Huawei has trademarked its 'Hongmeng' operating system(news.cgtn.com)
news.cgtn.com
Huawei has trademarked its 'Hongmeng' operating system
https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d414d7a41544f34457a6333566d54/index.html
70 comments
And I can imagine that current “nuclear” is “tech”. Each party will develop cyber warfare in a form of hacker groups, tools, AI, autopilot drones, etc.
Yes, but they won't lead to mutually assured distruction. Only nuclear weapon can do that so far: ensure that whoever pushes the button die in the counterstrike.
It seems the EU are for lifting sanctions and resuming relations with Russia (and subsequently keeping relations with China). I don't know, but I bet this has a lot to do with our relationship with the current US president's attitude and his trade tariffs. A second term for president Trump will probably cement this relationship.
I feel it's something that the EU wants and we surely care more about the Western democratic culture, but not at the risk of our own financial ruin.
I feel it's something that the EU wants and we surely care more about the Western democratic culture, but not at the risk of our own financial ruin.
> I don't know, but I bet this has a lot to do with our relationship with the current US president's attitude and his trade tariffs.
It could also be a continuation of the German "Wandel durch Annäherung" policy ("Change by Rapprochement"). People you do business with won't shoot at you, and will generally be more willing to talk to you about human rights, nuclear disarmament etc than people you don't do business with.
It could also be a continuation of the German "Wandel durch Annäherung" policy ("Change by Rapprochement"). People you do business with won't shoot at you, and will generally be more willing to talk to you about human rights, nuclear disarmament etc than people you don't do business with.
> Basically there was very little exchange of goods between the two blocks
Except grain, which the USA provided in vast quantities to the USSR in order to prop-up its system in the wake of poor harvests.
There was a brief blip in 1980 when President Carter vetoed it, before resuming under President Reagan.
Why not use it as a lever to bring down the Soviet system 20 years earlier? Because the balance of power was quite convenient.
Except grain, which the USA provided in vast quantities to the USSR in order to prop-up its system in the wake of poor harvests.
There was a brief blip in 1980 when President Carter vetoed it, before resuming under President Reagan.
Why not use it as a lever to bring down the Soviet system 20 years earlier? Because the balance of power was quite convenient.
It’s not that the balance of power was convenient is that a major disturbance in it could’ve been deadly.
A civil war in the USSR at the time could have literarily ended the world as we know it.
The fact that the only major thing we got at the fall of the USSR was the attempted 1991 ‘August Coup’ is a miracle as things could’ve ended so badly for Russia and the entire world.
A civil war in the USSR at the time could have literarily ended the world as we know it.
The fact that the only major thing we got at the fall of the USSR was the attempted 1991 ‘August Coup’ is a miracle as things could’ve ended so badly for Russia and the entire world.
> This comes as Google cut off Huawei devices from its Android OS following a U.S. order banning the sale of American software and components to the company
I don't understand what is the point of this. Sure, government/companies doesn't have to buy anything from Huawei but why they are not even allowed to sell Android to others?
I don't understand what is the point of this. Sure, government/companies doesn't have to buy anything from Huawei but why they are not even allowed to sell Android to others?
Because thats not enough. Huawei has been stealing IP, is a part of the party and has been caught spying for them, for example in thr Netherlands.
They do not play by the rules, which is why they became a big competitor in the market. Treat them like a normal company, and you will have a chinese state company monopolist eventually.
See Boeing and Airbus, where state intervention was a fraction of what Huawei gets.
Finally, foreign companies are not free to do business in China, why should chinese companies be free to do so here?
Edit: to give an example. Firms in China rarely license correctly for domestic sales, merely for export. No other nominally developed country with so many manufacturers would get away with that. Imagine Germany not licensing for cars they sell in Europe.
So what now? Huawei has lost access to many licenses, such as cpu, memory, sd cards and whatnot. Do you think they will stop making phones? No. They will ignore it, and grt backed by the CCP. In China, this will have no impact.
What SHOULD happen as a reaction is to ban Huawei entirely, and come after other Chinese ccp backed companies next. Because if you ignore the rules of the market, you should not participate in it.
