upvote
It's an ARM-designed CPU core, made in Taiwan. Very little difference from say MediaTek's upcoming Dimensity SoC just announced earlier because it is made on TSMC N3P instead of N2.

I don't think they have any angle with that.

reply
you say that like American lobbyists and Congress people are at-all technically minded and not just hyperbolic princes seeking influence at any cost
reply
To be fair, describing the internet as a series of tubes is rather technical to some extent.
reply
If they said "pipes" network admins probably would have given it a pass.
reply
This thread is the perfect example of useful idiots with astroturfing. This is a CPU core designed by UK company (and owned by Japanese) made in Taiwan on equipment made in EU (with non trivial USA components). Xiaomi here is the easiest to replace in this chain (and the Chinese have very much tried to replace any of the others, failing for now). Yet they are angling for a huge PR win.
reply
ARM is merely an IP portfolio licensing company. They don't really design or build anything. And everyone uses TSMC (who uses ASML). The primary design is still being done by Xiaomi, that's the most unique part of this build.

Stop downplaying how big of an achievement this is.

reply
They license the IP that they design. They design complete chips you can buy and go right to tape out with no changes if you want.
reply
And how did that IP portfolio come into existence? Did it suddenly materialize out of thin air or… did ARM engineers design it?

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt: in your mothertongue, the meaning of “design” is not as broad as in English?

reply
How about Apple M series ARM chip designs? From what I have seen only resemblance with ARM is the ISA.
reply
What about it? Apple has an architectural license which allows them to design their own CPUs with ARM ISA. Most companies that use ARM CPUs don’t.
reply
Really?! Did you read the announcement? C1 ultra cores are designed by ARM.

>The biggest cores on the the Xring O3 are the C1-Ultra. C1-Ultra really powerful cores. They support SME2 (Scalable Matrix Extension 2) for matrix/AI acceleration, SVE2 for data parallelism (SIMD).

>https://www.arm.com/products/silicon-ip-cpu/c1-ultra

reply
deleted
reply
ARM does the design. What are u talking about?
reply
Below is some additional detail about the processor. Like the parent comment notes, ARM licenses IP of an ISA or core designs (see ARM C1-Ultra cores [0]), licensees like Qualcomm then make specific SoC for different use-cases.

  Xiaomi has made the XRING 03 boast a larger die size than the XRING 01, 
  measuring 133mm² compared to its predecessor’s 109mm² dimensions This change 
  was deemed necessary as the flagship SoC features 16MB of SLC cache, not to 
  mention a new “6 + 4” CPU cluster that comprises two ARM C1-Ultra cores 
  running at 4.35GHz, four C1-Premium cores operating at 3.68GHz and lastly, 
  four C1-Pro cores running at 3.15GHz. [1]
0. https://www.arm.com/products/silicon-ip-cpu/c1-ultra

1. https://wccftech.com/xiaomi-xring-03-official-tsmc-3nm-n3p-l...

reply
You are misunderstanding, and, they are not downplaying.

A revision or other reply would benefit from explaining how their value chain x location correspondence is wrong - perhaps missing a step?

Though, in anticipation of a revision, I wonder if its simple as you thought the cores were custom-designed by Xiaomi instead of standard ARM.

reply
Did they license an actual chip design from ARM or just the ISA?
reply
deleted
reply
deleted
reply
I'm not one to cry "foreign bots!" but this thread seems astroturfed after realizing this.
reply
deleted
reply
> I can feel the scores of messages being sent to the federal government from lobbyists saying what a threat Chinese hardware is to national security.

The motivation for such messages may be greedy, but it doesn't mean the facts aren't wrong:

1. As a practical matter, no one can audit systems so thoroughly to determine a system built by an adversary won't act adversarially.

2. Free market incentives work counter to national security all the time, in many ways (e.g. causing domestic capabilities to wither and die).

reply
Can we audit American corporations?
reply
Also, who decides which entities are adversaries? I don't personally consider "China" my adversary. As an American who has to deal with US companies, many of them are far more antagonistic to me than a foreign country 10K km away.

