US Chipmakers Fear Ceding China's AI Market to Huawei After New Trump Restrictions (msn.com) 91
The Trump administration is "taking measures to restrict the sale of AI chips by Nvidia, Advanced Micro Devices and Intel," especially in China, reports the New York Times. But that's triggered a series of dominoes. "In the two days after the limits became public, shares of Nvidia, the world's leading AI chipmaker, fell 8.4%. AMD's shares dropped 7.4%, and Intel's were down 6.8%." (AMD expects up to $800 million in charges after the move, according to CNBC, while NVIDIA said it would take a quarterly charge of about $5.5 billion.)
The Times notes hopeful remarks Thursday from Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, during a meeting with the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade. "We're going to continue to make significant effort to optimize our products that are compliant within the regulations and continue to serve China's market." But America's chipmakers also have a greater fear, according to the article: "that their retreat could turn the Chinese tech giant Huawei into a global chip-making powerhouse." "For the U.S. semiconductor industry, China is gone," said Handel Jones, a semiconductor consultant at International Business Strategies, which advises electronics companies. He projects that Chinese companies will have a majority share of chips in every major category in China by 2030... Huang's message spoke to one of his biggest fears. For years, he has worried that Huawei, China's telecommunications giant, will become a major competitor in AI. He has warned U.S. officials that blocking U.S. companies from competing in China would accelerate Huawei's rise, said three people familiar with those meetings who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
If Huawei gains ground, Huang and others at Nvidia have painted a dark picture of a future in which China will use the company's chips to build AI data centers across the world for the Belt and Road Initiative, a strategic effort to increase Beijing's influence by paying for infrastructure projects around the world, a person familiar with the company's thinking said...
Nvidia's previous generation of chips perform about 40% better than Huawei's best product, said Gregory C. Allen, who has written about Huawei in his role as director of the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But that gap could dwindle if Huawei scoops up the business of its American rivals, Allen said. Nvidia was expected to make more than $16 billion in sales this year from the H20 in China before the restriction. Huawei could use that money to hire more experienced engineers and make higher-quality chips. Allen said the U.S. government's restrictions also could help Huawei bring on customers like DeepSeek, a leading Chinese AI startup. Working with those companies could help Huawei improve the software it develops to control its chips. Those kinds of tools have been one of Nvidia's strengths over the years.
TechRepublic identifies this key quote from an earlier article: "This kills NVIDIA's access to a key market, and they will lose traction in the country," Patrick Moorhead, a tech analyst with Moor Insights & Strategy, told The New York Times. He added that Chinese companies will buy from local rival Huawei instead.
The Times notes hopeful remarks Thursday from Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, during a meeting with the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade. "We're going to continue to make significant effort to optimize our products that are compliant within the regulations and continue to serve China's market." But America's chipmakers also have a greater fear, according to the article: "that their retreat could turn the Chinese tech giant Huawei into a global chip-making powerhouse." "For the U.S. semiconductor industry, China is gone," said Handel Jones, a semiconductor consultant at International Business Strategies, which advises electronics companies. He projects that Chinese companies will have a majority share of chips in every major category in China by 2030... Huang's message spoke to one of his biggest fears. For years, he has worried that Huawei, China's telecommunications giant, will become a major competitor in AI. He has warned U.S. officials that blocking U.S. companies from competing in China would accelerate Huawei's rise, said three people familiar with those meetings who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
If Huawei gains ground, Huang and others at Nvidia have painted a dark picture of a future in which China will use the company's chips to build AI data centers across the world for the Belt and Road Initiative, a strategic effort to increase Beijing's influence by paying for infrastructure projects around the world, a person familiar with the company's thinking said...
Nvidia's previous generation of chips perform about 40% better than Huawei's best product, said Gregory C. Allen, who has written about Huawei in his role as director of the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But that gap could dwindle if Huawei scoops up the business of its American rivals, Allen said. Nvidia was expected to make more than $16 billion in sales this year from the H20 in China before the restriction. Huawei could use that money to hire more experienced engineers and make higher-quality chips. Allen said the U.S. government's restrictions also could help Huawei bring on customers like DeepSeek, a leading Chinese AI startup. Working with those companies could help Huawei improve the software it develops to control its chips. Those kinds of tools have been one of Nvidia's strengths over the years.
TechRepublic identifies this key quote from an earlier article: "This kills NVIDIA's access to a key market, and they will lose traction in the country," Patrick Moorhead, a tech analyst with Moor Insights & Strategy, told The New York Times. He added that Chinese companies will buy from local rival Huawei instead.
Donald's move (Score:5, Insightful)
You start by making a thoughtless move.