They do not play by the rules, which is why they became a big competitor in the market. Treat them like a normal company, and you will have a chinese state company monopolist eventually.
See Boeing and Airbus, where state intervention was a fraction of what Huawei gets.
Finally, foreign companies are not free to do business in China, why should chinese companies be free to do so here?
Edit: to give an example. Firms in China rarely license correctly for domestic sales, merely for export. No other nominally developed country with so many manufacturers would get away with that. Imagine Germany not licensing for cars they sell in Europe.
So what now? Huawei has lost access to many licenses, such as cpu, memory, sd cards and whatnot. Do you think they will stop making phones? No. They will ignore it, and grt backed by the CCP. In China, this will have no impact.
What SHOULD happen as a reaction is to ban Huawei entirely, and come after other Chinese ccp backed companies next. Because if you ignore the rules of the market, you should not participate in it.
Allegations not proven yet. Watch out for your media and information sources
WSJ article today: “Along the way, Huawei has been dogged by allegations that its gains came on the back of copying and theft. A review of 10 cases in U.S. federal courts, and dozens of interviews with U.S. officials, former employees, competitors, and collaborators suggest Huawei had a corporate culture that blurred the boundary between competitive achievement and ethically dubious methods of pursuing it.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/huaweis-yearslong-rise-is-litte....
My point is different.
We are and always will be uncertain who is spying. Further, we can not even say whether Huawei is a sincere market participant (although here the case is much clearer against it).
If you wait for certainty, you will lose. Its a political decision you can agree or disagree with.
But if it has been made, and for good reason in this case, then you will not fight ip theft and chinese protectionism and anti competitive behavior with small measures.
Op asked why ban Huawei instead of not buying from them. Because it is ineffective.
We are and always will be uncertain who is spying. Further, we can not even say whether Huawei is a sincere market participant (although here the case is much clearer against it).
If you wait for certainty, you will lose. Its a political decision you can agree or disagree with.
But if it has been made, and for good reason in this case, then you will not fight ip theft and chinese protectionism and anti competitive behavior with small measures.
Op asked why ban Huawei instead of not buying from them. Because it is ineffective.
They have not been caught spying for the party and they are not part of government. These are outright lies.
Please don't fall for the transparent disinformation spread by some media, and unfortunately by some commenters on HN.
Please don't fall for the transparent disinformation spread by some media, and unfortunately by some commenters on HN.
Is it?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-huawei-tech-i...
Also, board members and execs are CCP members, and functionally the company is controlled and supported by the CCP.
Also, board members and execs are CCP members, and functionally the company is controlled and supported by the CCP.
Alleged backdoor. There are a lot of allegations against Huawei but not a lot (if any) concrete evidence.
The issue is that we have to make a decision under uncertainty. And fast.
Context matters as well. Look how China treats its citizens, and those abroad who critique the CCP. Look how it has no ethical issue to control and spy upon every Chinese person within its borders. It has no state philosophy that would forbid it. Why would you think they would not spy abroad? And again, CCP members controlling Huawei is a fact.
Look how the doctrine of ip theft has been pushed even in past plans like china 2020, and how often unlicensed and nearly identical products and tech showed up after being stolen by someone. And Chinese politicians masterfully promising betterment and market access to EU politicians and giving nothing in the end.
There will never be a smoking gun. But to say its based on lies without evidence is, i think, misleading.
For years all this has been happening. And the damage to non Chinese tech and industry has been huge.
That is why it needs to be up to every country to choose whether to make deals with Huawei and the CCP or not. Judge the evidence, and circumstances.
If you wait too long, the consequences are clear. The US has decided it has seen enough, and Huawei is not a sincere market participant.
THEN, you have to take strong measures. If there is ip theft. If there even is spying, THEN you can not fight it by half measures. It doesnt work. Huawei denies and goes their merry way until it is untouchable.
Its a game of chance, not certainty.
Context matters as well. Look how China treats its citizens, and those abroad who critique the CCP. Look how it has no ethical issue to control and spy upon every Chinese person within its borders. It has no state philosophy that would forbid it. Why would you think they would not spy abroad? And again, CCP members controlling Huawei is a fact.