If "China" decides it doesn't like me, my life really isn't going to change much. If my electric company decides it doesn't like me, I'm in big trouble.

reply
Yeah, I don't want China as an adversary. It appears to me that it is a country full of fun, smart and interesting people. And their manufacturing prowess is incredible.

I'm into funny electric vehicles and China makes some beauties!

reply
[dead]
reply
What about Russia and Ukraine?
reply
The answer varies depending on the day.
reply
"Two bald men fighting for a comb", both in demographic collapse and set afire for the usual reasons.
reply
You don't consider them your adversary, while they strong-arm your corporations to invest in China [1] instead of your own country (this becomes "we have to manufacture in China, we don't have the capability here!"), destroy your corporations through espionage [2,3], or through subsidy-enabled dumping prices and preferential treatment [4,5], extract groveling apologies from your firms [6], operate literal police stations on your soil [7], turn your countries into subordinate receivers of orders [8,9], bribe your politicians [10], censor your media [11], universities [12,13,14], advertising and corporations in general [15,16], and even books [17].

While they plan 50 years ahead, we are stuck re-litigating the most basic "united we stand, divided we fall" logic, even while the consequences are all around us. But congratulations on your enlightened individualism.

[1] Apple CEO Tim Cook "secretly" signed an agreement worth more than $275 billion with Chinese officials, promising that Apple would help to develop China's economy and technological capabilities - https://www.macrumors.com/2021/12/07/apple-ceo-tim-cook-secr...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33758673

[3] https://globalnews.ca/news/7275588/inside-the-chinese-milita...

[4] https://www.dw.com/en/from-solar-to-evs-how-china-is-overpro...

[5] EU: Anti-dumping probe into China solar panels - https://apnews.com/general-news-e16007adf4bd468d9acf849734d2...

[6] Mercedes-Benz apologizes to Chinese for quoting Dalai Lama - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mercedes-benz-china-gaffe...

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_police_overseas_servic...

[8] FIPA agreement with China: What's really in it for Canada? - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/fipa-agreement-with-china-wha...

[9] Posters depicting Hong Kong protests removed by Massey University within 12 hours - https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/116723925/posters-depicting...

[10] Businesses with Chinese connections gave Australia's major parties more than $5.5 million between 2013 and 2015, making them easily the largest source of foreign-linked donations. - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-21/australian-groups-str...

[11] Apple Told Some Apple TV+ Show Developers Not To Anger China - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/apple-ch...

[12] Chinese students in Australia fear reprisals at home if they speak out, inquiry hears - https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/12/chine...

[13] Perry Link, emeritus professor of East Asian Studies at Princeton University, says that [..] American scholars practice self-censorship about China and adopt the official narrative of the Chinese regime when talking about sensitive issues. “We don’t talk about ‘Taiwan independence.’ We talk about ‘the cross-Strait relations.’ We don’t talk about ‘the occupation of Tibet.’ We don’t call the June 4th Massacre ‘massacre.’ - https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-the-american-academy-misle...

[14] China pressured Concordia University to cancel event with Uighur activist - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/chinese-officials-co...

[15] Leica Camera has sought to distance itself from a promotional video depicting photographers covering the deadly Tiananmen Square crackdown three decades ago, after it landed the German company in hot water in China. - https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3006817/lei...

[16] Mercedes-Benz apologizes to Chinese for quoting Dalai Lama - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mercedes-benz-china-gaffe...

[17] China gets German children's book about COVID withdrawn - https://www.dw.com/en/china-gets-german-childrens-book-about...

Edit as reply ("posting too fast", thanks HN) to all the "but the US also does bad things" "counterarguments":

> Seriously, Americans can do this chickenshit nonsense, but you are the worldwide problem.

I'm European, and not stupid enough to believe that because the US is acting poorly or even in some cases hostile to Europe (to say nothing of the Middle East or South America), that we should roll over and allow China to subjugate us instead. Neither should the US. This is "you are not pure and innocent enough for self-defense" logic. Please don't drag the rest of us down in some deluded attempt at atonement.

reply
> You don't consider them your adversary, while they strong-arm your corporations to invest in China [1] instead of your own country (this becomes "we have to manufacture in China, we don't have the capability here!"), destroy your corporations through espionage [2,3], or through subsidy-enabled dumping prices and preferential treatment [4,5], extract groveling apologies from your firms [6], operate literal police stations on your soil [7], and turn your countries into subordinate receivers of orders [8,9].

