Apple devices do key-exchange with one another. If there is no man-in-the-middle mitigation for IDS, then all the Chinese government needs to do is return spoofed keys for anyone you're communicating with. Remember, when you send messages to other people, you encrypt with THEIR key, not yours (on device). Your key is used for signatures and decrypting messages sent to you by them. THEIR Key comes from the cloud, and thus subject to attack if key exchange wasn't secure.
How do you think iMessages are "restored" when you lose your iPhone and get a new one?
> The last thing China wants during a trade war is to have the 3 million people in Apple's supply chain unemployed and angry.
As an autocracy, China could easily compensate workers for any loss of work. But another obvious answer is that if Apple were banned in China, Huawei and Xiaomi would pick up the slack.
If China really wanted to, they could shut down all iPhone production for the immediate future.
As an autocracy, China could easily compensate workers for any loss of work. But another obvious answer is that if Apple were banned in China, Huawei and Xiaomi would pick up the slack.
If China really wanted to, they could shut down all iPhone production for the immediate future.
If China shut down apple then you would see company/capital flight from China like you've never before seen in history. The communist party is powerful but I doubt if they could handle a 20% spike in unemployment of some of the best jobs in the country.
Apple isn't the only company in China, plus they could buy-back or eminent domain closed factories and assign them to SOEs.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Foxconn#/Major_customers
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Foxconn#/Major_customers
Once the population boycott a brand or a country the Chinese propaganda and people really do boycott them. Read the news about South Korea and Japan trade wars. The Chinese even tried to burn down a Toyota factory.
Apple's been losing marketshare (and unit sales) while Chinese domestic companies' market share has been growing, so that balances things out. The world's #1 smartphone maker Samsung moved much (50%>) of their smartphone assembly operation out of China and hardly anyone noticed it.
They could still hazard it.
The only thing the Chinese government has to do is explain that American imperialist white piggus are trying to destroy the Chinese people and they wouldn't even be lying for once.
Nationalism is a play card in every country.
Nationalism is a play card in every country.
> However, if I were Apple, I'd be really worried about retaliation.
I think this view is too narrow. For the Chinese government, there is something more important than revenge. Why kick that cash machine out of your country if it still paying your people paid and make then happy?
I guess the retaliation will come in a different form, even something out of the trade section maybe, depends on what's on Xi's table.
I think this view is too narrow. For the Chinese government, there is something more important than revenge. Why kick that cash machine out of your country if it still paying your people paid and make then happy?
I guess the retaliation will come in a different form, even something out of the trade section maybe, depends on what's on Xi's table.
How much more expensive would an iPhone be that’s assembled in the US?
Cost is not the reason all consumer electronics are made in China. Actually, manufacturing there is now more expensive than Estern Europe.
They build them there because all the supply chain is already there. In Shenzhen, the capacitors, resistors, PCBs and most chips are sourced in bulk from around the block. That's something no other country in the West or even East has and it's such a complex interconnected ecosystem that you can't replicate it anywhere else right now.
Most of the CNC, tooling and moulding craftsmen are there as well, the west has far too few left to be able to take over such volumes. Training so many can take years and that's assuming you even find enough people willing to be trained.
They build them there because all the supply chain is already there. In Shenzhen, the capacitors, resistors, PCBs and most chips are sourced in bulk from around the block. That's something no other country in the West or even East has and it's such a complex interconnected ecosystem that you can't replicate it anywhere else right now.
Most of the CNC, tooling and moulding craftsmen are there as well, the west has far too few left to be able to take over such volumes. Training so many can take years and that's assuming you even find enough people willing to be trained.
I've been watching a lot of videos on Shenzhen and it's just mental. There's basically same day delivery by bicycle or truck of anything your supply line might be running low on.
It's like their transport latency is so low and reliable that they don't need as much buffering. It's amazing to see what small and large quantity production lines can look like.
It's like their transport latency is so low and reliable that they don't need as much buffering. It's amazing to see what small and large quantity production lines can look like.
> It's like their transport latency is so low
Reading this, I begin to scratch head hearing people complaining about factories being squeezed out towards boundaries of Shenzhen municipality.
I remember people thinking of that as some end of the world event.
Reading this, I begin to scratch head hearing people complaining about factories being squeezed out towards boundaries of Shenzhen municipality.
I remember people thinking of that as some end of the world event.
Can you please share those links here
Strange Parts YouTube channel offers some insights into Chinese electronics industry: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO8DQrSp5yEP937qNqTooOw
The bigger issue is that the nature of smart phone releases is that each time you want to bring out a new model, you need to employ a few tens of thousands of people for a relatively short time to assemble them. This isn't possible in most countries due to labour laws and/or shortage of workers.
[deleted]
tesla is starting to automate car manufacturing and seems to be making progress. can you comment on the feasibility on automating smartphone manufacturing? do elements of smartphone manufacturing render automation intractable, or harder than car manufacturing?
As I understand it, the majority of individual smartphone components would be manufactured using automation, and the primary step that takes place in Shenzhen is someone physically putting all the pieces together. I couldn't make an informed comment on the feasibility or cost effectiveness of trying to automate this process as well (I'd guess it's fairly low due to the relative uniqueness of each phone model) but maybe someone else can.
And Tesla is well behind the major car manufacturers in using automation.
And Tesla is well behind the major car manufacturers in using automation.
the car/tesla analogy was a mistake as it's secondary and evidently not true, but too late to edit the comment. thanks for sharing about smartphone manufacturing. it seems like foxconn is already moving toward this, though naturally slower than projected: https://qz.com/1312079/iphone-maker-foxconn-is-churning-out-...
can you recommend any sources for learning more about the state of automated CE/smartphone manufacturing, or this based on personal experience?
can you recommend any sources for learning more about the state of automated CE/smartphone manufacturing, or this based on personal experience?
“Yes, excessive automation at Tesla was a mistake,” Musk said via Twitter a few months ago. “To be precise, my mistake. Humans are underrated.”
This is ridiculous. You are making it sound like those suppliers are immovable and somehow only available in China. But let's face it, Apple is in China because of almost unlimited cheap, unskilled rural labor force that can't be found elsewhere. Samsung was also in same spot years ago, but found a much better deal in Vietnam years back and in fact moved much of their smartphone operation there (along with some 200+ subcontractors and suppliers). Unlike Samsung's AMOLED displays, Corning's Gorilla glasses, or SONY's cameras, there is nothing in China that can't be produced elsewhere.
Vietnam also has hundreds of thousands of CNC, toolings and craftmen to produce in Samsung's volume. This supply chain narrative is something Apple marketing folks invented to justify their outsourcing. Trump's trade war with China, as many contract manufacturer move out of China, will prove none of that supply chain myth is true within a year or two.
Vietnam also has hundreds of thousands of CNC, toolings and craftmen to produce in Samsung's volume. This supply chain narrative is something Apple marketing folks invented to justify their outsourcing. Trump's trade war with China, as many contract manufacturer move out of China, will prove none of that supply chain myth is true within a year or two.
Everything you've mentioned is basically synonymous with "cost."
An iPhone built in the US from domestic components would probably cost more than most peoples' cars.
An iPhone built in the US from domestic components would probably cost more than most peoples' cars.
While you're right that the logistical issues can all be reduced to cost, it removes a lot of nuance to act as if logistical superiority is the same as the vernacular low-cost.
A lot more, if it could be made at all:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-an...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/technology/iphones-apple-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-an...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/technology/iphones-apple-...
In what world is Huawei a leading premium device manufacturer? Do you have a source?
Do you consider Samsung a premium Android manufacturer? I assume you're not defining "premium" == "Apple". If you admit that there are premium Android phones, and that Samsung is one of the manufacturers, well, Huawei is on track to surpass Samsung in units sold, AND it has the best reviewed camera. It blows away the iPhone X series, especially at low light, but also produces incredible night/low light protography beating even the Google Pixel Night Sight mode.
in China, they are now the most expensive phones, people are willing to pay more $$$ to get the top of the line Huawei than an iPhone which used to be the previous "look am me, I'm rich and trendy" device to own there. It's one reason why iPhone sales in China have declined.
There's no world in which you can't claim they are not a world leading phone manufacturer and that their devices aren't premium. Sure, the heavy modded Android sucks and is probably spyware and you can't get vanilla android on it, but hardware wise, it is premium. The P30 Pro runs for almost $1000.
People who live in the US kind of live in a reality distortion field around Apple, and are somewhat blind to what is happening in Europe and Asia. And this complacence is a pretty bad way to evaluate your competitors.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Huawei-threatening-Samsung-for...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/12/18221598/huawei-apple-chi...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/10/18285123/huawei-p30-pro-r...
in China, they are now the most expensive phones, people are willing to pay more $$$ to get the top of the line Huawei than an iPhone which used to be the previous "look am me, I'm rich and trendy" device to own there. It's one reason why iPhone sales in China have declined.
There's no world in which you can't claim they are not a world leading phone manufacturer and that their devices aren't premium. Sure, the heavy modded Android sucks and is probably spyware and you can't get vanilla android on it, but hardware wise, it is premium. The P30 Pro runs for almost $1000.
People who live in the US kind of live in a reality distortion field around Apple, and are somewhat blind to what is happening in Europe and Asia. And this complacence is a pretty bad way to evaluate your competitors.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Huawei-threatening-Samsung-for...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/12/18221598/huawei-apple-chi...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/10/18285123/huawei-p30-pro-r...
Would Xiaomi be a leading premium manufacture if they had a devices running for $1000, when their Smartphone ASP is below $200?
>People who live in the US kind of live in a reality distortion field around Apple, and are somewhat blind to what is happening in Europe and Asia. And this complacence is a pretty bad way to evaluate your competitors.
It isn't RDF, it is "leading premium manufacture" does mean what you think it means. It would be more accurate if it was "leading premium Android manufacturers".
>People who live in the US kind of live in a reality distortion field around Apple, and are somewhat blind to what is happening in Europe and Asia. And this complacence is a pretty bad way to evaluate your competitors.
It isn't RDF, it is "leading premium manufacture" does mean what you think it means. It would be more accurate if it was "leading premium Android manufacturers".
I agree they are a world leading manufacturer (#2 behind Samsung), and I agree that some of their devices are premium. I'm just saying they are not a leading premium manufacturer. Those are 2 different things. Apple and Samsung are by far ahead in volume sold for premium devices globally.
This doesn't show they are a leading premium smartphone manufacturer. This says they are a 2nd largest smartphone manufacturer.
Leading premium manufacturer means largest volume of premium smartphones sold. Huawei doesn't sell a lot of P30 (although I agree it's a premium device).
Leading premium manufacturer means largest volume of premium smartphones sold. Huawei doesn't sell a lot of P30 (although I agree it's a premium device).
This. And I am surprised at the amount of downvote and I quote "an assertion that is a fairly well-known fact."
Where’s your citation on P30 sales figures? If apple doesn’t sell as many iPhone X’s as P30s in China does that make Apple not a premium manufacturer if most of their sales are lower end?
https://www.huaweicentral.com/huawei-p30-series-single-day-s...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/01/huawei-ahead-of-apple-in-q1-...
In 2018, they shipped 16 million P20s in 9 months. And they shipped 100,000 in a single day which could translate to 3 million units a month or 27 million in 9 months, but even if they ship 20 million in 9 months which is 25% more than the P20 you can’t wave you hands and act like no one is buying these phones.
https://www.huaweicentral.com/huawei-p30-series-single-day-s...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/01/huawei-ahead-of-apple-in-q1-...
In 2018, they shipped 16 million P20s in 9 months. And they shipped 100,000 in a single day which could translate to 3 million units a month or 27 million in 9 months, but even if they ship 20 million in 9 months which is 25% more than the P20 you can’t wave you hands and act like no one is buying these phones.
Because Apple report their Smartphone ASP, ( at least in iPhone X era ) And you will need to look up even the worst of iPhone X estimate shipment figures.
No one, me or the previous one who replied said anything about P20 not selling. Nor the P30. It is simply not leading premium Smartphone, where Smartphone here is inclusive of iOS. Not by commonly used matrix, where the word leading would directly referred to market ASP and not leading as in technically. And I said this again, it would be correct if the sentence was leading premium Android Smartphone. Or Leading Smartphone ( Excluding Android ) or Leading Android would also be correct.
And I am out.
No one, me or the previous one who replied said anything about P20 not selling. Nor the P30. It is simply not leading premium Smartphone, where Smartphone here is inclusive of iOS. Not by commonly used matrix, where the word leading would directly referred to market ASP and not leading as in technically. And I said this again, it would be correct if the sentence was leading premium Android Smartphone. Or Leading Smartphone ( Excluding Android ) or Leading Android would also be correct.
And I am out.
In a world outside the US, where the Huawei P30 Pro has the best camera combo, one of the fastest processors and a premium. build (and price).
He is right.
Source? And how do you define premium? The sentence implies leading as in market shares, and not technological.
Huawei p30 leads Apple on camera quality by far. It has premium build quality and battery life.
In market share they lead Apple in China, and they ship more units.
Trying to act like they’re a low end bit player is ludicrous. They’re the Samsung of China now, and on track to overtake Samsung globally.
In market share they lead Apple in China, and they ship more units.
Trying to act like they’re a low end bit player is ludicrous. They’re the Samsung of China now, and on track to overtake Samsung globally.
In this one.
Asking for a source for an assertion that is a fairly well-known fact is simply lazy.
Fact?
Huawei is #2 or #1 by unit shipment. That doesn't immediately make them a "leading" Premium Smartphone maker. I could sell 200M of $200 Phones and 10M of $700 Phones. Would that make them leading? Would that make them premium?
Huawei is #2 or #1 by unit shipment. That doesn't immediately make them a "leading" Premium Smartphone maker. I could sell 200M of $200 Phones and 10M of $700 Phones. Would that make them leading? Would that make them premium?
To all those stating that Huawei should just make their own OS, it's nowhere near that simple. Forking Android is the easy part, building an app ecosystem that thousands of developers across the globe actively partake in is incredibly difficult. Microsoft couldn't even pull it off with Windows Phone.
I predict their own Android fork and China-focused app store will do fine in China, but struggle big time in other markets.
I predict their own Android fork and China-focused app store will do fine in China, but struggle big time in other markets.
The difference between Huawei's situation and Microsoft's situation is that Microsoft's app store is not compatible with Android or IOS (obviously, different OS)
While if Huawei uses the Android open source base, the only thing they have to do is entice developers to submit another copy of their app to their store, which is a much lower barrier than the one MS faced to develop a whole new ecosystem
While if Huawei uses the Android open source base, the only thing they have to do is entice developers to submit another copy of their app to their store, which is a much lower barrier than the one MS faced to develop a whole new ecosystem
Not if that app depends on Google Play Services, which most developers targeting "Android" take for granted.
Perhaps Huawei will assist in the development of microg (https://microg.org/) - a free (as in freedom) drop-in replacement for Google Play Services.
There's going to need to be a mechanism for in-app purchases and a substitute for SafetyNet as well.
Huawei will never do that, the very concept of free or open-source is absolutely alien to them. But they could develop some kind of their own Play Services, compatible with Google.
