Hacker News Reader

Comment by llampx | Hacker News Reader

I feel sad somehow. Huawei was the only company which was going toe-to-toe against Google and Apple in the AI space. I saw it in their phones, which were better than many others, and had even better computational photography than Pixels of the same generation, in my opinion.

Combined with their chip design expertise - they were making chips that were as good or better than the Snapdragons, its clear why the US needed them kneecapped.

We as consumers lose when competition is stifled.

View on HN

Huawei's offerings aren't competition, they are Advanced Persistent Threats from a Western-centric infosec perspective. Nothing of value was lost, once security is priced into the solution.

From what I can tell, It’s just restructuring, and basically undoing a questionable prior organizational division at that. They have a lot of research centers around the world and don’t seem to slow down their AI efforts at all.

> they were making chips that were as good or better than the Snapdragons

Which ones? And how were they better?

In general better bang for the buck; though a bit hard to see as they used exclusively in Huawei phones. The Huawei P30 pro e.g. was a flagship model sold for considerable less than the corresponding Samsung or Apple phones in Europe.

No doubt in my mind that had it not been for the sanctions Huawei would be the top selling mobile phone brand even eating into Apple's highend market.

This page lists some of the chips made Huawei:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiSilicon

There are some rumours that Samsung will start to manufacture their chips but the most interesting stuff will happen when mainland Chinese fabs become good enough at highend manufacturing. Then China will probably return the favour and start to ban American chips from the Chinese market.

"The Snapdragon 888 wins in terms of CPU performance while the Kirin 9000 seems to be the one with the better GPU and AI capabilities. However, there are other factors to consider such as power efficiency where the Kirin 9000 already does excellently well as shown in our review video. So until there is an in-depth device-to-device comparison, we can’t say which chipset is the clear winner." [0]

[0]https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/12/04/chip-battle-snapdragon...

The issue is that it's a government owned entity, one that's totalitarian, genocidal and their technologies are largely stolen.

The grandparent was alleging that their photo tech was better than Google’s. So from whom did they steal it from?

They were stealing the talent.

You can't steal people. You can kidnap people and you can hire people. Maybe if you kill them you can steal the body? You sound like an anti-piracy advertisement. "Piracy is theft".

Just to nitpick, because we are on HN: I remember a story of a cartel in Latin America kidnapping networking experts to force them to develop their technology stack. That may count as "stealing" talents?

Not sure if that's what I remember, but here is a Wired article: https://www.wired.com/2012/11/zeta-radio/

Edit: of course I'm not implying that Huawei does this...

"steal" is other way of saying "hired"

because it feels kinda differently when you want to buy $competitor's top people

You can only "buy" top people if your offer is better though. I see nothing wrong in people switching jobs for a better offer. Calling it stealing makes it sound as A Bad Thing while in truth it is a good thing for the person getting hired. If businesses shared the profits equally this wouldn't happen but then we are not in capitalism anymore..

You mean, paying them well?

You could make the case that "stealing" talent is in terms of targeting hiring people where the training and research costs were footed by someone else.

Then again, as you pointed out, you could also make the case that they weren't properly compensated.

In Moscow, major Asian companies like Samsung, Huawei, LG all have research centers where they hire some of the best science students from top universities, in particular by organizing joint study programs. This seems to be a widespread practice around the world for them, and actually profitable for both students and universities.

Interesting observation about Moscow having a lot of research labs. I never thought to wonder why Moscow had so many but this is an interesting point. What do you mean by join study program? Can you explain? Also, is there anything that stops top talent from moving to Silicon Valley (or some place else?) after they finish school?

Many top universities here are not like self-contained research universities of the West — they mostly deal with education, and research is conducted at non-educational academic institutions. So, for their Masters work, and maybe earlier, students do research in various organizations that have contracts with university. These are either academic institutions or commercial research departments or tech companies like Yandex.

As for SV, it’s not that simple, it seems — most emigrants that I know either got job at something like Swiss Google after building a solid resume here or got into some academic program (PhD or postdoc) abroad.

>Also, is there anything that stops top talent from moving to Silicon Valley

Besides insane US visa policies?

Sometimes, paying people well goes hand in hand with opportunities for growth. The "bamboo ceiling," which is similar to the "glass ceiling" is a source of frustration for some technical employees who find themselves stuck.

Diversity and inclusion programs at most companies tend to focus on every demographic bias except for the bamboo ceiling.

It would be an interesting conversation to try and understand why/how are they better. Is it the sensors? The software? The lenses? In which conditions?

In that specific case I think they probably had better ideas than Google?

That may be an issue for you. For me (and for most people) it wasn't when I bought my Moto G or my current iPhone.

On hand a rising communist regime dominating the markets, on the other an aggressive, genocidal, fascist regime, which once dominated the markets. Both backdooring their devices for global mass surveillance.

Going by this logic, why doesn't the US kneecap European, South Korean, Japanese, or Taiwanese companies that are competitive with US companies in those industries?

They key difference (outside of China being more adversarial in general) is that Chinese companies like Huawei blatantly steal IP from companies in those countries to make their tech.

Also, Huawei is essentially an arm of China's intelligence apparatus, so keeping them at a far distance from other counties' infrastructure is generally a good idea.

This isn't a protectionist thing, it's a corporate espionage and national security thing.

Just because a company is located in Europe, south Korea, japan etc doesn't mean its a European, south Korean, Japanese etc company.

Look into their supply lines you will find that the core components are most likely US made so they have those companies by their balls. Or look into ownership breakdown might be that big US finance pretty much owns the companies voting wise.

Took ASML the core component the light source is a US product, with out that product ASML can't produce their EUV devices.

Interesting, where can I read about this light source that’s a US-made product?

In 2012 ASML took over the San Diego based CYMER which creates the light source for ASML EUV machines.

Cymer in San Diego, acquired by ASML but still based in the states

Reply on news.ycombinator.com