Look how the doctrine of ip theft has been pushed even in past plans like china 2020, and how often unlicensed and nearly identical products and tech showed up after being stolen by someone. And Chinese politicians masterfully promising betterment and market access to EU politicians and giving nothing in the end.
There will never be a smoking gun. But to say its based on lies without evidence is, i think, misleading.
For years all this has been happening. And the damage to non Chinese tech and industry has been huge.
That is why it needs to be up to every country to choose whether to make deals with Huawei and the CCP or not. Judge the evidence, and circumstances.
If you wait too long, the consequences are clear. The US has decided it has seen enough, and Huawei is not a sincere market participant.
THEN, you have to take strong measures. If there is ip theft. If there even is spying, THEN you can not fight it by half measures. It doesnt work. Huawei denies and goes their merry way until it is untouchable.
Its a game of chance, not certainty.
> The issue is that we have to make a decision under uncertainty. And fast.
I'm sorry, this sounds like "WMDs in Iraq" all over again.
> For years all this has been happening. And the damage to non Chinese tech and industry has been huge.
Not really, it was a conscious decision by most Western companies to go and produce in China. Fully aware that they will (voluntarily and via ip theft) transfer knowledge, they still chose to do it because the profit margins were so enormous. The Chinese actually hacking and siphoning off IP is relatively new, something that previously was the NSA's monopoly.
> If there even is spying, THEN you can not fight it by half measures.
Are you suggesting the EU should go into a full out trade war with the US to convince them to stop the spying?
I'm sorry, this sounds like "WMDs in Iraq" all over again.
> For years all this has been happening. And the damage to non Chinese tech and industry has been huge.
Not really, it was a conscious decision by most Western companies to go and produce in China. Fully aware that they will (voluntarily and via ip theft) transfer knowledge, they still chose to do it because the profit margins were so enormous. The Chinese actually hacking and siphoning off IP is relatively new, something that previously was the NSA's monopoly.
> If there even is spying, THEN you can not fight it by half measures.
Are you suggesting the EU should go into a full out trade war with the US to convince them to stop the spying?
Thank you for making clear that your previous claims were bogus.
Google CEO told trump that Google works for USA military. Trump bragged about it on Twitter. Other US companies are on PRISM project as well.
> "and has been caught spying for them" (GP) //
Hmm, recently on BBC a representative for UK's GCHQ said there was no evidence of that.
>"The report comes a day after U.S. President Donald Trump banned Huawei from buying vital U.S. technology without special approval and effectively barring its equipment from U.S. telecoms networks on national security grounds." (from article GP linked) //
There you have it, I think: Netherlands bought some deal from USA and supported their Huawei story with a "key finding" the following day. Smacks of propaganda.
>"The Volkskrant story did not contain any details" (GP's article, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-huawei-tech-i..., again) //
Ha, ha. No shit they didn't provide details that could be used to show it was entirely made up.
Hmm, recently on BBC a representative for UK's GCHQ said there was no evidence of that.
>"The report comes a day after U.S. President Donald Trump banned Huawei from buying vital U.S. technology without special approval and effectively barring its equipment from U.S. telecoms networks on national security grounds." (from article GP linked) //
There you have it, I think: Netherlands bought some deal from USA and supported their Huawei story with a "key finding" the following day. Smacks of propaganda.
>"The Volkskrant story did not contain any details" (GP's article, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-huawei-tech-i..., again) //
Ha, ha. No shit they didn't provide details that could be used to show it was entirely made up.
So a well known Dutch newspaper being bought or strongarmed by the Cia/Trump/Whoever.
Or a company whose execs are literally CCP party members, spying for the party.
I am going to go with story 2 here. Occams razot.
Or a company whose execs are literally CCP party members, spying for the party.
I am going to go with story 2 here. Occams razot.
> So a well known Dutch newspaper being bought or strongarmed by the Cia/Trump/Whoever.
