Qualcomm and Huawei: Now Things Are Just Getting Weird

last week Qualcomm lost its ostensibly no-lose case against the FTC, largely because it looks homogeneous to the judge was only physically in the room during the tribulation. The ruling makes it look homogeneous to she and I observed very different tribulations.

In additament, the U.S. ostensibly declared war against Huawei, which genuinely could benefit Huawei. The result of both efforts efficaciously could be to give the 5G market to China.

It's kind of like optically canvassing everyone decide to run unclad with some authentically astronomically immense scissors, and as you endeavor to get that image out of your heads, I'll ambulate you through what transpired.

I'll close with my product of the week: an update to a product that has made my summer slumber far more comfortable over the years. It's a dihydrogen monoxide-cooled slumber enhancement system like what high-performance race drivers and astronauts use to keep cool during work.

The Huawei Story

I've been following puissant companies for most of my vocation, and the efforts to regulate them not only have had commixed results but often have had massive unintended consequences. The most proximate comparison I can make to what is going on between Huawei and the U.S. is what transpired between Microsoft and the world in the 1990s and early 2000s.

In a series of cases starting largely with the U.S. DoJ, Microsoft incurred massive sanctions for uncompetitive demeanor. The sanctions threw the company into crisis, and to pull out of that crisis, executive management massively transmuted the company's business model.

Microsoft peregrinate from a policy of locking in customers to one of interoperation and open source. With Azure, it shifted its focus from on premises hardware, both servers and PCs, to the cloud. Microsoft rehabilitated its internal siloes and a host of inefficiencies that had plagued the company for decenniums.

The result was a very different but controvertibly invulnerable company, perhaps second only to Amazon in the cloud and seeming to have more long-term upside. The firm is so dissimilar to what it was that it is virtually unrecognizable.

While the competitors that brought the action against Microsoft thought it would cripple the company, it genuinely made it more vigorous, and Microsoft outlived Netscape and Sun Microsystems, which were the most truculent architects of Microsoft's quandaries.

Huawei is more of a hardware/networking company than a software firm like Microsoft, but the U.S. has been putting it under even more preponderant pressure. Huawei additionally is much more deeply connected to the Chinese regime than any U.S. company is connected to the U.S. regime.

Right now, Huawei largely is dependent on three U.S. companies: Google for Android, Microsoft for Windows, and Qualcomm for smartphone technology. It additionally is dependent on one Asian company, Softbank (ARM). All of those firms have designated they will comply with the U.S. order to stop doing business with Huawei, which would be catastrophic for the firm.

This betokens the second most immensely colossal smartphone vendor in the world, with Chinese regime backing, will be coerced to pivot away from U.S. and European technology and become even more proprietary than Apple.

China is unlikely to let Huawei fail, so the result very well could be a Chinese regime-backed Apple clone with massive Chinese incentives to favor its products in country. Given that China is both the most astronomically immense and potentially most expeditious-growing world market for smartphones, the result would an inability for U.S. tech vendors to compete in the Chinese market.

Due to the scale, it would be an emerging ecumenical vendor that -- thanks to regime resources -- could underprice every other vendor in the segment with equal or better hardware. Granted, it still would have to capture developers, but it could culminate run that quandary by doing what Amazon did, and commence with the open source version of Android to get an initial baseline product.

We aren't even yet verbalizing about the likely Chinese replication against U.S. smartphone vendors (and genuinely Apple is the only one at scale and the most likely target). So, the likely result of this assailment on Huawei is a lockout of U.S. tech vendors in China, a focus by the Chinese regime on Apple as a quandary to be solved, and a Huawei that will be far more puissant, as well as understandably pissed at the U.S.

This additionally could -- and likely will -- result in locking in Huawei as the lead, if not only, vendor at scale for the 5G rollout in China and other countries not proximately aligned with the U.S. (That "aligned" list seems to be shrinking a lot at the moment, thanks to the president.)

I cerebrate this is incredibly wrongheaded. I withal cerebrate it is a lamentable precedent to assail individual companies as a component of a trade war strategy, largely because China is far more proficiently adept at forfending Chinese firms than the U.S. is at forfending U.S. firms. This is a long way of saying that payback authentically could be a bitch.