Huawei contributes to open source projects right now. I know they have been contributing to OpenStack for years and likely other open-source projects. https://www.stackalytics.com/?company=huawei&metric=commits&...
> Huawei will never do that, the very concept of free or open-source is absolutely alien to them.
The Shenzhen ecosystem has taken the idea of 'Open' and 'Open Source' further than perhaps anywhere else in the world. Huawei the company is built on that kind of information sharing. I highly doubt it's alien to Huawei.
[1] https://www.szoil.org/
[2] https://convidera.com/article/shenzhen-chinas-ecosystem-for-...
The Shenzhen ecosystem has taken the idea of 'Open' and 'Open Source' further than perhaps anywhere else in the world. Huawei the company is built on that kind of information sharing. I highly doubt it's alien to Huawei.
[1] https://www.szoil.org/
[2] https://convidera.com/article/shenzhen-chinas-ecosystem-for-...
"the very concept of free or open-source is absolutely alien to them"
white people have a way of saying incredibly insulting, demeaning things about non-whites in a way that it is acceptable in common discourse.
statement such as these need to be called out for what they are - biased opinions based on an irrational fear of "the chinese"
white people have a way of saying incredibly insulting, demeaning things about non-whites in a way that it is acceptable in common discourse.
statement such as these need to be called out for what they are - biased opinions based on an irrational fear of "the chinese"
I would not agree with the statement you've quoted either, but can you see that you've posted a comment shot through with the same attitudes that you believe tainted his comment?
You've assigned a race to another poster based on your own preconceptions of the attitudes and behaviors of members of that race (kicking off your reply to snaky with "white people have a way of [...]") and lumped all members of a race together (accusing all white people of making derogatory statements regarding other races).
You've assigned a race to another poster based on your own preconceptions of the attitudes and behaviors of members of that race (kicking off your reply to snaky with "white people have a way of [...]") and lumped all members of a race together (accusing all white people of making derogatory statements regarding other races).
Odd that you think this is about 'white people' v 'non-white people' rather than about a company's culture. I see to recall very robust discussions about Microsoft et al's position on open source without race getting dragged into it.
> white people have a way of saying incredibly insulting, demeaning things about non-whites in a way that it is acceptable in common discourse
How do you even know he or she is white? Why racialize a comment in this manner?
How do you even know he or she is white? Why racialize a comment in this manner?
I guess they could provide their own implementations of the Google Play Services API's?
It's already done: https://microg.org
The barrier would be that many Android apps also leverage Google's in-built services, which would be unavailable on the upcoming generation of Huawei phones. The question then becomes to what degree could someone replicate those services, and how quickly.
One thing to note is that the whole Chinese Android ecosystem currently works without those Google services or Play Store. It's still challenging to push system without Google globally, but at least they have experience with that locally in China.
How do they replicate the functionality that Google Services provide? And could they bring that functionality to the rest of the world?
It's just very different.
For example, there are a ton of SDKs that provide push notifications, such as Baidu, Tencent, etc...
There are also "super apps", such as WeChat, that offer their own API surface and can be preferable to some app devs.
Then there are some things, such as "advertising id", which none of these SDKs provide (at the moment?).
So yeah, the answer is somewhere between "it's complicated" and "no one".
For example, there are a ton of SDKs that provide push notifications, such as Baidu, Tencent, etc...
There are also "super apps", such as WeChat, that offer their own API surface and can be preferable to some app devs.
Then there are some things, such as "advertising id", which none of these SDKs provide (at the moment?).
So yeah, the answer is somewhere between "it's complicated" and "no one".
They use massive mega apps e.g. WeChat
There is already microG: https://microg.org
While true, this is also the case for Amazon's app store, and their app selection is a fraction of the Play store to this day.
Well, if Huawei would say
a) here is our store
b) your app will be marketed to Chinese population (as long as your backend servers run on Chinese infra)
then, I think they have a chance to attract app developers. Otherwise, I doubt it.
then, I think they have a chance to attract app developers. Otherwise, I doubt it.
For Chinese market, Huawei don't have anything to worry about. It is likely gain more "Chinese" market share from this.
For the rest of the world, it would be completely different story. It is hard to imagine Huawei won't loss huge market share from the EU and rest of the world without Google's Play Store.
For the rest of the world, it would be completely different story. It is hard to imagine Huawei won't loss huge market share from the EU and rest of the world without Google's Play Store.
Windows Phone was in a way worse situation. They had to solve an M to N problem, getting apps to attract users while also getting users to attract developers. They tried to leverage their PC install base, but that apparently failed.
The Chinese market on the other hand will always have users, is huge and I presume most developers won't be willing to give up on it. If they do, someone else will serve their customers and might become a future competitor globally.
China-focused apps will only have to re-implement google services. That sound a lot easier to me than supporting an entirely different OS. If those versions can run on google phones as well, devs have the option to drop the play store version down the line to save cost.
I wouldn't bet a lot on it, but this might be the best chance we ever had to get a real play store competitor.
The Chinese market on the other hand will always have users, is huge and I presume most developers won't be willing to give up on it. If they do, someone else will serve their customers and might become a future competitor globally.
China-focused apps will only have to re-implement google services. That sound a lot easier to me than supporting an entirely different OS. If those versions can run on google phones as well, devs have the option to drop the play store version down the line to save cost.
I wouldn't bet a lot on it, but this might be the best chance we ever had to get a real play store competitor.
Win mobile was a dominant mobile platform until Microsoft didn't nuke itself with non backward compatible, rewritten from scratch WinMo 7
Palm was a dominant mobile platform until Palm nuked itself with 5 years of clownade with Palm OS 6
Symbian was the biggest, most dominant mobile OS globally until Nokia didn't decide to simply trow it away.
JM2E was the most largely adapted app platform, even into early Android years, until Oracle/Sun simply stopped licensing it...
Now think just how thin is the ice Google is on now with it flirting with idea of "rebooting" Android with Fucsia
Palm was a dominant mobile platform until Palm nuked itself with 5 years of clownade with Palm OS 6
Symbian was the biggest, most dominant mobile OS globally until Nokia didn't decide to simply trow it away.
JM2E was the most largely adapted app platform, even into early Android years, until Oracle/Sun simply stopped licensing it...
Now think just how thin is the ice Google is on now with it flirting with idea of "rebooting" Android with Fucsia
For each example, weren't there viable alternatives lurking around to take advantage of the situation?
I'm not familiar with Palm OS, but Symbian and JM2E both has the iPhone and Android OSs as growing threats. Google hasn't officially stated that it is rebooting Android, and even if they did (and did it right), there isn't a major alternative lurking around the corner...
I'm not familiar with Palm OS, but Symbian and JM2E both has the iPhone and Android OSs as growing threats. Google hasn't officially stated that it is rebooting Android, and even if they did (and did it right), there isn't a major alternative lurking around the corner...
There are a lot of alternative OS and playstore on different part of the world. Huawei has the resources and experience (including other Chinese companies experience since that's how they operate) to offer an alternative to the whole world.
They have experience on chat and payment software and infrastructure system used by millions of people in their country.
They have experience on chat and payment software and infrastructure system used by millions of people in their country.
Domestically within China, Huawei and other phones already use non-google-app-stores.
https://technode.com/2018/08/13/android-china-q2-2018/
https://technode.com/2018/08/13/android-china-q2-2018/
Well, not only in China, but pretty much every other country where demand for Gaps is not an issue, and it was from day one for them as an Android vendor.
It was the one and only Chinese brand with whom Google made a Nexus phone in the past — at least in part to lessen their enthusiasm in throwing out Google market in Western countries
It was the one and only Chinese brand with whom Google made a Nexus phone in the past — at least in part to lessen their enthusiasm in throwing out Google market in Western countries
Well Play Store is not accessible in China, so they kinda have to.
Will Huawei still have access to TSMC, Samsung fabs etc? I think Hardware should be more of an issue for them than software. Chinese phones already use some alternative to play store iirc.
It appears they're only losing access to American hardware and software. So that would mean Android, Gorilla Glass screens, Qualcomm processors, etc.
This could actually be a boon for China. Now they have to start developing their phones completely in-house. On the longer term that could be the end for American tech.
If one thing the last 50 years has taught us is that whatever the US can do an Asian competitor can do as well.
If one thing the last 50 years has taught us is that whatever the US can do an Asian competitor can do as well.
>If one thing the last 50 years has taught us is that whatever the US can do an Asian competitor can do as well.
Generalized, I think it's safe to assume any developed country willing to invest in manufacturing is capable of doing what any other country can do [in manufacturing] as well.
Generalized, I think it's safe to assume any developed country willing to invest in manufacturing is capable of doing what any other country can do [in manufacturing] as well.
That’s entirety the point of their Made In China 2025 initiative
Minor correction: It doesn't mean "Android", it means Google services.
Well they already have their own processors so I imagine that won't be a huge loss.
What about the ARM license? Sure they design their own processors but that doesn't help if ARM doesn't let them use the instruction set.
> I predict their own Android fork and China-focused app store will do fine in China, but struggle big time in other markets.
Why would they need it to be popular anywhere other than China?
Why would they need it to be popular anywhere other than China?
Because they have spent years trying to increase market share in Europe and South America, and are only now seeing the fruits of that labor. In the Chinese market they have to compete on price against Xiaomi, Oppo and many, many others, whereas in overseas markets their offerings (minus the P30 flagship) have a big price advantage over Samsung and Apple.
[deleted]
the could make the phone an actual computer. that can download and run apps from where-ever. many of us are starving for that.
There are plenty of open source third party stories such as FDroid and Aptoide and Amazon's own store. On Android, you can even load APKs directly.
Agree in principle, though can't we get that by just allowing unauthorized sources?
I guess you don't get the relative security of app stores, and there's no widespread culture of free apps on phones like on PCs.
I'd really love, not a new phone or OS, but just an app store that works under a different model. Cheap or free for developers to post, but curated to exclude the most predatory forms of monetization.
I guess you don't get the relative security of app stores, and there's no widespread culture of free apps on phones like on PCs.
I'd really love, not a new phone or OS, but just an app store that works under a different model. Cheap or free for developers to post, but curated to exclude the most predatory forms of monetization.
I thought about this more this week.
How do we solve the trusted app problem on PCs?
We don't install whatever random thing comes up in google. We look for a trusted recommendation.
App stores are just teaching us that it's ok to install any app, which is not necessarily the best security model.
How do we solve the trusted app problem on PCs?
We don't install whatever random thing comes up in google. We look for a trusted recommendation.
App stores are just teaching us that it's ok to install any app, which is not necessarily the best security model.
what if all Chinese companies create an appstore? Might have to do it. These things, and I'm not passing judgment on them, are simply pushing the Chinese to be self-sufficient on everything. Stroke of the Trump pen and X chip for your hardware is denied.
Huawei already saw this coming; at least that's what the company signaled last march when they announced they have a 'backup OS': https://www.engadget.com/amp/2019/03/14/huawei-confirms-os/
A better source thats not google amp https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3001685/huawei-co...
HN really should auto-convert AMP links because many HN users still post those.
From comment by StudentStuff, hidden below:
> SCMP is owned by Alibaba, they're far from impartial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Morning_Post .
> SCMP is owned by Alibaba, they're far from impartial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Morning_Post .
And Engadget is owned by Verizon and they are closer to the smartphone industry. (Hardly impartial too)
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Engadget
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Engadget
They're the source for the Engadget article, so still a better choice in any case. The change in ownership also hasn't affected the quality of their reporting, as far as I can tell.
I was just reiterating the comment, it was hidden. Also kinda silly for you to say so definitively that being owned by what is effectively a state venture of the PRC doesn't have an effect on their reporting. I wouldn't say that about basically any news outlet, because they all at least have a headquarters somewhere.
And given the PRC's enormous, well-documented investments into perverting the truth and framing the narrative worldwide, more developed than most; even an arm's length relationship is too close for me to put that sort of trust into a a venture like this.
And given the PRC's enormous, well-documented investments into perverting the truth and framing the narrative worldwide, more developed than most; even an arm's length relationship is too close for me to put that sort of trust into a a venture like this.
OT: What's wrong with AMP?
I'm not sure why this is being voted down. I'll take a well-known Hong Kong newspaper (in this case the South China Morning Post) over a tech blog re-writing other people's journalism any day.
SCMP is owned by Alibaba, they're far from impartial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Morning_Post
Engadget is owned by Verizon, they're far from impartial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engadget
Sure, they were. This is the closest thing to Baghdad Bob's bluster, I have heard in my life.
Here is a helpful read, http://zeihan.com/my-way-or-the-huawei/
Here is a helpful read, http://zeihan.com/my-way-or-the-huawei/
It would be nice to see Sailfish on there; it might finally help it gain some traction.
If it is an optimized version of Linux, then they should just release it. It will probably be better than Android.
Huawei still uses outdated, insecure versions of OpenSSL through their basestation code, and has successfully avoided using version control despite promising to address both issues back in 2012. This seems like an optimal environment to engineer an optimized version of Linux!
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/uk-says-huawei-equip...
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/uk-says-huawei-equip...
As an Australian with a Hauwei phone, the writing is on the wall for me.
Google Android in no longer a universal platform and moving forward, I doubt I'll ever buy anything again Google or US related again in terms of tech.
This si no longer a China vs US issue, it's the US vs the world.
Google Android in no longer a universal platform and moving forward, I doubt I'll ever buy anything again Google or US related again in terms of tech.
This si no longer a China vs US issue, it's the US vs the world.
It's a China vs. the world issue. China has been spying on everyone, for years. Political, military, commercial, makes no difference.
For the EU it's really just the question if you want to be spied on by the US or by China. In recent years, trade with China has probably helped the economy much more than trade with the US. At the same time, China (while certainly acting out of self interest), is somewhat predictable in their actions.
Europeans are really critical of China and their policies (esp. their human rights record). But they don't like the US that much more (apart from the Brits) and with a struggling economy you really don't want to make them choose between money and ideology.
Europeans are really critical of China and their policies (esp. their human rights record). But they don't like the US that much more (apart from the Brits) and with a struggling economy you really don't want to make them choose between money and ideology.
As a european, I'll take US over China any day.
Anti-US circlejerk is mostly confined in Western europe (sans Brits). Eastern europe has totally different sentiment.
Anti-US circlejerk is mostly confined in Western europe (sans Brits). Eastern europe has totally different sentiment.
>China, is somewhat predictable in their actions
Yeah, wow, it must be completely impossible for someone without decades of US residency or decades of intense interest in the US to understand the US government!
I like to flatter myself that after 58 years of living in the US, I have recently started to be able to predict most of the major decisions of the US government. (Youtube videos of speeches and interviews by Peter Zeihan and George Friedman helped me in my understanding. Most of the senior editors and reporters at, e.g., the New York Times and the Washington Post, although passionately interested in the US government, have only a shallow understanding of it IMO.)
Yeah, wow, it must be completely impossible for someone without decades of US residency or decades of intense interest in the US to understand the US government!