All of South America already feels that way about the USA. Add the EU if we include the duopoly of Visa and MasterCard.

Sadly Colombia just elected a US citizen as the new president. The "subordinate receivers of orders" status has been achieved.

reply
This is what will happen when a hegemon realizes their power and elects someone scrupulous. That's why it's important to be the hegemon.

Meanwhile look at the southchina sea shenanigans and the behavior of Chinese fishing fleets all over the world.

reply
>[1] instead of your own country (this becomes "we have to manufacture in China, we don't have the capability here!"), destroy your corporations through espionage [2,3], or through subsidy-enabled dumping prices and preferential treatment [4,5], extract groveling apologies from your firms [6], operate literal police stations on your soil [7], and turn your countries into subordinate receivers of orders [8,9].

As a Canadian, I am going to be honest and say that I thought at first you were describing the United States of 2026.

I mean, we have a much better opinion of China. As does almost the entire world. For extremely good reason.

There is one country bombing endless nations, stealing resources, engaging in sea piracy, undermining democracies, trying to destroy the West, and so on, and it is the United States of America under a juvenile halfwit self-dealing shitbag pedophile, working on behalf of an utterly deranged group of kleptocrats.

Seriously, Americans can do this chickenshit nonsense, but you are the worldwide problem.

reply
Sounds like a loser diatribe. Nobody asked your country to do anything with China. Was your government's and corporations choice and yes they had to pay for the privilege of cheap labor and later for advanced manufacturing capacity. I do not see anything wrong with that.

Secret police in Canada and stuff like this - yes go ahead nail them and kick those out of the country. Has nothing to do with the trade.

reply
> Sounds like a loser diatribe. Nobody asked your country to do anything with China. Was your government's and corporations choice and yes they had to pay for the privilege of cheap labor and later for advanced manufacturing capacity.

No, the GP's comment is an attempt to correct the mistake you were so kind to outline. There's no reason we must stick with the approach set by a previous set of leaders who turned out to be short-signed and naive, and course corrections start with outlining the problems and contradictions of the present course.

reply
What's short-sighted and naive is believing that globalism can be reversed, that economic efficiency can be overcome by political will, and that knowledge can be contained to one country. More and deeper international economic and political entaglements are inevitable. How can an adversarial relationship with one of the most advanced countries with abundant production and labor capacity help anything? Economic nationalism and high tech are incompatible.
reply
> economic efficiency can be overcome by political will

It was political will that created that economic efficiency, that you're now trying to convince us is just a fact of nature.

> Economic nationalism and high tech are incompatible.

China is economically (and traditionally) nationalist - that's why they subsidize and protect their important industries: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49421633

reply
> I don't personally consider "China" my adversary

They're not an adversary in the same way that a guy demanding your wallet at knifepoint is, or a company able to cut off your electricity is.

China is an adversary in the sense that they're a totalitarian government, who, by the nature of that system, cannot brook any sort of opposition to their ideology, plans, or desires. All within the state, none without. That sort of system cannot exist in harmony with other systems for any extended length of time because doing so will suggest that the powers-that-be in China might not have all of the answers to the human condition. Either you fall in line, or you have to be eliminated.

If you're an American used to calling other Americans antagonistic, that's not going to work out well for you over the long run.

reply
Instead of railing about ideology, try comparing the actions of the U.S. and China over the past 20 years. The U.S. has been far more interventionist and aggressive; China appears to be maturing and the U.S. is regressing.
reply
Tell that to the fishermen on the shores of the South China Sea, Hong Kong, people in India along the border, and of course, Taiwan.

I'll agree that the US is regressing, but it's becoming more like China. You have an elite that are putting themselves beyond any sort of accountability. You need more and more connection to them in order to get anywhere in society. How long before you see them enshrine themselves in the constitution and create a cadre system?

reply
[dead]
reply
An "adversary" can also just be a country we're in competition with. Both America and China are in competition for the global leader. Adversary could be akin to friendly competition if we all wanted to operate this way.
reply
> That sort of system cannot exist in harmony with other systems for any extended length of time

When you mark the scoresheet according to actual number of invasions, our capitalist liberal democracy has performed much worse than their mixed-economy authoritarian technocracy.