"Allegations" aren't "strongarming". It's just telling somebody "off the record" that you heard something. Bloomberg recently claimed that Huawei had installed secret backdoors in equipment sold to Vodafone for use in Italy. Vodafone all but laughed in their face, saying it was a standard, obvious and not at all hidden telnet maintenance terminal that hadn't been deactivated.
"Allegations" aren't "strongarming". It's just telling somebody "off the record" that you heard something. Bloomberg recently claimed that Huawei had installed secret backdoors in equipment sold to Vodafone for use in Italy. Vodafone all but laughed in their face, saying it was a standard, obvious and not at all hidden telnet maintenance terminal that hadn't been deactivated.
>So a well known Dutch newspaper being bought //
It's possible I'm too cynical but I think here you're being too naive. De Volkskrant are cited as relying on "unidentified intelligence sources" which to me means their intelligence service contacted them and said "run this" (or some logical equivalent of that).
Occams razor is not truth producing, it's not capable of finding the truth. That said, either UK's or Netherlands intelligence are lying here as De Volkskrant refer to their being "evidence" and GCHQ (see my post history) said there wasn't (but were lots of holes that appear to be just bad coding).
The GCHQ spokesperson was a person interviewed on TV in a BBC interview, a noted rare occurrence.
The De Volkskrant source is anonymous with no evidence provided.
I guess you take your pick. Does GCHQ have cause to lie to promote Chinese intelligence activities that are proven to be actively operating in the EU? Or does USA have enough hold on Netherlands to get an "anonymous source says there's evidence but we won't show you what it is" pushed out by their intelligence service?
So, the day after Trump starts a propaganda war against Huawei just happened to be when Netherlands decided to make an anonymous no evidence comment?!?
I know which side I'm finding more believable.
It's possible I'm too cynical but I think here you're being too naive. De Volkskrant are cited as relying on "unidentified intelligence sources" which to me means their intelligence service contacted them and said "run this" (or some logical equivalent of that).
Occams razor is not truth producing, it's not capable of finding the truth. That said, either UK's or Netherlands intelligence are lying here as De Volkskrant refer to their being "evidence" and GCHQ (see my post history) said there wasn't (but were lots of holes that appear to be just bad coding).
The GCHQ spokesperson was a person interviewed on TV in a BBC interview, a noted rare occurrence.
The De Volkskrant source is anonymous with no evidence provided.
I guess you take your pick. Does GCHQ have cause to lie to promote Chinese intelligence activities that are proven to be actively operating in the EU? Or does USA have enough hold on Netherlands to get an "anonymous source says there's evidence but we won't show you what it is" pushed out by their intelligence service?
So, the day after Trump starts a propaganda war against Huawei just happened to be when Netherlands decided to make an anonymous no evidence comment?!?
I know which side I'm finding more believable.
This is probably the worst username you could have chosen in trying to blend in “NotPaidToPost”.
You post an awful lot in support of China, "NotPaidToPost".
They have been caught stealing IP and using stolen IP for a while now.
Huawei Mate X being a classic example.
Huawei Mate X being a classic example.
That's not evidence of spying for the party, it's evidence of others spying for them...
I'm not sure whether someone in the Chinese intelligence services could easily get Huawei to assist with espionage if doing so might hurt the profits of someone higher up in the hierarchy.
I'm not sure whether someone in the Chinese intelligence services could easily get Huawei to assist with espionage if doing so might hurt the profits of someone higher up in the hierarchy.
Because this is mostly not about security, but about trade war and protectionism.
Actually it's about security as well.
There is a reason that countries like Australia, NZ, UK etc have either banned the company outright or had to take measures to ring fence their products.
There is a reason that countries like Australia, NZ, UK etc have either banned the company outright or had to take measures to ring fence their products.
As an Australian can I share the opinion that our leadership would literally jump off a bridge if the US government said it was a good idea.
We have a long and storied history of making bad decisions to appease greater powers.
We have a long and storied history of making bad decisions to appease greater powers.
The UK feel so strongly about Huawei that they're getting them to help expand their 5G network.