I like to flatter myself that after 58 years of living in the US, I have recently started to be able to predict most of the major decisions of the US government. (Youtube videos of speeches and interviews by Peter Zeihan and George Friedman helped me in my understanding. Most of the senior editors and reporters at, e.g., the New York Times and the Washington Post, although passionately interested in the US government, have only a shallow understanding of it IMO.)
Correct me if I’m wrong but if you get an Apple phone you’ll be spied on by no one. Relatively speaking, of course.
You can easily find examples where you can replace China with the US. And now with the current American leadership I can't say personally that I trust the US more than China at this point.
Would you prefer daily life like in US or China?
I haven't been to US, but all my friends that visited it were quite disappointed with quality of life there (coming from Poland). But I've recently spent a few weeks in China and I'm really impressed with how advanced it is in terms of infrastructure and technology, I don't think US or even EU is anywhere near where China is right now. So it's not as simple a comparison as it first appears.
It's not only about QoL. Personal freedom, government accountability and democracy is as important. If not even more important. Coming from ex-Soviet state you should be aware of that (saying this as your neighbour from Lithuania).
Even if democracy in West (or at home) is far from perfect, it's lightyears ahead of China.
Even if democracy in West (or at home) is far from perfect, it's lightyears ahead of China.
I wouldn't want to live in either country, but for entirely different reasons for each.
lol you watched too many hollywood movies growing up that you can't imagine daily life an another country being as good or better than living in America you silly goose
They weren't talking about simply any other country, but China specifically. In terms of government interference and freedom of thought, at this point I think the US is still pretty clearly the better place. From the point of view of the EU, though, it is edging closer to China.
I'll take cleaner air and no social score thankyouverymuch.
Why would you live on those countries? US taxation law implementation is like the Chinese suppression of your other freedom.
So has the US.
> It's a China vs. the world issue. China has been spying on everyone, for years. Political, military, commercial, makes no difference.
So has the US though, even on it's allies as Snowden showed us.
So has the US though, even on it's allies as Snowden showed us.
Yep, and China has been playing the same game with its neighboring countries for a while. Remember how China responded when South Korea brought THAAD for missile defense?
Out of interest, what phone can you get that is not US or google related?
That's kinda hilarious coming from an australian. a country in which some companies have said they will no longer trust their employees due to the new law enforcement bills passed.
In addition australia has the same stance as nearly every western country when it comes to Huawei, namely "only we get to spy on our people, so get out"
I'm sure that the EU/australia/the west is breathing a sigh of relief that Trump did this instead of forcing them to make up some more draconian law about foreign device mfg that would have unintended consequences.
In addition australia has the same stance as nearly every western country when it comes to Huawei, namely "only we get to spy on our people, so get out"
I'm sure that the EU/australia/the west is breathing a sigh of relief that Trump did this instead of forcing them to make up some more draconian law about foreign device mfg that would have unintended consequences.
[deleted]
Sad to see as they make some compelling phones with outrageously great prices[0]. I used to think about the privacy problems with buying a chinese phone but this day and age where facebook is selling your data to the highest bidder and the fusion centers crawling all over our cellphone - who cares? I'd rather have the chinese have my data than the US companies/gov't(only because I will never visit their country), though they wouldn't be exclusive in this case.
[0]:https://www.banggood.com/Xiaomi-Mi-Play-Global-Version-5_84-...
[0]:https://www.banggood.com/Xiaomi-Mi-Play-Global-Version-5_84-...
The outrageously great prices comment got me thinking about all the IP theft allegations [0]. I wonder if the relatively lower prices are a reflection of the reduced R&D overhead compared to other companies that would otherwise need to recover that initial investment.
[0]:https://www.androidauthority.com/huawei-theft-bonus-program-...
[0]:https://www.androidauthority.com/huawei-theft-bonus-program-...
So you think Apple is still recouping R&D costs, or just padding their margins for shareholders?
It seems so, though my personal experience with their phones has been hit and miss. The specs look great on the box, but the phones themselves seem to have poor QC and support when things go wrong.
That said, others have only had good experiences. YMMV.
That said, others have only had good experiences. YMMV.
I may have missed this, but have there been any specific accusations against Huawei? It is clear Chinese actors hack and steal IP, but have those been connected to Huawei, or are they just the easiest victim for the US to retaliate against?
Nothing new this time around that I know of, though Huawei has admitted to specific allegations many times in the past (e.g. wholesale stealing of Cisco's software in 2003, got caught physically stealing Motorola wireless tech several years ago, etc). Huawei were banned from sensitive infrastructure in Five Eyes for security reasons circa 2013/2014, along with Lenovo (against which there were specific allegations IIRC).
This is just an expansion of official government policy put in place during the Obama administration to the rest of the private sector.
tl;dr: this isn't new territory for Huawei.
This is just an expansion of official government policy put in place during the Obama administration to the rest of the private sector.
tl;dr: this isn't new territory for Huawei.
Huawei is effectively one arm of the Chinese government, and the Chinese state hackers are another arm of that same government.
Is Cisco that much less aligned with US government interest? I have the feeling it's just down to which government you want to trust.
Not true.
FYI: Trump says U.S. "wants to be the leader' in 5G development: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_Gakw0dPvE
I'm not sure this is really about Huawei at all, so in a sense it doesn't really matter if they have (up to now) done anything wrong. It's really about the extent we feel comfortable trusting the Chinese government.
Now obviously, every country has its own agenda, but there are (arguably) stronger reasons to be concerned about China than most others. They are undemocratic and suppress significant parts of their population (the Uighurs, Tibetans, Christians, ..), don't believe in free speech or freedom of religion, but also have a large economy and military presence. Now of course, other countries are not saints, but the differences with China (and in particular its disregard for human rights) make future disagreement much more likely.
Now obviously, every country has its own agenda, but there are (arguably) stronger reasons to be concerned about China than most others. They are undemocratic and suppress significant parts of their population (the Uighurs, Tibetans, Christians, ..), don't believe in free speech or freedom of religion, but also have a large economy and military presence. Now of course, other countries are not saints, but the differences with China (and in particular its disregard for human rights) make future disagreement much more likely.
When it comes to security everyone's guilty until proven innocent.
China has apps with plenty of install base. That is probably the bigger threat noone has really noticed yet...
And it is impossible to prove innocent.
None, Australian government has banned Huawei for government work. Me and others have demanded the government to ban them from consumers but no. Huawei is allowed to sell to unsuspecting businesses/consumers in Australia.
Huawei could sue the Australian government over the ban: https://www.afr.com/business/telecommunications/huawei-won-t...
Huawei could sue the Australian government over the ban: https://www.afr.com/business/telecommunications/huawei-won-t...
I wonder if this will be the catalyst for foreign companies to stop using US technology. For everything that the US has done to other countries over the years, US tech companies have somewhat maintained their independence. Now that US companies are being compelled to not sell to various Chinese companies, it could be a wake-up call to the rest of the world that US companies are now simply another arm of the US government.
These rules don't make US companies "another arm of the US government". US companies can (and do!) push back against the US government, through the courts, political parties, and ultimately elections.
Chinese companies, on the other hand, have no such recourse against their government.
Chinese companies, on the other hand, have no such recourse against their government.
> These rules don't make US companies "another arm of the US government". US companies can (and do!) push back against the US government, through the courts, political parties, and ultimately elections.
Show me the push back to the following:
- NSA backdooring
- The whole Prisma scandal
- The current trade war with China
And tell me how EU governments benefit from US companies avoiding taxes, and repatriating revenues generated in the European market to the US.
The US is a highly unreliable, politicized provider. The US uses technology to steal data and taxes from other countries. And abuses its position to impose its will.
We can not build our digital infrastructure like this anymore.
I assume EU governments are following this very closely.
Show me the push back to the following:
- NSA backdooring
- The whole Prisma scandal
- The current trade war with China
And tell me how EU governments benefit from US companies avoiding taxes, and repatriating revenues generated in the European market to the US.
The US is a highly unreliable, politicized provider. The US uses technology to steal data and taxes from other countries. And abuses its position to impose its will.
We can not build our digital infrastructure like this anymore.
I assume EU governments are following this very closely.
As a European founder (small app company) it will definitely add another dimension to how I think about our strategic roadmap. You can be certain that large non-US corporates will be far more aggressive in their approach to this problem.
I can't see any Chinese phone company feeling comfortable with this move. If someone sets up a viable non-US alternative to Android and the Play Store, they could jump ship en masse.
Android phones sold in China use homebrew app stores instead of Google Play already, because of censorship.
This news, if true, will affect the devices made by Huawei and sold worldwide though.
This news, if true, will affect the devices made by Huawei and sold worldwide though.
Much more likely is a SaaS to manage distribution to various app stores from one interface.
Hmm, interesting. Does one already exist?
Yes, since each of Chinese android vendors(Huawei/Xiaomi/Oppo/Oneplus...) has their own "Google Play" alternative in China. Their are plenty of tools for uploading apps to each of these markets.
I'm sure one does but I don't know for certain. The difficulty comes in replacing the Google Services functionality. I suspect this responsibility could be pushed upstream into frameworks.
Lineage OS
Lineage isn't good enough on its own. 99% of Lineage OS users also install google play services and the google play store. You need to have a replacement for all of the closed source Google APIs for app developers to use. It's a much bigger undertaking than just recompiling the base OS from source.
You can install F-Droid or microG if you prefer; you don't need to use GApps.
Apart from that the other options you have, are (in random order): /e/, PureOS, KaiOS, SailfishOS, Ubuntu Touch, Plasma Mobile, postmarketOS, among others.
Apart from that the other options you have, are (in random order): /e/, PureOS, KaiOS, SailfishOS, Ubuntu Touch, Plasma Mobile, postmarketOS, among others.
I looked at MicroG and saw this almost immediately: This is alpha-grade software and not yet ready for production use. Do not use if you don't know what you're doing.
That's not going to be good enough for Huawei.
Similarly, all of those alternative OSes aren't going to work if they're not binary, and more importantly API compatible with Android + GMS.
That's not going to be good enough for Huawei.
Similarly, all of those alternative OSes aren't going to work if they're not binary, and more importantly API compatible with Android + GMS.
If microG isn't good enough for Huawei, they can make it so. I mean, Huawei is a billion dollar corporation. I hope they do.
> That's not going to be good enough for Huawei.
The question is rather: given that it is FOSS is it good enough for them to extend the functionality on the short-term?
> Similarly, all of those alternative OSes aren't going to work if they're not binary, and more importantly API compatible with Android + GMS.
KaiOS has some compatibility (by design not fully compatible).
SailfishOS has an Android emulator. Other OSes could also use one such as Anbox.
/e/ and LineageOS are binary and API compatible with Android.
GMS is an issue, but given that Google is under a magnifying glass concerning monopoly position related to Android in EU I have some hope that alternatives for GMS (or FOSS implementations) could happen.
The question is rather: given that it is FOSS is it good enough for them to extend the functionality on the short-term?
> Similarly, all of those alternative OSes aren't going to work if they're not binary, and more importantly API compatible with Android + GMS.
KaiOS has some compatibility (by design not fully compatible).
SailfishOS has an Android emulator. Other OSes could also use one such as Anbox.
/e/ and LineageOS are binary and API compatible with Android.
GMS is an issue, but given that Google is under a magnifying glass concerning monopoly position related to Android in EU I have some hope that alternatives for GMS (or FOSS implementations) could happen.
Or YALP, Aurora, or AuroraStore.
> Lineage isn't good enough on its own.
It's good for me¹. I want a device that does no phone home to its mothership outside my control. This requires Googles Services not to be installed.
I don't doubt that many nevertheless still use Googles Services.
¹ compared to Googles Android. I'm still desperately waiting for a device with mainline Linux support without blobs.
It's good for me¹. I want a device that does no phone home to its mothership outside my control. This requires Googles Services not to be installed.
I don't doubt that many nevertheless still use Googles Services.
¹ compared to Googles Android. I'm still desperately waiting for a device with mainline Linux support without blobs.
> without blobs
Will never happen.
Will never happen.
Look at the PocketCHIP and OrangePi boards. Allwinner's chips can run Xorg, Wayland, do gigabit ethernet, handle eMMC using mainline Linux all without any proprietary firmware or closed source software.
Huawei phones have locked bootloaders and you can't fet the unlock key from them (there are potentially questionable 3rd party sites selling those, turning this into a market..)
If you do unlock the device and install Lineage OS (which doesn't support more than a few devices), you now basically have a crappy camera app, probably your FreeBuds won't work properly anymore and you really should have bought a different phone.
I love Lineage OS and used it for years (OPO and other phones). It would ruin my P30P though.
If you do unlock the device and install Lineage OS (which doesn't support more than a few devices), you now basically have a crappy camera app, probably your FreeBuds won't work properly anymore and you really should have bought a different phone.
I love Lineage OS and used it for years (OPO and other phones). It would ruin my P30P though.
Huawei and Honor stopped providing bootloader unlock codes last year [1]. Wouldn't this make it impossible to install Lineage OS or another AOSP-based custom ROM?
[1] https://www.xda-developers.com/huawei-stop-providing-bootloa...
[1] https://www.xda-developers.com/huawei-stop-providing-bootloa...
Beats me why more manufacturers don't just take Lineage.
Is the license still controllable by the US Commerce Department though? Because if so I don't think the Chinese would be interested
No more updates for my Huawei phone then presumably. Really feeling more secure now!
Google have no choice but to comply with US law. This is now going to make a load of existing US owned (Huawei manufactured) devices less secure unless an exemption is agreed for things like software security updates.
Not only that, the ban encourages a long term move away from US-based tech as alternatives are needed within China. This new tech will ultimately be available worldwide, but no longer owned or controlled by US companies.
As someone from neither China or US, it seems crazy. It’s one thing to ban Huawei from your own markets for security concerns, but by making such a heavy handed ban on working with them, the US government seem to be making the US less secure short term, but also US companies will be less competitive and less influential in the world long term.
Not only that, the ban encourages a long term move away from US-based tech as alternatives are needed within China. This new tech will ultimately be available worldwide, but no longer owned or controlled by US companies.
As someone from neither China or US, it seems crazy. It’s one thing to ban Huawei from your own markets for security concerns, but by making such a heavy handed ban on working with them, the US government seem to be making the US less secure short term, but also US companies will be less competitive and less influential in the world long term.
> the ban encourages a long term move away from US-based tech as alternatives are needed within China.
China blocked Google play years ago and repeatedly blocks every attempt Google tries to make to relaunch back into china [0] so they did that a long time ago.
[0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/17/google-misses-out-on-billion...
China blocked Google play years ago and repeatedly blocks every attempt Google tries to make to relaunch back into china [0] so they did that a long time ago.
[0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/17/google-misses-out-on-billion...
It's bigger than China blocking Google's adware/spyware crap.
> Google have no choice but to comply with US law
Like they have no choice with tax laws. Or no choice with cartel laws. Or no choice with data protection laws.
They are agressively trying to circumvent many laws all the times to extend their monopoly and grow their profits. They have multi-billion fines from the EU and several member states pending and no somewhat critical thinking citizen would claim that EU has been particularly tough on their monopoly and tax evasions.
Like they have no choice with tax laws. Or no choice with cartel laws. Or no choice with data protection laws.