And then you spend the rest of the game defending yourself tooth and nail to limit the damage.
But inevitably, you lose in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They'll have one in 3, 4 or 5 years, it is inevitable.
The question is not if, but when.
Re:Donald's move (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and China plays the long game. Even 10 years is nothing to a society that is 5,000 years old.
simplifying here, as were you apparently, but china does not have a 5000-year old central administration, nor have its people been electing leaders for that time.
unification for china came ~2000 years ago; thereafter it's been subject to numerous and various dynasties, with emperors killing each other left and right.
the latest administration seized power only ~100 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is one, possibly. This video talks about it and the technology they are using, but as far as I can see, doesn't name the company.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that some heinous haiku
Re:Donald's move (Score:5, Funny)
then you spend the rest of the game defending yourself tooth and nail to limit the damage.
You're being optimistic. The Donald doesn't play chess, or limit the damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, he still hasn't figured out he put his chess pieces on a backgammon board.
Re: Donald's move (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, he still hasn't figured out he put his chess pieces on a backgammon board.
There is so much truth in this statement. Trump is so besotted with the apparently unilateral power of tariffs that he is unaware (intentionally or otherwise) of the mechanisms of economics. He is literally playing a different game than everyone else. I personally think he is aware that he's ignoring the rules of the game because he's recently started talking about how American's need to stomach the pain of tariffs/etc. over the next few years. But at least publicly, he's still pretending to play a diff
Re: (Score:2)
He's playing 3-dimensional checkers.
. . . with half a deck of cards.
Re:Donald's move (Score:5, Insightful)
Motherfucker thinks he's playing tic tac toe, but it's actually international trade relations.
Re: Donald's move (Score:2)
This happens when grandmasters play. And it's not the case in the current geopolitical scene.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Donald's move (Score:2)
It happens, albeit not often.
Saying this as a former competitive chess player, who has studied many games by others.
Re:Donald's move (Score:4, Insightful)
Only that he started with like 10 thoughtless moves and now wonders why all his stones are in vulnerable positions.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1987 anti-NATO newspaper ads Trump took out on his return from Russia were clearly the KGB's idea and Trump's quid for some unknown pro. What life-long blackmail-able action did the KGB take for Trump? Did someone standing in the way of Mar-a-Lago expansion have an accident? There is no doubt that the KGB would have made on offer along these lines, would Trump have walk
the problem (Score:4, Informative)
China would just buy up all of Nvidia's inventory if it were available to them. They would spend State money on it, massively subsidize AI development like the other sectors they have focused on, and flood markets with cheap solutions. And then there is the military threat. China has ambitions on all neighbors and would use the tech to hamstring them politically and economically.
No doubt they will make progress without top shelf gear at present, but that doesn't mean they should get it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:the problem (Score:5, Informative)
>> Even on Taiwan China shows restraint
Massive military buildup, frequent invasion exercises, China would take Taiwan if it were at all feasible. China is expansionist and a military threat along with its only allies, North Korea and Russia.
Re:the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
China would take Taiwan if it were at all feasible
Out of curiosity, what makes taking Taiwan unfeasible at this point? (traditionally Taiwan was protected by the threat of US military retaliation, but our current POTUS has shown he is always willing to "make a deal" and sell out his allies for whatever 30 pieces of silver his heart is currently set on, so that hardly seems like an obstacle anymore)
Re: the problem (Score:2)
Re:the problem (Score:4, Informative)
Missiles, lots and lots of missiles, buried deep in mountains, mobile launchers, etc.
The only realistic way to invade is get them to surrender first. Blockade, detonating a nuke off the coast or ballistic missile them into surrender and pray they don't have much to retaliate, those are the options. Unlike Ukraine, they can probably retaliate effectively to ballistic missiles though ... so that would quickly escalate to a nuke any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
>> Even on Taiwan China shows restraint
Massive military buildup, frequent invasion exercises, China would take Taiwan if it were at all feasible. China is expansionist and a military threat along with its only allies, North Korea and Russia.
I'm not sure China cares about taking Taiwan. There's not much on Taiwan that would benefit China, aside from TSMC, which the US would destroy or incapacitate if the Chinese invaded. Taiwan's true value is as a unifying distraction that turns the ire of the Chinese masses toward something other than the CCP. Same thing with the falun gong. In a way, Taiwan and the falun gong serve a similar purpose to WWII Jews and current US immigrants.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure China cares about taking Taiwan. There's not much on Taiwan that would benefit China, aside from TSMC, which the US would destroy or incapacitate if the Chinese invaded.