That's not true; they're at least going to be ring-fenced and there's no evidence yet that they will be allowed to supply 5G at all. All the UK has said is that they believe the risks can be managed for some equipment.
The leak said they could help build infrastructure like antennas and base stations. That's far from being banned.
Care to share those reasons?
Because Australia, for example, decided to ban Huawei in a closed door national security meeting.
Because Australia, for example, decided to ban Huawei in a closed door national security meeting.
> Actually it's about security as well.
Since you name the "five eyes" countries. Is it because Huawei's products make it harder to spy on the population?
Since you name the "five eyes" countries. Is it because Huawei's products make it harder to spy on the population?
> Because this is mostly not about security
In my view, it is absolutely about security, and much more broad than "spying."
China is absolutely an adversary of the USA. If you give your adversary control of a national asset such as the entire wireless network, then you are a fool. I am no fan of Trump, but holy crap did we allow our security interests to get dominated by business interests in the past.
One great example is that for unknown reasons, we allow Chinese POPs in Canada, however there is certainly no western POPs allowed in China. Here is a story about Canada-to-Canada data being routed through China via a Chinese POP. [0] I remember it being discuss on HN, but now I can't find it.
[0]https://toronto.citynews.ca/2019/01/31/israeli-cyberexpert-d...
In my view, it is absolutely about security, and much more broad than "spying."
China is absolutely an adversary of the USA. If you give your adversary control of a national asset such as the entire wireless network, then you are a fool. I am no fan of Trump, but holy crap did we allow our security interests to get dominated by business interests in the past.
One great example is that for unknown reasons, we allow Chinese POPs in Canada, however there is certainly no western POPs allowed in China. Here is a story about Canada-to-Canada data being routed through China via a Chinese POP. [0] I remember it being discuss on HN, but now I can't find it.
[0]https://toronto.citynews.ca/2019/01/31/israeli-cyberexpert-d...
China is an adversary? Tell me this when Apple packs up and leaves China for good. And Google stops seeing China as a market. And ...
Multi-national corporations are what they are because they have no loyalty to any country. Profit is the god they worship. Giving our national assets to any multi-national corporation is foolishness.
Multi-national corporations are what they are because they have no loyalty to any country. Profit is the god they worship. Giving our national assets to any multi-national corporation is foolishness.
> China is an adversary? Tell me this when Apple packs up and leaves China for good.
Are you not able to separate a nation's business interests from its national security interests? Can you not imagine how the two could easily be in conflict? I am truly dumbfounded by this view. I don't even know where to begin.
Are you not able to separate a nation's business interests from its national security interests? Can you not imagine how the two could easily be in conflict? I am truly dumbfounded by this view. I don't even know where to begin.
Well I guess its a good thing that Apple is selling less and less phones anyways before this trade war™ mess, might make it easier to leave, their new product is selling credit!
If I support your opinion, I should also support China gov had done before for Google and others.
Because it's really about destroying China's growing influence.
I won't agreed with this a few months ago, but more and more Chinese companies is receiving this kind of treatment. The reason maybe not the same, but the results are, Hikvision is a clear example, even DJI got their name mentioned (I mean, DJI, a toy maker, really?).
So yeah, I guess everything is eventually boil down to that.
So yeah, I guess everything is eventually boil down to that.
[deleted]
Let china continue to block mostly everything except theirs and other countries continue to accept that arrangement, it is fair to china only.
Otherwise the default should be you block ours we block yours.
Free trade for all. Not just free trade for chinese product.
Otherwise the default should be you block ours we block yours.
Free trade for all. Not just free trade for chinese product.
As far as I am aware the likes of Apple are still selling in China and even companies that are blocked etc. it's different vs the U.S. ban, which also affects Huawei in the EU etc.
I am an EU citizen and if I want to buy Huawei products, I don't want the U.S. to tell me not to, especially since you seem to conveniently forget that the U.S. has led many interventionist wars in order to forcibly open markets in other countries to its goods, so you don't have much moral ground to stand on here.
Additionally, the U.S. is also imposing tariffs on the EU and being abusive around the world, (Iran etc.) in general. The world is watching and American credibility is being eroded with moves like these, that's for sure.