They are agressively trying to circumvent many laws all the times to extend their monopoly and grow their profits. They have multi-billion fines from the EU and several member states pending and no somewhat critical thinking citizen would claim that EU has been particularly tough on their monopoly and tax evasions.
Huawei really needs to give everyone bootloader unlocks so that people can move to LineageOS in the meantime.
They will probably lose support from mobile carriers at that point.
why would carriers care about bootloader unlocks? it's different from a carrier lock, which prevents a phone from being used on another carrier.
Doesn't an unlocked bootloader almost automatically allow bypassing of the carrier lock?
Your phone was manufactured by a front for a foreign intelligence service. It was never secure.
American-manufactured devices are probably equally as infiltrated by American foreign intelligence services. Hence why they don't just use a standard Linux distro with open source firmware.
Even if it was true that American phone companies are infiltrated by American intelligence services, you have to ask yourself which government you trust more. As a New Zealander, I think there are very good reasons to trust the US government a lot more.
Heck, if you look at where Chinese officials try to stash their money and their families, it's clear they trust Western countries a lot more too.
Heck, if you look at where Chinese officials try to stash their money and their families, it's clear they trust Western countries a lot more too.
> As a New Zealander, I think there are very good reasons to trust the US government a lot more.
As an EU citizen, idk, China seems more locally focused, the U.S reaches everywhere. Speaking of NZ, the whole Kim Dotcom situation makes it look like a U.S.vassal state, honestly.
As an EU citizen, idk, China seems more locally focused, the U.S reaches everywhere. Speaking of NZ, the whole Kim Dotcom situation makes it look like a U.S.vassal state, honestly.
Hardly, look at what the Chinese are doing in Africa and the "Silk Road" initiative and how they load down countries with borrowing so they can come in and clean up 10 years later.
Of course I trust China more. China never militarily supported a coup in my country.
There is no proof of this, but there is tons of proof that China state funds Huawei and has the intent of espionage and IP theft.
There is no proof at all. There are a lot accusations, but US government cannot provide any evidences to back them up.
The opposite actually
US government spying has nothing to do with why manufacturers don’t “just use a standard Linux distro with open source firmware”. There are no GNU/Linux (as in, with the GNU userland) distros that work well enough on phones to compete with Android and open source firmware removes some competitive advantage around things like image processing.
Just to play devil's advocate, do you have any citations for that statement?
I'd hardly presume Huawei is a front for a foreign intelligence service, but their software for cellular basestations is extremely vulnerable (hundreds of different vulnerable versions of OpenSSL sprinkled through) and they still can't be bothered to use version control, despite committing to address both issues back in 2012: https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-huawei-bri...
Huawei's products are vulnerable by default, anyone can look up the applicable CVEs and run the proof of concept code for said CVE to pop a shell. China doesn't have exclusive access :)
Huawei's products are vulnerable by default, anyone can look up the applicable CVEs and run the proof of concept code for said CVE to pop a shell. China doesn't have exclusive access :)
No, I think it is, that would explain a lot of things - like how can they make/sell premium mobile phones for less? If the Chinese govt is paying you (say) $100/user to plant a back door, that would certainly help.
Remember that Huawei settled out of court to the 'allegation' that they copied Cisco's source code.
So, are Facebook a front for the CIA?
Remember that Huawei settled out of court to the 'allegation' that they copied Cisco's source code.
So, are Facebook a front for the CIA?
No. Although Huawei did do some shady shit, like come up with a bonus scheme based on how much IP/market intelligence their employees could "acquire" from their competitors.
Personally I would prefer it to be a foreign government rather than the one in charge of the country I reside in...
[deleted]
Well, OS updates weren't going through the play store anyway, no? And it appears you'll continue to be able to download app updates via the play store "But users of existing Huawei devices who have access to the Google Play Store will still be able to download app updates provided by Google.".
Some security updates will be installed via the Play Store starting from Android Q.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/7/18531350/google-android-q-...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/7/18531350/google-android-q-...
I guess this is a thinly veiled attack on China, but I'm a bit confused why there's a feud between the US and China in the first place. Perhaps my ignorance is down to being British and a bit out of the loop, but could someone give a rough outline on what the underlying motives for this are?
China is the only country that can threaten the US' status as the number one superpower in the world. Huawei's lead in 5G technology is broadly seen in Washington as a threat to US interests even though the US government has no concrete evidence of wrong doing.
China's population will actually age too fast to continue to be #1 in the world, by the end of this century India will pass China in GDP & population size, based on projections.
Let me give it a shot with actual references, and years of paying attention, not whatever I heard the talking heads say last night.
The US perceives the economic relationship with China to be one way. Prior to the recent trade flair ups, China was given preferential treatment, perhaps as part of a strategy to create a geopolitical ally instead of an enemy through trade. This appeared to be working for several decades with China opening up to the world and giving the appearance of freer markets and more democratization as they became wealthier. As their economy continued to grow and modernize, the trade imbalance between the United States became huge ($539 Billion in imports in 2018, only $120 Billion in exports [0]). This means that each year hundreds of billions of dollars flows directly from the US economy into the Chinese economy. In addition, with President Xi the country appears to be sliding back towards a nationalistic totalitarianism.
While both countries can still benefit from this trade, the US government is taking the stance that China has been benefiting and the US has not. The reasons that are most often cited are that the US was open to almost all Chinese imports, while many US imports were restricted or taxed more heavily than local goods [1]. Worse than that, if a US company wanted to operate in China, they were required to do so through Chinese partners that would own half of a joint venture, and intellectual property would be shared with them. After a short term benefit, all of a sudden the Chinese partner would be running their own factories, and competing against the US company with the US companies own technology. These companies are often state owned and receive funding that is considered to be anti free trade and is generally illegal in most international agreements (see the legal squabbles between Airbus and Boeing for reference). Finally the US company would be squeezed by the Chinese government (national or local), and all sorts of issues that wouldn't impact the local company would mysteriously befall the foreign company. After local Chinese companies were created, funded and protected in China by the Chinese government, they could compete with their former US partners around the world.
Therefore while the US market was open to China, the Chinese market is not really open to the US. Finally, it has been widely known for a long time that China hosts state sponsored industrial espionage units that hack companies around the world and steal intellectual property to provide to Chinese companies[2]. US companies will spend billions of dollars researching how to do something, and then a Chinese company can just start producing it, sometimes even before the US company does. Finally, it seems like laws are not enforced in favor of US victims. If a US company steals and sells Chinese IP, they can be successfully sued in US courts. If a Chinese company steals and sells US IP, no enforcement is taken. This is a huge problem especially for small inventors, the moment they create something they lose the market to cheap Chinese knockoffs, and have no power to protect their brand or invention.
For these reasons and others, China is viewed as having a predatory trade relationship with the United States. I've heard that Huawei in particular is known to have gotten a big jump by outright stealing Cisco's router and selling it[3], and has continued with similar tactics, alongside the accusations that it is essentially an arm of Chinese intelligence services and provides backdoors in their products. I've actually heard from Chinese friends that Huawei was very proud of their ability to steal Cisco's router and it is used as a case study.
And while all this is happening, the US had a special trade relationship with China such that it was cheaper to ship goods to individuals in the US from China, instead of from inside the US itself[4].
So basically a viewpoint that I tend to agree with is that this is all about resetting the trade relationship to a normal one between peers. The US is no longer supporting a third world country, but dealing with a fellow world power that is fully capable of taking care of itself. I am confused myself why it is being portrayed any other way, and what the motivations are for doing so. It seems to me that the US has demands to be treated fairly and have an equal trading relationship (according to their point of view), and if that doesn't happen the US can impose tariffs that will rebalance trade between the two countries.
[0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-all-the-stuff-the-us... [1] https://www.export.gov/article?id=China-Import-Tariffs [2] (pdf) https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/services/pdf... [3] https://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-c... [4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-...
The US perceives the economic relationship with China to be one way. Prior to the recent trade flair ups, China was given preferential treatment, perhaps as part of a strategy to create a geopolitical ally instead of an enemy through trade. This appeared to be working for several decades with China opening up to the world and giving the appearance of freer markets and more democratization as they became wealthier. As their economy continued to grow and modernize, the trade imbalance between the United States became huge ($539 Billion in imports in 2018, only $120 Billion in exports [0]). This means that each year hundreds of billions of dollars flows directly from the US economy into the Chinese economy. In addition, with President Xi the country appears to be sliding back towards a nationalistic totalitarianism.
While both countries can still benefit from this trade, the US government is taking the stance that China has been benefiting and the US has not. The reasons that are most often cited are that the US was open to almost all Chinese imports, while many US imports were restricted or taxed more heavily than local goods [1]. Worse than that, if a US company wanted to operate in China, they were required to do so through Chinese partners that would own half of a joint venture, and intellectual property would be shared with them. After a short term benefit, all of a sudden the Chinese partner would be running their own factories, and competing against the US company with the US companies own technology. These companies are often state owned and receive funding that is considered to be anti free trade and is generally illegal in most international agreements (see the legal squabbles between Airbus and Boeing for reference). Finally the US company would be squeezed by the Chinese government (national or local), and all sorts of issues that wouldn't impact the local company would mysteriously befall the foreign company. After local Chinese companies were created, funded and protected in China by the Chinese government, they could compete with their former US partners around the world.
Therefore while the US market was open to China, the Chinese market is not really open to the US. Finally, it has been widely known for a long time that China hosts state sponsored industrial espionage units that hack companies around the world and steal intellectual property to provide to Chinese companies[2]. US companies will spend billions of dollars researching how to do something, and then a Chinese company can just start producing it, sometimes even before the US company does. Finally, it seems like laws are not enforced in favor of US victims. If a US company steals and sells Chinese IP, they can be successfully sued in US courts. If a Chinese company steals and sells US IP, no enforcement is taken. This is a huge problem especially for small inventors, the moment they create something they lose the market to cheap Chinese knockoffs, and have no power to protect their brand or invention.
For these reasons and others, China is viewed as having a predatory trade relationship with the United States. I've heard that Huawei in particular is known to have gotten a big jump by outright stealing Cisco's router and selling it[3], and has continued with similar tactics, alongside the accusations that it is essentially an arm of Chinese intelligence services and provides backdoors in their products. I've actually heard from Chinese friends that Huawei was very proud of their ability to steal Cisco's router and it is used as a case study.
And while all this is happening, the US had a special trade relationship with China such that it was cheaper to ship goods to individuals in the US from China, instead of from inside the US itself[4].
So basically a viewpoint that I tend to agree with is that this is all about resetting the trade relationship to a normal one between peers. The US is no longer supporting a third world country, but dealing with a fellow world power that is fully capable of taking care of itself. I am confused myself why it is being portrayed any other way, and what the motivations are for doing so. It seems to me that the US has demands to be treated fairly and have an equal trading relationship (according to their point of view), and if that doesn't happen the US can impose tariffs that will rebalance trade between the two countries.
[0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-all-the-stuff-the-us... [1] https://www.export.gov/article?id=China-Import-Tariffs [2] (pdf) https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/services/pdf... [3] https://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-c... [4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-...
>So basically a viewpoint that I tend to agree with is that this is all about resetting the trade relationship to a normal one between peers.
Fairly sure you're wrong on this, the US now wants an advantageous relationship. Not an even score.
Just returning to even ground would let China keep the advantages it has reaped.
Fairly sure you're wrong on this, the US now wants an advantageous relationship. Not an even score.
Just returning to even ground would let China keep the advantages it has reaped.
That would be reasonable, but China has had such an advantage for so long that just getting them to a level playing field will appear to be a devastating loss. This has been furthered by how the situation has been portrayed in the media in both China and the US and around the world, with the US as the aggressor. I believe this has caused the Chinese government to miscalculate, thinking the US will lose support and back down. Instead they have been backed into a corner. Saving face is life or death for the Chinese government, so the US getting an advantageous deal would require literally world war III and I don't think anyone involved is stupid enough to actually try to make that happen.
I expect that the tariffs will stay in place permanently because any acceptable deal would require the Chinese publicly harassing their own people on behalf of the US government, and there is no way the US could enforce that. So the easiest solution are tariffs that will rebalance trade naturally, and probably the world polarizing into two main economic zones, US-centric and China-centric. And then we all just try not to kill each other for the forseeable future.
The thing that really annoys me about this is that if China would just be patient and play by the rules, be genuinely friendly to its neighbors, it would take them like 20 or 30 years longer but then the whole world would just place the crown on their head and they would peacefully become the world's only superpower. Naturally, maybe even justly. Now we all get misery because of impatience.
I expect that the tariffs will stay in place permanently because any acceptable deal would require the Chinese publicly harassing their own people on behalf of the US government, and there is no way the US could enforce that. So the easiest solution are tariffs that will rebalance trade naturally, and probably the world polarizing into two main economic zones, US-centric and China-centric. And then we all just try not to kill each other for the forseeable future.
The thing that really annoys me about this is that if China would just be patient and play by the rules, be genuinely friendly to its neighbors, it would take them like 20 or 30 years longer but then the whole world would just place the crown on their head and they would peacefully become the world's only superpower. Naturally, maybe even justly. Now we all get misery because of impatience.
> The thing that really annoys me about this is that if China would just be patient and play by the rules, be genuinely friendly to its neighbors, it would take them like 20 or 30 years longer but then the whole world would just place the crown on their head and they would peacefully become the world's only superpower. Naturally, maybe even justly. Now we all get misery because of impatience.
just playing the devils advocate but, couldn’t the same have be said about the us (e.g imf, world bank, regime change wars etc)?
just playing the devils advocate but, couldn’t the same have be said about the us (e.g imf, world bank, regime change wars etc)?
Old US money has considered China a threat for over 2 centuries, they are very aware of the threat China poses because their wealth was accumulated during China's destruction.
China is an economic threat because it will inevitably be superior to the US economy. India is an economic threat for the same reason.
China is an economic threat because it will inevitably be superior to the US economy. India is an economic threat for the same reason.
In regards to your last point about being patient, both the US and China know that waiting an additional 20-30 years will be at the detriment of China as they cannot compete with US population replacement levels. Compare the following graphs: US projected population: https://i.imgur.com/0UN8eNy.jpg, China projected population: https://i.imgur.com/yDsLnnb.jpg.
Per those graphs, China will still have double the working-age population of the US by 2100.
Actually China has longstanding demographic, environmental and political problems that make its eventual dominance far from certain. They're moving away from the one-child policy too late, they're deep into the modern low-fertility-preference zone now (but more so than other modern countries because of environmental constraints), and there is no prospect of significant immigration to pick up the slack.
> The US perceives the economic relationship with China to be one way.
This is ridiculous. No one thinks it is one way. The spanish sending south american gold back to spain was one way.
What is actually happening, is some people think it is unfairly biased towards China.
This is ridiculous. No one thinks it is one way. The spanish sending south american gold back to spain was one way.
What is actually happening, is some people think it is unfairly biased towards China.
https://www.afr.com/technology/web/security/how-chinese-hack...
Huawei stole secrets from Nortel that eventually caused it to collapse, it only got worse from there. They've stolen IP from many other countries, and at this point the US is accusing them of not just stealing IP actual actually working with Chinese intelligence to make sure all Huawei devices can be hacked by China.