Taiwan is a long-term goal for the Chinese, who can be very patient. We don't do patience in teh West.
Taiwan's true value is as a unifying distraction that turns the ire of the Chinese masses toward something other than the CCP. Same thing with the falun gong. In a way, Taiwan and the falun gong serve a similar purpose to WWII Jews and current US immigrants.
Yes, I agree. Old tricks that still work.
I think China's plan is like the old Mickey$oft Maxim: Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (or something like that). Among other things they are creating new island outposts (and new islands) in the South China Sea.
Re: (Score:1)
There's not much on Taiwan that would benefit China
Perhaps you should play some games that teach strategy?
Or use google / google maps and count the american air bases encircling main land China.
If you can get Taiwan, you have a wedge between Philippines and South Japan. The Ryukyu islands, you can not hold ...
And Taiwan is a blocker in front of Chinas main population and industrial zones.
I'm not sure China cares about taking Taiwan.
Nevertheless, I agree with that.
China was not involved in a (real) war since
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
LOL, neither russia nor nk are "allies" of China, they are China's vassal territories.
The allies of China are elsewhere - the Middle East, including the gulf monarchies, most of Africa, South and Latin America.
The places, you know, that have been and are treated like shit by the USA.
Now that the USA is treating even its NATO allies as shit, the "allies" part looks for even worse for the USA
Re:the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
China has some valid claim to Taiwan.
Well in the eyes of the PRC. "we failed to conquer you but you're ours really and we might try again" isn't a valid claim in the eyes of anyone who is not keen on invading neighbours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Remind me at what point in history the PRC has ever had control over Taiwan?
They have not. The PRC started out as a revolution and conquered most of the ROC, but did not manage to gain control over Taiwan. I don't think the argument "we failed to conquer you in the past but that means you are ours now" holds much weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"the Chinese". You mean the PRC. I'm not one for believing PRC propaganda, so tell me also what do the Chinese in Taiwan think of whether they consider the PRC to be a conquest.
Anyway either way none of this has much bearing on who has the right to tile whom. The PRC has about as much right to rule over Taiwan as Israel does Palestine or Russia does Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
With some exceptions, Asian people tend to respect other Asian cultures and are largely hands-off militarily.
You are completely ignorant of history, and the modernity for that matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"With some exceptions, Asian people tend to respect other Asian cultures and are largely hands-off militarily."
This is specifically *not* a categorical statement. I am well aware of specific conflicts, such as between China and Japan, as well as Korea and Japan, as well as North and South Korea, as well as internally within Myanmar, as well as between India and Pakist
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No recent Asian inter-nation military campaigns come to mind.
What about China's recent military invasion of Bhutan?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should read the history books a little bit better?
There is only one China: mainland China plus the island of Taiwan.
Unfortunately that country has two governments and both governments call the country with a different name.
One call it: People's Republic of China.
The other ones call it: Republic of China.
Up to you to figure which of the two names is used by wich government.
And to make it perfectly clear: both claim the other part unlawfully seceded from them, and want it back!
Re: (Score:2)
The 'one China' arguably came to an end with the collapse of the Qing dynasty, but in this case one version of the 'government' clearly threatens a military invasion of another one. It isn't an equivalent relationship.
Re: the problem (Score:3)
Get out the tiny violin (Score:5, Funny)
All the tech bros and billionaires backed Trump and now he's fucking them royally.
No, the leopards certainly won't eat MY face.
Like the saying goes, the dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Get out the tiny violin (Score:4, Insightful)
So we need to find a candidate who will seek out and take the counsel of people who are smart in this field.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Get out the tiny violin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funnier. But perhaps the YOB is onto something? America was never that great in absolute terms, at least not for most folks, but it was relatively great when the rest of the world was in ruins. And it only took a couple of really determined and nasty fascists to create all those ruins.
But the story has me reconsidering my next activity monitor... I'm still wearing a Huawei but thought it was my last one and now I'm thinking maybe I can stay the course... However what I really want is something co
The samid touch (Score:5, Insightful)
Simon Hoggart once wrote of a UK politician "Colleagues suspect he has the Samid touch, which is the reverse of Midas – everything he touches turns to dust."
That is certainly true of Trump and his coterie. It's just an endless series of making everything worse: sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident, but always a single direction, downhill.
Re: (Score:2)
More like shit Midas.
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't this mean... (Score:2, Interesting)
Without an interest in Chinese markets, the Chinese won't have influence over these US companies. Correct?
A few days ago, the Chinese decided to restrict US film releases [slashdot.org] in China. That too, appears to be a great outcome: China will cease to be relevant to the shot callers of US movie production. Outstanding.