I am an EU citizen and if I want to buy Huawei products, I don't want the U.S. to tell me not to, especially since you seem to conveniently forget that the U.S. has led many interventionist wars in order to forcibly open markets in other countries to its goods, so you don't have much moral ground to stand on here.
Additionally, the U.S. is also imposing tariffs on the EU and being abusive around the world, (Iran etc.) in general. The world is watching and American credibility is being eroded with moves like these, that's for sure.
friedman23(1)
One thing we all can agree is that America is run by idiots now. Even if they tackle legitimate issues they do it in a way that is stupid.
International trade agreements can be renegotiated and confrontations can be managed professionally. The US would get much more done if it would have sane leadership.
International trade agreements can be renegotiated and confrontations can be managed professionally. The US would get much more done if it would have sane leadership.
> Let china continue to block mostly everything except theirs
But that's not what's happening. China just makes laws that require vendors to comply with censorship. You know, Germany does the same, only on different topics. Google and others have then decided not to do business in China, they weren't blocked.
The trade problem with China isn't about blocking companies, it's about state subsidies that China gives to key industries that are perceived as unfair.
But that's not what's happening. China just makes laws that require vendors to comply with censorship. You know, Germany does the same, only on different topics. Google and others have then decided not to do business in China, they weren't blocked.
The trade problem with China isn't about blocking companies, it's about state subsidies that China gives to key industries that are perceived as unfair.
Hongmeng has been slow R&D project. Suddenly the new mobile OS is must have. I'm not surprised if Huawei goes to a shopping spree and buys several mobile OS and mobile UI companies at once.
Buying both Jolla (Sailfish OS) and Qt Group (QTCOM.HE) would be peanuts for Huawei.
Buying both Jolla (Sailfish OS) and Qt Group (QTCOM.HE) would be peanuts for Huawei.
I’m pretty sure not least of all EU authorities would step in if the latter were to ever eventuate. Huawei buying Qt would raise a whole ‘nother level of fire storm at the thought of Huawei now buying themselves into, amongst others, a bazillion embedded devices and desktop apps.
I just realized that ARM has stopped working with HiSilicon (Huawei subsidiary). HiSilicon used mainly ARM ISA and ARM's microarchitectures. ARM (Softbank subsidiary) loses big customer.
What wil Huawei/HiSilicon do next? Jump head first to RISC-V or adopt MIPS variant. Who will they by to get there faster?
What wil Huawei/HiSilicon do next? Jump head first to RISC-V or adopt MIPS variant. Who will they by to get there faster?
> It will also be compatible with all Android apps and Web apps and come with its “App Gallery,” according to Yu.
So likely just a Android fork/rebrand.
So likely just a Android fork/rebrand.
That’s the likely option, but it’s also possible that they’ve come up with a reimplementation of the Android Runtime…
Considering Sailfish OS has done that, they might just have forked that instead. Indeed, I believe there are other re-implementations of the Android Runtime out there, they could just have forked.
They might already have done that:
From Sailfish homepage " Our focus is in licensing the OS to be used in governmental and corporate environments, and Sailfish OS is already used to build local mobile ecosystems in Latin America, Russia, and China. "
https://jolla.com/sailfish3/
I had this theory three or four years ago that the smartphone OS will be the next battlefield.
From Sailfish homepage " Our focus is in licensing the OS to be used in governmental and corporate environments, and Sailfish OS is already used to build local mobile ecosystems in Latin America, Russia, and China. "
https://jolla.com/sailfish3/
I had this theory three or four years ago that the smartphone OS will be the next battlefield.
Sailfish uses Alien Dalvik.
That's awesome. I hope that all asian phone manufacturers like xiaomi, sony, samsung, and others get together and make an alternative to ios and android. They are big, and they can pull it of. Android apps compatibility is a big plus. Finally some movement in the market.
Yeah, Samsung, Sony, and Huawei getting together to build the os to crush android...