Your being British and out of the loop is pretty bad because your government is just as much of a target.
Huawei stole secrets from Nortel that eventually caused it to collapse, it only got worse from there. They've stolen IP from many other countries, and at this point the US is accusing them of not just stealing IP actual actually working with Chinese intelligence to make sure all Huawei devices can be hacked by China.
Your being British and out of the loop is pretty bad because your government is just as much of a target.
Motives:
* Trump has been on at China for a long time.
* US establishment growing increasingly worried about the sophistication of Chinese tech and are viewing Huawei as a strategic threat. Especially since the latest generation of Chinese telecoms tech has arguably leapfrogged western offerings. Free trade works brilliantly until you stop being the top dog.
* NSA doesn't the idea of Chinese being able to use their tech to spy on US. They'd prefer domestic US companies build tech to spy on us for them instead.
* "National security concerns" is kind of a "get of jail free card" when it comes to escaping WTO rules on protectionism, so it fits in pretty well with the rest of the trade war.
* Trump has been on at China for a long time.
* US establishment growing increasingly worried about the sophistication of Chinese tech and are viewing Huawei as a strategic threat. Especially since the latest generation of Chinese telecoms tech has arguably leapfrogged western offerings. Free trade works brilliantly until you stop being the top dog.
* NSA doesn't the idea of Chinese being able to use their tech to spy on US. They'd prefer domestic US companies build tech to spy on us for them instead.
* "National security concerns" is kind of a "get of jail free card" when it comes to escaping WTO rules on protectionism, so it fits in pretty well with the rest of the trade war.
BBC Click covered the issue https://youtu.be/yCzNHi9TBCQ?t=690 onwards. They say Huawei claim to be 18months ahead [12m35] of everyone with 5G, and their interview with UK's intelligence advisor [16m20 onwards] suggested that there's not really a security problem.
They do talk about [17m04+] the possibility of the network being shutdown and the fallout of that, and have a dramatisation.
They do talk about [17m04+] the possibility of the network being shutdown and the fallout of that, and have a dramatisation.
Research clearly shows that practically undetectable hardware backdoors are not difficult to build. For example:
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/543048/26931843/146401...
Anyone who says they're confident there aren't any can't be trusted.
It's not current security issues they're worried about it's future potential security problems at the point where we are utterly reliant on Huawei.
Nonetheless the NSA is trying to pretend that Huawei is currently installing backdoors.
Nonetheless the NSA is trying to pretend that Huawei is currently installing backdoors.
[deleted]
> has suspended business with Huawei that requires the transfer of hardware and software products except those covered by open source licenses,
Could this nudge an interesting (good/bad) development in open source?
Could this nudge an interesting (good/bad) development in open source?
Why would this cause any change in open source at all? This is already the case for them in China.
For example, if party A wants party B using something S in particular, then S being being made "open source". And/or the accepted meanings&cultures of "open source" (or whatever the actual terminology is) changing, as A and S do their things.
I don't know about open source, but I'd be happy to see more Android phones that don't have Google Play services and suite of surveillance apps. Not going to get that on Huawei phones, but if Huawei starts to de-emphasize the Play Store in the future, devs might start looking to move away from Google Play distribution and towards APK downloads on their own sites.
Let's face it, the "app economy" doesn't exist unless you're on iOS and can count on a paying audience. On Android, your only hope for monetization is a free to play Clash of Clans/Candy Crush clone that's jam-packed with ads, tracking and microtransactions.
Let's face it, the "app economy" doesn't exist unless you're on iOS and can count on a paying audience. On Android, your only hope for monetization is a free to play Clash of Clans/Candy Crush clone that's jam-packed with ads, tracking and microtransactions.
Why isn't this titled as "Google revokes Huawei's Android license"?
"Suspends some business" is an understatement.
"Suspends some business" is an understatement.
That's great! We will finally be able to buy google-free android devices from a major vendor!
> We will finally be able to buy google-free android devices from a major vendor
What I read apps remain supported, but (security) updates to the firmware will stop. So Google continues to sell user data and the NSA has even easier access.
What I read apps remain supported, but (security) updates to the firmware will stop. So Google continues to sell user data and the NSA has even easier access.
But this is for existing devices. Forthcoming models will likely be google-free. Yay!
Or they did the same thing every US company will have to do thanks to the blacklist.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-huaweitech/chin... >>The U.S. Commerce Department said on Wednesday it is adding Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and 70 affiliates to its so-called “Entity List” - a move that bans the telecom giant from buying parts and components from U.S. companies without U.S. government approval.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-huaweitech/chin... >>The U.S. Commerce Department said on Wednesday it is adding Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and 70 affiliates to its so-called “Entity List” - a move that bans the telecom giant from buying parts and components from U.S. companies without U.S. government approval.
I think this creates a nationalistic retaliation -- "We don't need America. We can do it ourselves, and better."
Not only from China.
I expect the other Asian powers and Europe to be sitting up and paying keen attention to these events. Too many of the world's vital technologies are beholden to the US government's interests, interests that may swing one way or the other every few years depending on what the presiding ideology is. In a space as important and all-pervading as internet-enabled smartphones, both parties of the global duopoly of Apple-Android are headquartered in the US, with China playing the crucial role of hosting the world's factories.
I hope this triggers a move towards more decentralization of smartphone infrastructure (and the internet in general), hardware to software.
I hope this triggers a move towards more decentralization of smartphone infrastructure (and the internet in general), hardware to software.
It depends on what Trump does. He may start opening up other avenues for America to get the same trade we had with China. For example, we might get friendlier with Mexico or Vietnam. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48273550
It doesn't because this shows that things can change on a whim. No one is going to commit billions of dollars to anything in such a precarious environment.
So you think other nations will retaliate also?
Nations I'm not sure but it will for sure impact strategy at all companies of all sizes from large multi-national corporates down to bootstrapped startups like my own.
How does it affect your company?
I'd rather not go too deep into it but if America suddenly changes it's approach to the market as it looks to be doing it's a massive risk to rely on services from any American companies (through no fault of the companies in question).
Before Trump I would have disagreed with you (at least concerning the USA).
If true, this is certainly a nuclear move. There's a variety of first party app stores in China, though I doubt they'll see much success convincing Western users to switch. Curious if there's going to be antitrust fallout from markets outside the US for unilaterally crippling vendors at behest of US foreign policy. Is Microsoft or Apple going to pull their app stores as well? What happened to project Dragon Fly?
On the other hand, I wonder how Huawei / China will retaliate. Wouldn't be surprised if this kills all Google manufacturing prospects in China which pretty much kills Google hardware.
On the other hand, I wonder how Huawei / China will retaliate. Wouldn't be surprised if this kills all Google manufacturing prospects in China which pretty much kills Google hardware.
The biggest threat to Google in my opinion would be the possibility that Huawei and China could try to "steal" Android from them.
Imagine in 2021 the Chinese government mandates that every Chinese smartphone manufacturer needs to switch to ChAndroid for all of their product lines, with a single unified app store, whether they sell the phones inside or outside of China. Well, fully half of the top smartphone companies in the world are Chinese. So all of a sudden Google would lose the ability to monetize on almost half of the ecosystem.
And if it were open and successful, other Android manufacturers could move over. Samsung would LOVE the ability to get a piece of the search and app revenue on every one of their phones. Right now they're locked out because of Google's licensing agreement for Android, but they must look at how much money Google pays Apple every year to be the default search provider very longingly.
Imagine in 2021 the Chinese government mandates that every Chinese smartphone manufacturer needs to switch to ChAndroid for all of their product lines, with a single unified app store, whether they sell the phones inside or outside of China. Well, fully half of the top smartphone companies in the world are Chinese. So all of a sudden Google would lose the ability to monetize on almost half of the ecosystem.
And if it were open and successful, other Android manufacturers could move over. Samsung would LOVE the ability to get a piece of the search and app revenue on every one of their phones. Right now they're locked out because of Google's licensing agreement for Android, but they must look at how much money Google pays Apple every year to be the default search provider very longingly.
> And if it were open...
An OS mandated by the Chinese government. That’s pretty much the opposite open in multiple ways.
An OS mandated by the Chinese government. That’s pretty much the opposite open in multiple ways.
Open in this case meaning open source and open to other people to modify/build upon, like Android is currently. But you're right that the Chinese bureaucracy may not be nimble enough for this kind of move, and might stillborn it by mucking it up with poor decisions.
Europe forced Google into a consent degree. It isn’t allow to forbid manufacturers from selling non Google versions of Android.
Correct. So manufacturers should be allowed to sell Android and "Android-compatible" phones simultaneously, whereas before Google forced manufacturers to choose either/or. But that decision is still under appeal as far as I can tell. It also doesn't remove the technical/marketing/user hurdles of getting everyone to port their software over to new APIs, a new app store, and getting the users to get comfortable with a whole new app store and none of the Google apps they expect (like Google Maps, GMail, etc.)
This is already the case, economically.
Android is open source, these vendors are free to fork and do whatever.
The lion's haul for Google is not 'app store sales' in China , it's search.
Android is not about App Store, that's just a marginal thing - it's about owning and controlling search everywhere. It's a means to extend their primary product.
Samsung can make it's own app store tomorrow, but they're not going to get 'Google Search' - which is what people want - so they'll have to do for now.
As far as Huawei ... well, open trade can only be had by like economies. If one economy can externalize pollution, labour costs, healthcare, and the other can't - then there cannot be open trade. Same thing for more contentious issues such as IP theft, foreign ownership rules, capital controls, state control of enterprises.
Huawei is the example, the tip of the spear. It hardly even matters what the degree of materiality is, that said, there should be not question that there's existential risk with Huawei. The CCP can require Huawei to do whatever, at any time, and Huawei will happily comply.
China can't enjoy the advantages of a 'developing economy' while trying to put 1st tier industries form advanced economies out of business, it's not going to sit well.
So we saw the big rise of China, now they're slowing down to 'nice growth' instead of crazy growth, they're grabbing land and industry so the West is wary. Meaning the trade rules will change.
This is the new normal.
Android is open source, these vendors are free to fork and do whatever.
The lion's haul for Google is not 'app store sales' in China , it's search.
Android is not about App Store, that's just a marginal thing - it's about owning and controlling search everywhere. It's a means to extend their primary product.
Samsung can make it's own app store tomorrow, but they're not going to get 'Google Search' - which is what people want - so they'll have to do for now.
As far as Huawei ... well, open trade can only be had by like economies. If one economy can externalize pollution, labour costs, healthcare, and the other can't - then there cannot be open trade. Same thing for more contentious issues such as IP theft, foreign ownership rules, capital controls, state control of enterprises.
Huawei is the example, the tip of the spear. It hardly even matters what the degree of materiality is, that said, there should be not question that there's existential risk with Huawei. The CCP can require Huawei to do whatever, at any time, and Huawei will happily comply.
China can't enjoy the advantages of a 'developing economy' while trying to put 1st tier industries form advanced economies out of business, it's not going to sit well.
So we saw the big rise of China, now they're slowing down to 'nice growth' instead of crazy growth, they're grabbing land and industry so the West is wary. Meaning the trade rules will change.
This is the new normal.
> Samsung can make its own app store tomorrow
What do you mean, tomorrow? Go to http://samsungapps.com/ and start to sell all your apps on Samsung Galaxy Store!
What do you mean, tomorrow? Go to http://samsungapps.com/ and start to sell all your apps on Samsung Galaxy Store!
The internet, at least as we knew it, is dead. What we have now is a highly segemented, highly federated, highly monitored, centralized communication network. The walls and the controls around access are getting more intricate every day, we've long ago left the idea of an open network in the trash can.
It sure seems like the future is more and more walls, more and more reactionary defensive measures. Nobody seems to have any inclination to resist this trend.
It sure seems like the future is more and more walls, more and more reactionary defensive measures. Nobody seems to have any inclination to resist this trend.
Of course, that's China's goal for their 2025 project right? It seems Americans are underestimating the long-term plans and strategies of countries that deny liberal democratic principles.
Seemingly more and more people want internet regulation. Nobody cares about things like free speech anymore, and actively campaign that it’s harmful.
It goes beyond freedom of speech.
For instance gdpr, copyright directive, tax laws (was a story the other day about you having to comply with a lot of local tax laws - consider what happens if you are unable or unwilling to comply with 1000s of special snowflake tax rules, presumably the authority rests on blocking).
These examples are not quite freedom of speech, but will lead to a breaking apart of the internet all the same.
For instance gdpr, copyright directive, tax laws (was a story the other day about you having to comply with a lot of local tax laws - consider what happens if you are unable or unwilling to comply with 1000s of special snowflake tax rules, presumably the authority rests on blocking).
These examples are not quite freedom of speech, but will lead to a breaking apart of the internet all the same.
I think much of that hardware is rebranded OEM anyways, which should be safe. It also isn’t clear China would blame google for this, or if its any worse than how google has pissed the Chinese government off in the past. Maybe they’ll just block google websites...wait no, they’ve done that already.
Surely it doesn't matter if China blame Google. USA have gone after Huawei based on Huawei being Chinese, so the response of China to stop manufacturing stuff for USA companies would seem reasonable, no?
Is this a "force people to buy USA manufactured goods; but blame it on the Chinese" attempt?
Is this a "force people to buy USA manufactured goods; but blame it on the Chinese" attempt?
People used to blame Toyota for Japan actions, but that kind of sentiment lasts for 5 minutes, and anyways, those Toyotas were mostly made in China anyways.
Likewise, Google has almost zero consumer exposure in China, so all they can do is interrupt their ability to give Chinese companies money for goods and services, which seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The Chinese government doesn't want the west to grow new supply chains and find new manufacturing centers just because of one trade war, it wouldn't be according to their goals.
Likewise, Google has almost zero consumer exposure in China, so all they can do is interrupt their ability to give Chinese companies money for goods and services, which seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The Chinese government doesn't want the west to grow new supply chains and find new manufacturing centers just because of one trade war, it wouldn't be according to their goals.
> though I doubt they'll see much success convincing Western users to switch.
Are any of these stores near the quality levels that Western audiences expect? My experience with software from China was consistently bad. Even the AliExpress web site looks like a cobbled together, barely working mess that people only put up with because of the low prices of the goods you can buy there, which won't work for app stores.
Are any of these stores near the quality levels that Western audiences expect? My experience with software from China was consistently bad. Even the AliExpress web site looks like a cobbled together, barely working mess that people only put up with because of the low prices of the goods you can buy there, which won't work for app stores.
I like AliExpress, but you're right, the site (the English site at least) looks like it was cobbled together in 1998.
I doubt that China will throw Google out.
It's a bit of a reminder that Google is under US jurisdiction and there's a point to be made that, no matter what they promise you, if the US wants their data, they get their data.
More competition can only be good, if this leads to the Chinese creating a third major platform, I welcome it. If they open source it, they may even have success outside of China.
It's a bit of a reminder that Google is under US jurisdiction and there's a point to be made that, no matter what they promise you, if the US wants their data, they get their data.