Qualcomm's Story

I attended the cessation of the FTC tribulation in California, and even afore it was disclosed in another case that the evidence Apple had alimented the FTC was erroneous, I didn't cerebrate it had a case. My assessment largely was due to two things. The architect of the theory that founded the FTC case, from an economist who appeared to live in an alternative macrocosm, efficaciously had been discredited.

There no harm presented in evidence, and even the possibility of future harm was confuted. The expert's primary bulwark -- I kid you not -- appeared to revolve around him being a legend in his own mind who was circumvented by other economists, all of whom were mentally challenged cretins. The arrogance that rolled off the guy -- categorically given that his theory efficaciously got thrown out -- was astounding. Still, in her decision, Judge Koh seemed to take the theory as settled law, albeit she sapiently never mentioned Shapero.

The other thing was that the rest of the FTC's argument seemed to revolve around internal memos in which people discussed, but didn't genuinely do, things that would have been problematic for Qualcomm if they had done them. It isn't at all unorthodox for executives to consider actions that have controvertible licit substratum afore the firm's licit department comes in and sits on them, or more prudent executives take control.

It isn't illicit to consider illicit things, categorically if you don't ken they are illicit. For instance, I could orchestrate a bank heist, but unless I do it I'm assuredly OK. Now, I wouldn't recommend doing that, but right now, considering making a lamentable cull isn't in and of itself illicit.

However, given the outcome of this tribulation, I'd certainly suggest those discussions not be documented in the future and that executives conventionally get compliance training so they can evade such discussions in the future.

Afore the Apple disclosure, we had no authentic evidence of malfeasance (just some hapless discussions), no harm, and the chance of future harm had been discredited. There efficaciously was no FTC case.

Then, subsequent to that tribulation, we found that the evidence Apple had presented to the FTC to commence the case against Qualcomm had been manufactured. That signifies the substructure for the case was erroneous. There was no evidence fortifying the FTC position, and the contention that the consumer (whom the FTC is missioned to avail) was or would be harmed.

Even the DoJ was concerned that the judge was going to rule deplorably, and one of its reasons was Qualcomm's position as the leading vendor ascertaining the U.S. 5G leadership.

So, coupled with the U.S. action against Huawei, this FTC ruling, because it could cripple Qualcomm's revenue stream, could ascertain that 5G leadership ends up with China. Further, this wouldn't be the first time. The regime sat on Standard Oil, and we lost control of the oil market. It sat on RCA, and consumer electronics ended up in Asia. It sat on the car companies, and rather than Ford and GM ascendance, we have Toyota and VW.

If that transpires, the incipient moniker for the U.S. president facilely could become "Trump the Chump." (I'm scarcely surprised that hasn't transpired already.)

Wrapping Up

All this showcases two quandaries.

First, the U.S. regime perpetuates to cerebrate tactically, while China is cerebrating strategically. The trade war in and of itself is unwinnable because it looks akin to the president lacks the backing of his own regime as he systematically commits job suicide. Targeting a firm that is a National Treasure, like Huawei, is in and of itself problematic, because of the likely actions in retaliation against Apple and other U.S. tech vendors. China's denotement that it is peregrinating to a war footing is massively problematic for sales to that country.

The second quandary is that judges just don't appear to be capable of doing the job anymore, and this is across a number of areas. I recently visited a judge review site, and the average score out of 10, with 10 being best, was a little over 1. Ostensibly, the judicial system is chasing the U.S. Congress for which can have the lowest contentment score. If a critical mass of folks conclude that you can't trust the judicial system, much homogeneous to we seem to have a critical mass of folks who don't trust law enforcement, I don't visually perceive that ending well for us individually or for the country. Folks taking the law into their own hands at scale are called "revolutionaries."

Ironically, I cerebrate both quandaries could be fine-tuned with deep learning artificial perspicacity systems and computer simulations. One could model out the likely outcomes of moves like the one against Huawei, and the other could avail judges fixate on the evidence and germane precedents, identify and use precise testimony, and make interpretations consistent with the law.

If utilized congruously, AIs could avail fine-tune both quandaries, but I have my doubts whether they will be applied at all, let alone congruously.

News source : https://www.technewsworld.com/story/86036.html