Japan, China, and Korea. Three countries that love eachother. /s
Japan, China, and Korea. Three countries that love eachother. /s
Korean here, people don’t like the countries itself, (we literally hate Japan), but doesn’t have much feelings to companies or usual people. (We buy Sony products, talk with Japanese people, study in Japan or work in Japan companies...etc)
Similar with China. It’s something different... and I’m pretty sure if there is a reason the 3 companies (but I’m not sure if Sony has a significant mindshare in the Android market... isn’t Japan’s phone market Apple + Samsung + < 10%?̊̈) make an Android-compatible OS, they would, and we also would use it.
The more I think about it the more feasible it actually seem. Sony doesn't have a market share that's proportional to their technology at the moment but they can actually occupy the high-end lines in this new ecosystem.
They tried with LiMo/Bada/Tizen and couldn't pull it off...
The name is a reference to ancient classics [1]. I've also seen some excited posts (e.g. [2]) mentioning that Huawei also trademarked a bunch of mythological beasts from the Classic of Mountains and Seas [3].
Based on the reactions I've seen, that was a good move to capture patriotic sentiments. On the other hand, I'm not sure how many patriotic Chinese were buying foreign phones, so they may end up only gaining market share from other Chinese competitors.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Meng
[2] https://m.sohu.com/a/316263123_526461/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_of_Mountains_and_Seas
Based on the reactions I've seen, that was a good move to capture patriotic sentiments. On the other hand, I'm not sure how many patriotic Chinese were buying foreign phones, so they may end up only gaining market share from other Chinese competitors.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Meng
[2] https://m.sohu.com/a/316263123_526461/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_of_Mountains_and_Seas
This thing is dead before even leaving China. Who on the west would want to buy a phone they can't use to watch Netflix, Hulu, HBO? Because if Huawei lost licenses to Android, what makes them think DRM technology providers will, which mostly are US based. And they sure can build their own DRM stack, but good luck on selling it to Disney or Comcast.
Also, apps compatible with Android. Please, don't make me laugh. You're so naive. Android works because you can monetize apps. If you can't monetize them, you don't build them. Free apps are monetized with ads, which are completely embedded into Google systems (yes, you could use others, good luck with that). Paid apps are monetized by Google Wallet, so another thing Huawei has to build. And believe me, I sure as hell won't trust the Chinese government (AKA Huawei) to handle my money.
Also, apps compatible with Android. Please, don't make me laugh. You're so naive. Android works because you can monetize apps. If you can't monetize them, you don't build them. Free apps are monetized with ads, which are completely embedded into Google systems (yes, you could use others, good luck with that). Paid apps are monetized by Google Wallet, so another thing Huawei has to build. And believe me, I sure as hell won't trust the Chinese government (AKA Huawei) to handle my money.
If Hongmeng accepts web app to be packaged and deployed on Smartphone, then it'll be a new story.
You can package your mobile websites today using tools like Apache Cordova.
But good luck getting consumers interested. Because you can spot a website based app a mile away and they are universally awful.
But good luck getting consumers interested. Because you can spot a website based app a mile away and they are universally awful.
The level of confrontation now is nowhere close to that but that has been the usual state of the world for a longer time than the current open and free Internet and commerce. If we are heading into that direction (if!) all the major players (USA, China, Russia) will build some walls again and pull the strings of their allies. It's both a defensive strategy and an offensive one and it's going to reduce the flow of goods, people and information. Technology stacks will be rewritten and operated locally as barriers are raised. Factories will have to be rebuilt in the west. I wonder if the EU can survive being pulled in three different ways or each country will go its way toward the party that suits them best.
We can look at the 1946-1989 cold war as an experiment to predict how this is going to play out. The winner was who was able to create more wealth for the people in its block. Nuclear weapons were (and are) a strong enough deterrent to make a real full scale war impossible. Be prepared to hear more about them in the next years. However there were many wars fought by proxy, or against proxies.
Tangentially, you might be interested in learning about the origin of the words First, Second and Third World [2], which somewhat changed in meaning since their origin in 1952. They where USA + allies, USSR + allies, all the others. They were not about being rich or poor. Maybe we'll end up with more than three worlds this time or (I hope) business as usual.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
[2] https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=372684438