More competition can only be good, if this leads to the Chinese creating a third major platform, I welcome it. If they open source it, they may even have success outside of China.
If you’re Chinese, having another domestic platform is a good and important thing towards self determination. Not so great if you’re American, as they’re playing for winner-takes-all.
"is a good and important thing towards self determination"
This is a lark?
The only thing the CPC is interested in is total and absolute control of the citizenry.
They'd love to have a platform for which they didn't have to monitor with gazillions of staff, and have police on corners to ensure 'government monitoring' is properly installed.
Imagine if the CPC could ensure total thought control without all the overhead?
That is exactly the objective.
There's nothing stopping 1 billion people from developing a mobile platform - or any kind of platform for that matter in 2019.
They can do it now. Or yesterday.
And the 'whole world' could be using it.
Consider for a moment why it's not happening?
Why isn't the entire world using software or hosted solutions for all of our SaaS needs in India and China?
Given that the existential nature of the Chinese economy is intertwined with the CPC, I don't think any good will come of this.
A lot of the comments and thinking abound 'trade with China' are centered around a view that it's a normal economy, but it isn't, so the regular rules don't quite apply.
In the grand grand scheme of things, Huawei is a small thing, we're seeing a realignment of forces given the new reality of China's competitive powers, irrespective of anything else.
It's hard to say where the new equilibrium will land.
This is a lark?
The only thing the CPC is interested in is total and absolute control of the citizenry.
They'd love to have a platform for which they didn't have to monitor with gazillions of staff, and have police on corners to ensure 'government monitoring' is properly installed.
Imagine if the CPC could ensure total thought control without all the overhead?
That is exactly the objective.
There's nothing stopping 1 billion people from developing a mobile platform - or any kind of platform for that matter in 2019.
They can do it now. Or yesterday.
And the 'whole world' could be using it.
Consider for a moment why it's not happening?
Why isn't the entire world using software or hosted solutions for all of our SaaS needs in India and China?
Given that the existential nature of the Chinese economy is intertwined with the CPC, I don't think any good will come of this.
A lot of the comments and thinking abound 'trade with China' are centered around a view that it's a normal economy, but it isn't, so the regular rules don't quite apply.
In the grand grand scheme of things, Huawei is a small thing, we're seeing a realignment of forces given the new reality of China's competitive powers, irrespective of anything else.
It's hard to say where the new equilibrium will land.
> Why isn't the entire world using software or hosted solutions for all of our SaaS needs in India and China?
Because the tech has been developed in the US, and the US has lead in it ever since.
> Given that the existential nature of the Chinese economy is intertwined with the CPC, I don't think any good will come of this.
I mean, the article being discussed here shows that US corporations are tools of US foreign policy. Yes, it's a different style of control, but it's control nonetheless.
And before the notorious flaggers run wild: I don't like the Chinese model. I don't particularly like the US model either though. I'm not judging those that profit from it for also liking it. I'm sure I would, too.
Because the tech has been developed in the US, and the US has lead in it ever since.
> Given that the existential nature of the Chinese economy is intertwined with the CPC, I don't think any good will come of this.
I mean, the article being discussed here shows that US corporations are tools of US foreign policy. Yes, it's a different style of control, but it's control nonetheless.
And before the notorious flaggers run wild: I don't like the Chinese model. I don't particularly like the US model either though. I'm not judging those that profit from it for also liking it. I'm sure I would, too.
As a non-American I'd much rather the USA has my data than China has it.
Maybe. I'd prefer that neither of them have my data.
I do believe that competition limits the exploits. If there's an alternative, you have to fear losing your customers (and their money), so you limit what you do to them. If there isn't any, why would you? Right now, the competition is basically only Apple vs Google. Both USA, both from California. A bit more diversity would be nice.
I do believe that competition limits the exploits. If there's an alternative, you have to fear losing your customers (and their money), so you limit what you do to them. If there isn't any, why would you? Right now, the competition is basically only Apple vs Google. Both USA, both from California. A bit more diversity would be nice.
I agree with that. I'm proud to have worked on FirefoxOS as part of an effort to create such competition! (Which is still going on with KaiOS.)
Yeah, too bad FirefoxOS never made it too far. Unfortunately, it would still be only "kind of" competition: still US-based, still in California, still financed & owned by the same (group of) people.
I'd love some real competition. Chinese, Russian, European alternatives. I would have a hard time trusting Chinese or Russian systems, maybe rightfully, maybe because decades of Propaganda have taken their toll. I'd still like to see them.
I'd love some real competition. Chinese, Russian, European alternatives. I would have a hard time trusting Chinese or Russian systems, maybe rightfully, maybe because decades of Propaganda have taken their toll. I'd still like to see them.
Not sure why.
As non-American (and non-Chinese I assume), the Chinese do not care about you, but the Americans very much do.
As non-American (and non-Chinese I assume), the Chinese do not care about you, but the Americans very much do.
I'd prefer neither had it.
Neither can be trusted to retain a glass of water, let alone personally identifying information that can spur advertising campaigns and sway elections in countries around the world.
Neither can be trusted to retain a glass of water, let alone personally identifying information that can spur advertising campaigns and sway elections in countries around the world.
Nobody is good enough to own your data.
[deleted]
Alternative headline: “Google complies with law”. They didn’t have much choice here.
Otherwise, the article is good for showing the extent of the political situation.
One might be able to stretch this to 'US aids potential cyber attacks in China' since phones in China might no longer receive security updates in Android.
One might be able to stretch this to 'US aids potential cyber attacks in China' since phones in China might no longer receive security updates in Android.
Don't phones in China already not use proprietary Google stuff? The cyber attacks being aided here are surely on Huawei owners outside of China (US/Europe mostly I expect?) where their phone shipped with Google Play and could get Google updates/other services?
The open source version of Android is still available. Why wouldn’t that be getting updates?
Will I, as a European customer of Huawei, still get app updates from Google Play and push messages via firebase cloud messaging? Without the Google framework my phone is a brick...
Yes, for your current phone. But the way I read it, Google won't support any further updates to the OS.
WhatsApp and signal work fine without GCM/FCM, dunno about other apps but WhatsApp it's international standard so you are fine
you can get updates through their own app store AppGallery, but your paid apps are paid through Google, so don't expect them in order store, tying your money to Google ecosystem was bad idea in first place
you can get updates through their own app store AppGallery, but your paid apps are paid through Google, so don't expect them in order store, tying your money to Google ecosystem was bad idea in first place
That part could, but the others couldn't. Including all apps shipped on Google Play.
They also "comply" with complex international networks of tax law.
Any press is good press...
This is reason why verticaly integrated monopolies are bad.That is reason i use F—droid and everyone should support open source(completely open sourced programs).
And suddenly Samsungs stubborn idea of including their own app store and their own apps makes a lot more sense.
It has always annoyed me but I guess events like this proves why they've chosen to do it.
It has always annoyed me but I guess events like this proves why they've chosen to do it.
This has a few interesting potential repercussions that nobody is talking about. Since this is a lose-lose situation for both, here are a some possible outcomes:
a) Google moves enough play services code into AOSP to make AOSP more functional than it is now.
b) Webapps become more of a thing
c) Play services become "downloadable" when you visit google.com
d) Play services become standardised and/or federated
All of these scenarios assume Google actively wants to help Huawei succeed.
Well, it's as much about helping themselves. Huawei is a pretty large android manufacturer globally. It's a tradeoff between play services moat v/s higher adoption at reduced lock-in.
Think this will have long reaching ramifications. Huawei is much closer to the Chinese government than ZTE was - this won't go without repercussions.
A version of Android/replacement to Android that is used by most Chinese phones but not in the hands of Google seems like the inevitable outcome.
We already know China can produce world class hardware - I wonder how they will fare at operating systems.
It's not an easy task.
A version of Android/replacement to Android that is used by most Chinese phones but not in the hands of Google seems like the inevitable outcome.
We already know China can produce world class hardware - I wonder how they will fare at operating systems.
It's not an easy task.
If this also revokes the GMS agreements, it will have a much larger impact than the updates part.
A whole lot of things on Android are dependant on the GMS, such as push notifications for certain apps, cloud storage of user data, and a lot more.
Let's see where the it all ends up, but this may turn to be an enormous crippling move for Android on Huawei/Honor devices.
considering Huawei, xiaomi, BBK, lenorola control majority of market everywhere outside US one would say it's quite opposite, they just need to convince Samsung to join them and Google with their Google play services it's past and they can keep their small market with their pixel phones thinking about their importance and that devs charging 30% it's moral
Samsung is extremely unlikely to join with the Chinese brands strangling them right now.
And it would be way worse with Huawei/Xiaomi & co. for devs, considering how those companies update the software on their phones...
And it would be way worse with Huawei/Xiaomi & co. for devs, considering how those companies update the software on their phones...
The US doing some market manipulation again; good thing they want to stop companies and countries from spying on people. /s
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
Are you against warrants?
I am against warrantless searches and seizures. (Which PRISM and other 3-letter agencies' programs are notorious of doing)
PRISM use requires a warrant.
From the wikipedia article:
> U.S. government officials have disputed some aspects of the Guardian and Washington Post stories and have defended the program by asserting it cannot be used >>>on domestic targets<<< without a warrant
I feel way better now, only US citizens get the benefit of warrants and the rest of the world will still get spied on as much as possible. (I am not a US citizen)
> U.S. government officials have disputed some aspects of the Guardian and Washington Post stories and have defended the program by asserting it cannot be used >>>on domestic targets<<< without a warrant
I feel way better now, only US citizens get the benefit of warrants and the rest of the world will still get spied on as much as possible. (I am not a US citizen)
I don't know anything about the supply chain for data center hardware, but it seems more likely that China would intercept shipments of say Cisco and Juniper gear and modify them (something the NSA has done) instead of building hardware with a backdoor in it?
When you buy a Cisco router do they provide a "chain of custody" proving it didn't come from or go through hostile countries? I understand these routers have a Secure Boot feature, but I can't imagine that'd defend against physical modifications.
If security was actually the goal, shouldn't we have a process to verify any piece of hardware; instead of just completely trusting some companies and not others?
This just feels like security theater, but I kind of get it. If the US is fighting China economically, this move makes a lot of sense.
When you buy a Cisco router do they provide a "chain of custody" proving it didn't come from or go through hostile countries? I understand these routers have a Secure Boot feature, but I can't imagine that'd defend against physical modifications.
If security was actually the goal, shouldn't we have a process to verify any piece of hardware; instead of just completely trusting some companies and not others?
This just feels like security theater, but I kind of get it. If the US is fighting China economically, this move makes a lot of sense.
> but it seems more likely that China would intercept shipments of say Cisco
Not sure if you have been paying attention to the stock market. Many of the companies which are up are ones who have eliminated their ties with China [0]. Cisco is one such company whose stock rose recently [1] as a result of moving from China [2].
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-vck6ebnE
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_uohGLOiK0
[2]: https://www.ft.com/content/312f7b52-7765-11e9-be7d-6d846537a...
Not sure if you have been paying attention to the stock market. Many of the companies which are up are ones who have eliminated their ties with China [0]. Cisco is one such company whose stock rose recently [1] as a result of moving from China [2].
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-vck6ebnE
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_uohGLOiK0
[2]: https://www.ft.com/content/312f7b52-7765-11e9-be7d-6d846537a...
This article is about Android software shipped from Google to Huawei. It does not mention data center hardware. (And in fact, I'm pretty sure Huawei are not even in the data center market. They supply telecommunications equipment and consumer electronics.
There should be a wide list of companies to whom this applies now. Is there a more comprehensive enumeration besides just listing Google?
It's every company in USA, isn't it?
Not every US company already makes business with Huawei - so in that case they wouldn't have to stop selling/buying things, because they never started. E.g. is Microsoft, Apple or Amazon impacted?
The parents said:
>"There should be a wide list of companies to whom this applies now." //
I assumed the "this" was "the USA's trade blacklist". The blacklist applies to all companies AFAICT, though you are right it will probably only affect a small proportion.
Though any USA based company may have bought a Huawei phone, router, or similar, and presumably will not be allowed by law to do so henceforth?
Not sure how things like peering with a company that uses Huawei kit, or something, would work. How deep does it go? Can you buy phone service in countries where the phone supplier has Huawei base stations?
>"There should be a wide list of companies to whom this applies now." //
I assumed the "this" was "the USA's trade blacklist". The blacklist applies to all companies AFAICT, though you are right it will probably only affect a small proportion.
Though any USA based company may have bought a Huawei phone, router, or similar, and presumably will not be allowed by law to do so henceforth?
Not sure how things like peering with a company that uses Huawei kit, or something, would work. How deep does it go? Can you buy phone service in countries where the phone supplier has Huawei base stations?
This is essentially another twist in the US/China tech war that is currently going on. I don't feel I have enough knowledge to speculate on its effects, but all war is bad.
well, until today Google had a large stable market share with Android. Trump initiated the end of that. Android will have a lower share and the market is not stable any more. And everybody outside the US will think twice before buying any product where the US government can destroy its service.
The mere fact that this is possible, highlights the risk that international trade has become, specially regarding technology.
Any country holding a considerable share of the technology market should be considered a single point of failure, and diversification should take place.
The US is currently the 100-pound technology gorilla, and they are highly politicized. Very unreliable, and using its position to force its will into all kind of matters. No country should rely on the US as a single provider, to avoid being target of blackmail. It is actually surprising that we have reached the current status quo without realizing about these simple facts.
Re-decentralization of the Internet (and technology in general) is long overdue.
The same applies to other "industries". A frightening one is nuclear missiles. We are so used to the US (and the Russians) having thousands of nuclear heads that we do not care anymore. And simply because it has worked out in the past, we assume that the worse can be avoided indefinitely.
Nothing is further from the truth: the current situation guarantees that there will be a nuclear war. It is not a question of if, but when. We are a crazy president away from starting it (or maybe we have already hit the jackpot).
Any country holding a considerable share of the technology market should be considered a single point of failure, and diversification should take place.
The US is currently the 100-pound technology gorilla, and they are highly politicized. Very unreliable, and using its position to force its will into all kind of matters. No country should rely on the US as a single provider, to avoid being target of blackmail. It is actually surprising that we have reached the current status quo without realizing about these simple facts.
Re-decentralization of the Internet (and technology in general) is long overdue.
The same applies to other "industries". A frightening one is nuclear missiles. We are so used to the US (and the Russians) having thousands of nuclear heads that we do not care anymore. And simply because it has worked out in the past, we assume that the worse can be avoided indefinitely.
Nothing is further from the truth: the current situation guarantees that there will be a nuclear war. It is not a question of if, but when. We are a crazy president away from starting it (or maybe we have already hit the jackpot).
I assume Cadence, Synopsys, Mentor Graphics, Xilinx, Intel PSG, Microsemi, Lattice, and Qualcomm are also affected by the Huawei blacklist.
Can Huawei survive without these critical components and EDA tools? If Huawei ignores the loss of licenses and uses existing software and libraries to develop future products, will those be banned from US and EU markets?
Can Huawei survive without these critical components and EDA tools? If Huawei ignores the loss of licenses and uses existing software and libraries to develop future products, will those be banned from US and EU markets?