I'm trying to understand how any of this is a problem. The only actual problem I'm aware of is that TDS sufferers will need to employ yet more cognitive dissonance while trying to square the fac
Re: (Score:2)
Without an interest in Chinese markets, the Chinese won't have influence over these US companies. Correct?
Is it? You could easily replace the two country names to test this statement for truthiness. Let's try it:
Without an interest in the US market, the US will have no influence over these German automakers.
Are you saying that the orange ape, which is trying to restrict the US auto market to foreign companies, so that they'll move to the US is acting like China and making the US irrelevant?
Maybe you're right :)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm attempting to be concerned about the loss of US influence over foreign auto makers:
Please wait...
Please wait...
Concern Fault! I am unable to register concern over this matter. No concern detected.
Allow me to pose a question: First, I will concede your premise that the US is going be less influential in the world as a direct result of Trump and his trade war and other isolationist and hostile policies. Isn't this what you want? Isn't the the US the source of essentially every evil you've ever
Re: (Score:2)
I will concede your premise that the US is going be less influential in the world as a direct result of Trump and his trade war and other isolationist and hostile policies.
You seem to like it, so I'm happy for you.
Re:Wouldn't this mean... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think that having the world devolve into separate silos, then I guess it is a good thing. Personally, I think this is about the worst possible outcome.
Trade between counties reduces the chances of violence between countries - both sides realize that there is something to lose in a war (humans being humans, you can never really eliminate that possibility - but the odds can be reduced). If you cut off interactions the chances of conflict increase. (Also note how much trash-talking there has been about China there is - Biden is guilty there as well.) The tariffs off 145% (or whatever they are now) are setting up the conditions for increased conflict between the US and China. The current path we're on - with tit-for-tat retaliations and increasing insults (mainly from the US... China tends to be much more measured) - makes me fear that outright fighting isn't too far away. This will be bad for everybody except perhaps a few arms dealers.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice Parade of horribles you have there. Very pro-American Hegemony.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is the US market is too small.
The US and it's allies (of which there will always be many, regardless) was large enough back when 80% of Chinese were living in huts and farming rice, and it's much larger now.
Europe is incapable of independently approaching parity with even Chinese semi fab, never mind Taiwan or the US. Europe is far too balkanized to permit the degree of capital agility needed to build out a competitive fabrication industry. If all the money they claim they're going to throw at chips and AI actually materializes
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that is probably the biggest nonsense I have ever seen.
You know nothing about Europe, right?
The only choice Europe has now is which side it will be on: the US and it's allies or the Sinosphere.
Economically? China of course. Why would we "ally" with a declining empire? Economically there is not much to ally anyway. As laws permit: the companies decide with who they make business. No government or bureaucrats as you call them: has any say to where a European company exports or from where it imports, exc
This a good thing. (Score:1)
Sorry that Nvidia would rather sell all their products to China, leading to an all-out Cyberwar and global Monopoly. They are an American company and should put America First
How important is the AI part ??? (Score:1)
Darkness.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is it a "Dark Future" when China uses domestically produced chips? As an American who is not invested in chip fab stocks, this won't impact me at all.
It depends on if we end up also using Chinese produced chips in our infrastructure, business, and personal systems. I am not enthusiastic about the possibility of Chinese controlled backdoors in those chips. I am also not thrilled about potential backdoors in our chips, but if there is going to be a backdoor, I would prefer domestic over foreign.
you're so naive (Score:1)
I am also not thrilled about potential backdoors in our chips, but if there is going to be a backdoor, I would prefer domestic over foreign.
What's China going to do to you? Stop you from visiting China because you said something naughty?
What's America going to do to you? Send you to an El Salvadorian gulag "accidently" because you said something naughty?
Massive oversupply in 3,2,1, 2030 (Score:3)
After the first sanctions hit and factories were left idle, China developed a plan: Converge every year until by 2030 they have a full semiconductor stack using 100% Chinese owned IP that is equal to the best the world can make. It opened three STEM universities dedicated to churning out the 10s of thousands of workers the new industries will need. Some of the first teachers in those universities were workers left without a job because of the original sanctions.
By 2030, just five years from now, I'm guessing that China will have an entire sanction-proof industry churning out semiconductors on a scale only China can do.
Imagine what a world drowning in semiconductors is going to do to the share price of the incumbents. Imagine how the government will react. Imagine the global turmoil that'll result.
Massive oversupply = post-scarcity (Score:2)
Trump has his foot on the breaks (Score:2)
while China has theirs on the accelerator. This will not end well for us.
TIme for Heavy Press 2.0 then? (Score:1)