Why would there be a ban from EU? ARM is a UK company owned by a japanese group, Mentor Graphics is a subsidiary of a german group. The ban is an unilateral decision from the US. So Huawei can get on with these two without too much hurdles.
> EDA tools?
I never believed it was ever a case of Cadence being warezed given it is an extremely niche product locked down under ridiculous multiple DRMs, but I was shown few FTPs around with multimegabuck EDAs and semiconductor simulation packages that are probably in use by less than 100 companies worldwide being warezed like as it they were MS Word or something.
I never believed it was ever a case of Cadence being warezed given it is an extremely niche product locked down under ridiculous multiple DRMs, but I was shown few FTPs around with multimegabuck EDAs and semiconductor simulation packages that are probably in use by less than 100 companies worldwide being warezed like as it they were MS Word or something.
Do they even respect licenses to being with?
I doubt shipping phones with easily identifiable pirated Qualcomm IP to western countries is going to work well.
As I understand, Huawei doesn't use Qualcomm IP anyway. They have their own LTE modem.
A big one that people haven't mentioned is ARM. Huawei can get by without Qualcomm chips. But I don't know how they're going to be able to keep up without an ARM license. And it's not like they could just switch to Intel even if that was an actually viable option.
In my country, Paraguay, the government just signed a contract with Huawei for a fiber optic connectivity project.
I always wondered what would it take for a company to develop an alternative mobile operating system?
To me the combination of Android and iOS always was the perfect mold around the business of high-end mobile phones.
Android is given away for free; but to make a truly great end user experience hardware and software needs to be integrated. Like it is for iOS. But that requires an enourmous investment; and there is no "natural" piecemeal way to grow there as your business always would be competing with peers that use the "free" platform.
But this gives Huawei, a massive and capable engineering company, no choice but to build an alternative.
This is an extreme situation; but hopefully there will come some true innovation out of it.
To me the combination of Android and iOS always was the perfect mold around the business of high-end mobile phones.
Android is given away for free; but to make a truly great end user experience hardware and software needs to be integrated. Like it is for iOS. But that requires an enourmous investment; and there is no "natural" piecemeal way to grow there as your business always would be competing with peers that use the "free" platform.
But this gives Huawei, a massive and capable engineering company, no choice but to build an alternative.
This is an extreme situation; but hopefully there will come some true innovation out of it.
At this point I speculate a lot are on iOS to avoid android, and vice versa. Any offering that hwei makes will surely not move the needle from either camp, but it’s good to see some new competition
If this escalation is continued; Apple will likely loose access to the Chinese market creating a huge open space for a high-end mobile phone offering.
[deleted]
Microsoft tried hard to have a mobile operating system, there were others too but the problem is that nobody cares for the operating system if there is no viable ecosystem around it.
And Microsoft's mobile OS was actually good - many lamented its demise.
Didn't Samsung also create a new mobile OS in recent times? I wonder how that's doing now?
Didn't Samsung also create a new mobile OS in recent times? I wonder how that's doing now?
There were lots of "alternative" mobile OS's before AOSP, and even before iOS - AOSP simply got critical mass behind it in a way that other OS's didn't. But Huawei isn't going to push for an open alternative either - even their versions of AOSP have always been among the most closed and hardest to "mod". As far as openness goes, Purism/Librem, and the pmOS community project remain our best bets.
Sailfish, Tizen, and KaiOS exist, and there are some other Linux-based alternatives out there as well. Unfortunately none of these have good market share yet. I don't know much about the business side of mobile OS development, but it must be difficult to gain and keep market share if even MS couldn't succeed.
But it is also worth noting the ZTE story which ended with ZTE paying a 1B "fine":
https://www.androidauthority.com/zte-reportedly-will-pay-us-...
https://www.androidauthority.com/zte-reportedly-will-pay-us-...
> I always wondered what would it take for a company to develop an alternative mobile operating system?
Creating an app ecosystem out of nowhere. This was the same thing that killed all competitors to Apple and Android.
Creating an app ecosystem out of nowhere. This was the same thing that killed all competitors to Apple and Android.
This was expected. Huawei now presents a serious competition to the likes of Apple, so the 'free market' in the U.S. responds by...shutting down the competition.
Now I know the counterargument is about Chinese protectionism, but it is the U.S. who has always championed free market capitalism and led interventions in order to forcibly open other markets to its exports.
As this shows however, this belief in the free market is anything but principled.
Now I know the counterargument is about Chinese protectionism, but it is the U.S. who has always championed free market capitalism and led interventions in order to forcibly open other markets to its exports.
As this shows however, this belief in the free market is anything but principled.
It seems like the exact opposite is true. China in some sense doesn't abide by free market or free trade principles, and this can be seen as a principled stand against that.
Except China has not locked U.S. smartphone makers like Apple anywhere near to the degree that the U.S. is targeting Huawei.
Also, China does not necessarily claim to be as free-market as the U.S. does and as far as I am aware, has not let interventionist wars in order to open up a foreign market to its companies.
What I am talking here is principle. The U.S. claims to have free speech for example, China does not. But in that instance the U.S. sticks by its principles and maintains its free speech protections, despite China not having them.
Why is this different when it comes to the free market? A concept the U.S. has in recent history definitely fought harder worldwide than the pursuit of free speech.
Also, China does not necessarily claim to be as free-market as the U.S. does and as far as I am aware, has not let interventionist wars in order to open up a foreign market to its companies.
What I am talking here is principle. The U.S. claims to have free speech for example, China does not. But in that instance the U.S. sticks by its principles and maintains its free speech protections, despite China not having them.
Why is this different when it comes to the free market? A concept the U.S. has in recent history definitely fought harder worldwide than the pursuit of free speech.
Why does the US not go to the WTO then? That's the standard process for conflict resolution. Those are the rules set up by the US.
But the EU does. Yet Trump's steel tariffs hit EU countries too.
time to fully embrace their own AppGallery app store, in the end Google can be shooting their own leg, users won't care what app store they use when they find there what are they looking for and play store is shitshow for years ignoring UX missing basic search filters or sorting
GMS is bigger issue though WhatsApp or signal work both fine without gapps, not sure about other messengers I don't use and in general it's hard to find app which has really problems without gapps other than ridesharing apps with last devs relying on gmaps
GMS is bigger issue though WhatsApp or signal work both fine without gapps, not sure about other messengers I don't use and in general it's hard to find app which has really problems without gapps other than ridesharing apps with last devs relying on gmaps
I'd love to see a forensic level reverse engineering/technical audit of the Nexus 6P hardware.
In reality Chinese intelligence likely wasn't stupid enough to try anything there, but I often wonder how many eyes Google had on hardware security for that project considering it was Huawei making their flagship phone at the time.
I also wonder if there were any NSA efforts to tear the thing apart, since they are likely better qualified and have more experience in that realm.
In reality Chinese intelligence likely wasn't stupid enough to try anything there, but I often wonder how many eyes Google had on hardware security for that project considering it was Huawei making their flagship phone at the time.
I also wonder if there were any NSA efforts to tear the thing apart, since they are likely better qualified and have more experience in that realm.
It's difficult to do a thorough audit even if you trust the chip layout as designed. Effectively impossible if you don't.
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/543048/26931843/146401...
Why is China so likely to bug the phone but the NSA isn't?
>Why is China so likely to bug the phone but the NSA isn't?
Nowhere did I touch on the probability of the NSA bugging anything. Nor did I state it was likely that the Chinese would have placed a backdoor in the Nexus 6P. On the contrary, I think you misread my comment.
Nowhere did I touch on the probability of the NSA bugging anything. Nor did I state it was likely that the Chinese would have placed a backdoor in the Nexus 6P. On the contrary, I think you misread my comment.
Even if the NSA backdoors phones, you have to consider which government you trust more. The US government isn't great but China's is far worse.
I'm European with a huawei phone and I don't trust either side a lot, but it's the US gov. who spied on my country's officials from their own embassy a few years ago and it always seems to be the American gov. that somehow ends up bullying someone around.
I don't pretend that the Chinese have any better intentions but they're long term greedy enough to not accidentally brick my phone because Google can't ship updates to it any more.
If I actually lose functionality on my phone because the US government pressures Google into doing things that affects European consumers I'll be pretty pissed.
I don't pretend that the Chinese have any better intentions but they're long term greedy enough to not accidentally brick my phone because Google can't ship updates to it any more.
If I actually lose functionality on my phone because the US government pressures Google into doing things that affects European consumers I'll be pretty pissed.
Anyone know anything about this able to break this down a bit further?
This sounds like it all revolves around Android / Huawei getting booted from the Open Handset Alliance maybe?
This sounds like it all revolves around Android / Huawei getting booted from the Open Handset Alliance maybe?
It's because they were literally blacklisted by the US government. As other comments say, all companies in the US will do the same, it's not about Google, as much as the article tries to make it about Google
I'm thinking more about about the specifics of what exactly is being limited here and etc.
I’m amazed with some opinions on data privacy by reading some comments here.
We are now discussing US vs. China and who is better to own our data?!
That’s really sad to see how many gave up on privacy.
We are now discussing US vs. China and who is better to own our data?!
That’s really sad to see how many gave up on privacy.
I avoided those phones like the plague, guess it was a good choice.
I bet it has a lot to do with the whole huawei backdoor story.
To be honest outsourcing such sensitive consumer device to a police state has not been a good idea for a long time.
I hope it will give good reasons to consider designing either open smartphones, or minimalist os designs with c++ or webasm apps. If smartphones get bloated, they won't be affordable anymore.
I bet it has a lot to do with the whole huawei backdoor story.
To be honest outsourcing such sensitive consumer device to a police state has not been a good idea for a long time.
I hope it will give good reasons to consider designing either open smartphones, or minimalist os designs with c++ or webasm apps. If smartphones get bloated, they won't be affordable anymore.
Not sure that giving it to a prism+xkeyscore state is thaaat much better. And yes legal protection in the US is a lot better than China, while I as European have little power in either, but also hardly an alternative.
I wouldn't rule out a protectionist push from the US gov. as being behind this.
This doesn't affect much of Huawei's Chinese market as Google is banned in China anyway. However, this will have a huge impact on Huawei's overseas market, and it is hard for Huawei to come up with a backup plan. At the end of the day, Baidu (and other Google equivalent Chinese counterparts) has a negligible presence outside China.
bad news for eu mobile market. i guess we have to buy iphones again? half the features and double the price :(
Well, Android is opensource so they will be able to just run it, but without that google crap such as gmail, maps, assistant, etc... Which sounds like a good thing to me. I'll try to buy a new Huawei phone soon.
Heh, there will be a rude awakening when they try AOSP or the open-source Android.. "wait, it doesn't have a launcher?"
No, seriously, AOSP is very far from useful. That's before you consider that to run Android on any sort of recent hardware, you need manufacturer support from the chips you are using, which you can't get if you are barred from trade with them.
No, seriously, AOSP is very far from useful. That's before you consider that to run Android on any sort of recent hardware, you need manufacturer support from the chips you are using, which you can't get if you are barred from trade with them.
Hasn't AOSP always had a launcher? https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/apps/Laun... is the current one.
Almost none of the Chinese phones use barebones Google Android. They all have their long established skins and launchers (EMUI, MIUI etc)
Huawei has pretty much everything their own including launcher, dialer, email etc
Huawei being a Chinese company are perfectly content with spying on you without Google trying to interfere. Be prepared in a few years when certain network requests just fail, like trying to send a comment mentioning 996.icu.
Which USA and USA based companies would never do; praise God for the USA defending us all from giving our money to their industrial opponents, right?
To be fair, Apple has been fighting tooth and nail against the FBI decrypting their phones.
Huawei, ZTE and consorts are literally owned by PRC cadre and are actively involved in infrastructure to spy on and terrorize minority groups in China, as well as getting caught spying and stealing IP abroad.
I think there is no need to answer each post with Whataboutism, especially when the comparision is to tilted against Chinese companies.
Huawei, ZTE and consorts are literally owned by PRC cadre and are actively involved in infrastructure to spy on and terrorize minority groups in China, as well as getting caught spying and stealing IP abroad.
I think there is no need to answer each post with Whataboutism, especially when the comparision is to tilted against Chinese companies.
>Apple has been fighting tooth and nail against the FBI decrypting their phones //
The problem is, for me, it's impossible to know if that's true or if that's the external appearance that's been designed. Nearly everyone in Apple wouldn't know either. Legally, it seems, NSA letters could force such a situation.
AIR the much publicised event of 'FBI wanted to open someone's phone and Apple wouldn't' ultimately ended in a third party enabling it. So, this could easily have gone down that Apple said "we can't do that because it will kill our privacy angle in the market" and the FBI say "well just pass on the info to this third party" [eg some key needed to sign updates; or an update that decrypts all internal memories and dumps them to a port on boot, or whatever].
That's entirely undiscoverable and serves the interest of both FBI and Apple, FBI ideally want to have "backdoors" where it's publicly known "there is no backdoor".
The problem is, for me, it's impossible to know if that's true or if that's the external appearance that's been designed. Nearly everyone in Apple wouldn't know either. Legally, it seems, NSA letters could force such a situation.
AIR the much publicised event of 'FBI wanted to open someone's phone and Apple wouldn't' ultimately ended in a third party enabling it. So, this could easily have gone down that Apple said "we can't do that because it will kill our privacy angle in the market" and the FBI say "well just pass on the info to this third party" [eg some key needed to sign updates; or an update that decrypts all internal memories and dumps them to a port on boot, or whatever].
That's entirely undiscoverable and serves the interest of both FBI and Apple, FBI ideally want to have "backdoors" where it's publicly known "there is no backdoor".
If this sticks, is there yet a comprehensive analysis of all the implications?
[deleted]
>Huawei will only be able to use the public version of Android and will not be able to get access to proprietary apps and services from Google
Sometimes this isn't a bad thing at all.
Sometimes this isn't a bad thing at all.
Quick question - if someone buys a Huawei phone without Play Store and Gmail, could they just download those things later? E.g. could it be done aftermarket?
I believe they cannot, Google demands certification before allowing their apps to be used. It's impossible to sideload google apps.
Unless this google certification is stored in hardware, that's not the case. You can flash Android phones with a custom bootloader, use that to flash AOSP (open source core android)/LineageOS, and for most people doing that the next step is to flash gapps on top of that.
Here's a popular gapps distribution: https://opengapps.org/#aboutsection
Google's requirements mainly apply to OEMs bundling gapps into their stock images.
Here's a popular gapps distribution: https://opengapps.org/#aboutsection
Google's requirements mainly apply to OEMs bundling gapps into their stock images.
locked bootloader in huawei I think, even if they open it it's not really a normal sideload and will be hard enough to not be a generally applicable solution.
I've got root on my Huawei P10 lite since day one (would have returned the phone if it were closed), not sure where you got the idea that unlocking the bootloader is not possible.
That's just what I heard online, but maybe it's different between models.
Google apps and a lot of other apps need Google Play Services to work.
they have their own AppGallery store and email app, after all gmail it's crap compared to Nine, Aqua mail or Maildroid, honestly don't understand people using it
so in the end bakery competition could benefit from this Google push, dev can choose another store not stealing 30% of their money
so in the end bakery competition could benefit from this Google push, dev can choose another store not stealing 30% of their money
Wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese government retalitates by blocking all iPhone sales in China.
Was Huawei explicitly named in the executive order? To my understanding, no, so I don't get why the story focuses on Huawei. For example, Motorola, owned by chinese company Lenovo, One Plus, Xiaomi or Oppo should not use Android either.
Trump also named many other countries as threats to national security, such as Canada, Germany, Mexico, and many others. There's no reason one day South Korea enters the list and Samsung will also get blocked by executive order .
Trump also named many other countries as threats to national security, such as Canada, Germany, Mexico, and many others. There's no reason one day South Korea enters the list and Samsung will also get blocked by executive order .
Huawei is explicitly named in Federal Register 2019-10616. Lenovo, Xiaomi, etc. is not.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.g...
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.g...
This will also affect Huawei in other countries in Emea if they can't access Google play.
How does this affect Huawei's base station business? They are massive in Europe.
Also interested to know. AFIAK Huawei is being used for all UK 5G rollouts, and there are already 1000s of masts up (though not commercially active yet) for 5G. Plus I imagine they have a very big marketshare of LTE kit going in as well.
Huawei is also the vast majority of cabinets for VDSL in the UK (the ECI alternative which was deployed has been pulled as was really low quality compared to the Huawei kit). My rough guess there is at least 20,000 DSLAMs on nearly every streeet corner that are built by Huawei.
At least in the UK it is hard to see how the country can run without this kit, and it would be an enormous undertaking to pull it out. I'm sure many other European countries are the same as Huawei's kit is definitely technically the best for this kind of stuff as far as my knowledge goes.
Huawei is also the vast majority of cabinets for VDSL in the UK (the ECI alternative which was deployed has been pulled as was really low quality compared to the Huawei kit). My rough guess there is at least 20,000 DSLAMs on nearly every streeet corner that are built by Huawei.
At least in the UK it is hard to see how the country can run without this kit, and it would be an enormous undertaking to pull it out. I'm sure many other European countries are the same as Huawei's kit is definitely technically the best for this kind of stuff as far as my knowledge goes.
Google has a long history of F...all altitude. Not a surprise.
There is an arguement for making sure a company controlled by an outside state that cannot be trusted has nothing to do with providing important infrastructure, in fact it makes sense that this is monitored and perhaps somewhat produced by the local government to ensure maximum security.
However it’s something else entirely when a ruling given under that premise effectively knocks out that companies other businesses. I have a feeling this is more to do with Trump’s trade war than overall security.
Stopping Huawei getting android licenses effects it’s global business, it has nothing to do with the security of the communication network in the US.
However it’s something else entirely when a ruling given under that premise effectively knocks out that companies other businesses. I have a feeling this is more to do with Trump’s trade war than overall security.
Stopping Huawei getting android licenses effects it’s global business, it has nothing to do with the security of the communication network in the US.
[deleted]
How is this going to work exactly?
The world supply chains are supposed to avoid Huawei in the coming months / years, local politicians will be painfully explaining their citizens that Huawei is a security risk (we will need to take their word for it, no evidence is being provided) and once the US government (is this just Trump now, is the US a dictatorship?) changes its mind, then the whole world is going to start using Huawei again?
This is not going to fly.
The world supply chains are supposed to avoid Huawei in the coming months / years, local politicians will be painfully explaining their citizens that Huawei is a security risk (we will need to take their word for it, no evidence is being provided) and once the US government (is this just Trump now, is the US a dictatorship?) changes its mind, then the whole world is going to start using Huawei again?
This is not going to fly.
> Huawei Technologies Co Ltd will immediately lose access to updates to the Android operating system
Android security updates are part of AOSP [0]. The article explicitly mentions that Huawei still has access to Google’s OSS stuff. And besides, they couldn’t really block Huawei from accessing open-source stuff without making it closed-source or otherwise heavily restricted.
[0]: https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2019-05-01
Android security updates are part of AOSP [0]. The article explicitly mentions that Huawei still has access to Google’s OSS stuff. And besides, they couldn’t really block Huawei from accessing open-source stuff without making it closed-source or otherwise heavily restricted.
[0]: https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2019-05-01
You do know that China actively has concentration camps, right? They use data and tech they've stolen to do it. You really think that's the same as Facebook serving you ads? Give me a break.
This comment crosses into nationalistic and political flamewar and that is not ok here.
No (I sense I need to add), I'm not defending concentration camps, just defending HN against burning itself to a crisp. If you want to participate on HN, please contribute to thoughtful conversation. "Concentration camps [...] give me a break" does not qualify.
Moreover, we've had to warn you about this exact thing before. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the spirit of this site more to heart? Our hope is not to be one more place on the internet where people bring bags of clubs to bash each other with.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19955289 and marked it off-topic.
No (I sense I need to add), I'm not defending concentration camps, just defending HN against burning itself to a crisp. If you want to participate on HN, please contribute to thoughtful conversation. "Concentration camps [...] give me a break" does not qualify.
Moreover, we've had to warn you about this exact thing before. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the spirit of this site more to heart? Our hope is not to be one more place on the internet where people bring bags of clubs to bash each other with.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19955289 and marked it off-topic.
I don't see how pointing out a country has concentration camps (reported by multiple outlets, like the NYTs) is "nationalistic," or against the spirit of the site. In fact the story has been reported here...A LOT.
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=china%20muslims&sort=byPopular...
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=china%20concentration&sort=byP...
I don't see anyone being "warned" about their -submissions- on this very topic. Maybe I'm missing something, but it feels like this "policy" is not evenly enforced. In fact a US political topic in regards to rights is currently on the front page:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19959428
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=china%20muslims&sort=byPopular...
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=china%20concentration&sort=byP...
I don't see anyone being "warned" about their -submissions- on this very topic. Maybe I'm missing something, but it feels like this "policy" is not evenly enforced. In fact a US political topic in regards to rights is currently on the front page:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19959428
I'm aware of how often the story has been submitted and also how often people bring it up in comments, including where it breaks this site guideline to do so:
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The issue is that your comment was taking the thread further into flamewar. That's not ok here. Is the policy evenly enforced? No, because we don't see everything. That doesn't make it ok to break the rules though.
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The issue is that your comment was taking the thread further into flamewar. That's not ok here. Is the policy evenly enforced? No, because we don't see everything. That doesn't make it ok to break the rules though.
Still fail to see how this is an unrelated controversy or generic tangent, when Huawei has been accused of aiding in human rights violations with the Chinese government. That is very much on topic. If it were just China in general, that would be a tangent...but this is about Huawei which was accused of this by "Reporters without Borders" just last month, of assisting in Chinese concentration camps imprisoning Muslims https://rsf.org/en/reports/rsf-report-chinas-pursuit-new-wor....
The reason I say this is unevenly enforced is that people constantly point out US companies aiding the NSA via PRISM from years back...but new reports of the Chinese government doing the same thing, if not worse, are marked as "nationalist" and "flamebait." Either both are, or neither are. It seems like one comes under much more scrutiny than the other. Maybe that's something you and the mod team need to figure out.
The reason I say this is unevenly enforced is that people constantly point out US companies aiding the NSA via PRISM from years back...but new reports of the Chinese government doing the same thing, if not worse, are marked as "nationalist" and "flamebait." Either both are, or neither are. It seems like one comes under much more scrutiny than the other. Maybe that's something you and the mod team need to figure out.
They use data stolen from western users of their phones to aid in the operation of concentration camps? You're saying that by giving Chinese companies their data by using a Chinese phone, GP should consider themselves complicit in helping China run their concentration camps? What?
Ok, yes, that is true. But the USA commits war crimes and doesn't want to be brought before court over them. So I should stop using US goods if I gave a shit about human rights, right?
Throwing up your hands and saying "everyone's bad" is just moral laziness. I'm not American and it's obvious China is far worse than the USA in terms of human rights.
Not really if you are not a citizen of said country.
Or to put it in numbers:
- 80% of the world population is not Chinese, and are not affected by China.
- 95% of the world population is not American, and are very much affected by the US.
Or to put it in numbers:
- 80% of the world population is not Chinese, and are not affected by China.
- 95% of the world population is not American, and are very much affected by the US.
Like Guantanamo?
Anyone who ended up in Guntanamo would have had a bullet to head in PRC, they would not bother with a camp. It is for hundreds of thousands of undesirables(like Muslims etc).
When USA ships it’s Muslims into a camp in Nevada desert and starts re-educating them let us know
When USA ships it’s Muslims into a camp in Nevada desert and starts re-educating them let us know
As if CIA and co doesn't do the same.
So how is Geneva convention working on there?
Your list of undesirables is just sad.
So how is Geneva convention working on there?
Your list of undesirables is just sad.
50% of US inmates (prison slave labor participants) are African American, sounds pretty concentrated here as well.
I don't believe the whole continent of Africa has 1.5 million Africans in jail, this is a uniquely American outcome.
I don't believe the whole continent of Africa has 1.5 million Africans in jail, this is a uniquely American outcome.
At what point does China just develop its own mobile OS?
There seems value in just taking the reigns, and making whatever you create open-source, so that ZTE and all the other Chinese manufacturers can use it as well.
Its certainly a major blow to the value of Huawei phones.
There seems value in just taking the reigns, and making whatever you create open-source, so that ZTE and all the other Chinese manufacturers can use it as well.
Its certainly a major blow to the value of Huawei phones.
Even if they develop a mobile OS, will it be the quality and usefulness of Google services? Android is just linux + google services. Without those, it's hard to make the sell to western audiences, at least.
Google Maps is a masterpiece of engineering and it's hard to imagine that Huawei will be able to compete, near term. If I'm reading the situation right, this might mean the end of Huawei in the western phone market unless something changes.
Google Maps is a masterpiece of engineering and it's hard to imagine that Huawei will be able to compete, near term. If I'm reading the situation right, this might mean the end of Huawei in the western phone market unless something changes.
You can’t really use Google Maps in China. Even over VPN it’s outdated and often displays the wrong location due to the GPS scrambling that the government enforces on maps.
Baidu Maps is very good though, I would even say on par with Google Maps and better in some areas. It does however have more obvious ads which is annoying.
Baidu Maps is very good though, I would even say on par with Google Maps and better in some areas. It does however have more obvious ads which is annoying.
Huawei's market is international as well as domestic. Western users are used to Google services. So while they can work around the issue for Chinese users, they basically lose the western market. Who wants Android without the spectrum Google-like services?
Which is a huge deal for Huawei, imo.
Which is a huge deal for Huawei, imo.
It was announced in 2017 that China was investing in its own mobile OS based on Sailfish OS (http://www.goodnewsfinland.com/jolla-goes-full-steam-ahead-i...). I don't know what's the status of the project currently. Russia has had similar plans (http://rusletter.com/articles/operating_system_sailfish_from...).
At what point does China just develop its own mobile OS?
Three months ago.
https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3001685/huawei-co...
Three months ago.
https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3001685/huawei-co...
Not just mobile... Huawei also makes really nice laptops and presumably MS/Intel are under the same obligation to sever relations with Huawei. Unless Huawei is going to make a huge retreat we might see a full on effort for a new OS that covers both usecases?
My guess is that they'll probably just sell off / kill off their computer business. It's not a huge money maker for them, and trying to switch people off Windows is super hard.
>the Chinese technology company that the U.S. government has sought to blacklist around the world
Around the world?
Around the world?
In Germany it was in the news that US hinted that if we wouldn't participate in banning Huawei we are excluded from further sharing of intelligence and stuff like this. For 5G and T-Mobile i.e. Deutsche Telekom AG they basically said: Dare to buy Huawai and you gonna have a bad time.
It's these liberal and western high ethics at work here...
It's these liberal and western high ethics at work here...
Like building Putin gas pipeline behind EUs back?
Behing the EU's back? The project is public since years. The former German chancellor is publicly involved in it.
The project is very much European: lots of countries involved.
Why can't the EU buy gas from wherever we want?
Who is the the US to tell us where to buy our gas from?
The project is very much European: lots of countries involved.
Why can't the EU buy gas from wherever we want?
Who is the the US to tell us where to buy our gas from?
Project is so European it goes against interests of 1/3 EU: Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Croatia. Its not "EU buy gas from wherever we want", Its Germany making deals with Russia once again, remember Ribbentrop/Molotov? Russia is already hard at work making you forget https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium-after-russian-pr..., buying gas from Russia while bypassing other EU member states.
They appear to be working hard on having it blacklisted in the UK AFAICT. BBC Click did a report and a guy from GCHQ basically said "it's not a problem" whilst there seems to be a deal of press trying to push the political angle to make it politically expedient -- I can only assume that's a propaganda attempt by USA?
I'm surprised that Huawei is such a threat to USA industry to be honest.
Perhaps Trump's team has shares in their opposition, or was trying to short them?
I'm surprised that Huawei is such a threat to USA industry to be honest.
Perhaps Trump's team has shares in their opposition, or was trying to short them?
Well, Paul Singer, founder of Elliott Management, has donated to Trump, and Elliott has a large stake in Samsung.
[deleted]
Instead of letting companies do international business, the government creates an artificial war.
It only takes the Republican Party winning 1 election to destroy economic freedom.
My political thoughts are going to change drastically if we can resew economic conditions with China after Trump leaves office.
It only takes the Republican Party winning 1 election to destroy economic freedom.
My political thoughts are going to change drastically if we can resew economic conditions with China after Trump leaves office.
Lol, yes the economic conditions with China previous to the current administration were oh so free. Unless you were Google or Facebook and wanted to run a website in China. Or you were a manufacturer and wanted to manufacture in China without transferring all of your IP to a state-owned JV partner.
This is likely going to hurt Huawei a lot more than Google. Losing access to latest Android versions or Google apps will make it more difficult for their phones to gain adoption globally.
It's pushing chinese firms to create an Android competitor. In the long term, this might hurt Google a lot.
This move will permanently destroy trust between Chinese OEM manufacturers with Google the same way revocation of private property reduces trust in the value of property. Long term wise, this could permanently splinter Android market share especially in overseas regions like India or Africa where Chinese phones command a large portion of the marketshare.
Huawei is the world's second largest phone manufacturer. It'll hurt Google, and Huawei in Europe/Canada.
All I know about Huawei is that they produced what seemed like at least half of welfware phones—the kind available to anybody on most any kind of welfare, including EBT—and these phones were utter garbage. Reasonably, one could say they had ripped off the government, these phones were such crap. Screen a .5mm pane of brittle glass that a tap could break. Barely ran android, laden with crapware, basically needed to be plugged into a power source at all times. Some you couldn't get the SIM card out, like to put in your late model Samsung Galaxy. Pure garbage, yet the welfare service the phones are supposed to support is extremely valuable to a lot of people.
And this is different than almost all of the sub $100 phones sold through companies like MetroPCS?
Your Tax Dollars At Work different.
So while it's huge Google was told what to do, it's not surprising as this is business as usual. And back to an earlier point... The best place to siphon data in 2019? Your phone. Times have changed, data collection by governments hasn't.