This is a lot of needlessly "ideology vibes"-based judgment on a matter where plenty of actual evidence (history, geopolitical incentives, culture) is readily available.

reply
> When you mark the scoresheet according to actual number of invasions, our capitalist liberal democracy has performed much worse than their mixed-economy authoritarian technocracy.

And how many of those invasions have been of other countries with democratic-republican forms of government in the last 30 years?

> This is a lot of needlessly "ideology vibes"-based judgment on a matter where plenty of actual evidence (history, geopolitical incentives, culture) is readily available.

Then let's take a look at more of that evidence. How's Tibet doing these days? Did the CCP decide that they, too, need to follow international law and withdraw all forces and government infrastructure from the region after invading it in 1950? How about the agreement with Hong Kong? Have they stopped ramming fishing boats in the "disputed" parts of the South China Sea? I quote that because according to international law, there is no dispute; China is just enforcing piracy.

I'd also like to say, they're not an authoritarian technocracy. They're totalitarian. China's political, military, economic, and cultural institutions are all fundamentally guided by the cadre system, which is a version of the party vanguard system suggested by Lenin. A person is paid to be a professional revolutionary of sorts. That person's influence and prospects within the cadre system are not judged solely by merit; they're judged by adherence to a dogma, which is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in this case. This isn't just "ideology vibes", it's a description of the system as it is as a practical matter.

Imagine having a person who is professionally Trumpist at your company constantly making sure that what you do is in line with what the GOP under Trump wants. For a practical example, let's think about tariffs. Does your business suffer because of the tariffs ordered by Trump? Well, no it does not, because that's not what the Trumpist cadre member would say. You wouldn't be filing lawsuits to try and lift those tariffs.

Furthermore, now imagine that the GOP in this case is the only party allowed to have majority control of the government, not just as a de facto matter, but as a de jure matter as well since it'd be a part of the constitution.

There will, sooner or later, be a Chinese Trump. It'll be very difficult to gauge from the outside, because of the restricted flow of information in and out of the country, but it will eventually happen. When that happens, there will be no putting the brakes on anything.

reply
> That sort of system cannot exist in harmony with other systems for any extended length of time

How in the world is the USA existing with other systems then? By taking it all over with force and subterfuge? It is obvious to those with eyes that China, despite being "totalitarian" has been the better actor (compared to the USA) on the world stage for decades now.

> If you're an American used to calling other Americans antagonistic, that's not going to work out well for you over the long run.

Yea, because Americans are fucking violent jerks and can only get what they want through threats and intimidation.

reply
If you were able to determine in 5 seconds whether or not a person was a violent jerk, it would take you ~28 years of around-the-clock meetings to assess >= 50% of the current U.S. population, thereby rendering this comment meaningful and true. If you needed a whopping 30 seconds, it would take ~166 years. Better get cracking!
reply
If I lacked the wit to understand sampling, that would be true.
reply
But as a Brit. America, our supposed ally is slapping tarriffs on us, and threatening our actual allies. China not so much. So which are our adversaries?
reply
> slapping tariffs

Countries change trade policy often as is deemed advantageous. For example, the UK decided to leave the customs union of the EU and start treating trade with the continent as it does everywhere else, and did so by no less than a direct popular vote, not a contrived set of executive orders facing court challenge. Does the EU crow on about how the UK is now an enemy? They would certainly have more long-term evidence for it than they would over changes in trade policy with the United States.

> threatening our actual allies

American military leadership was asked to consider plans for an attack on Greenland. American military leadership refused. [0]

I wonder how Chinese military leadership would do if ordered to invade Taiwan.

[0] https://www.firstpost.com/world/trump-asked-us-special-force...

reply
I mean, China's seems to be doing an okay job at coexisting with other countries.

Especially when you compare it to the US, where our democracy and capitalism have led us to numerous wars and war-crimes.

Like, just this year, we've committed far more breaches of international law than china https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_the_2026_Iran_war#...

In recent history, we performed dozens of violent coups and destroyed countries in the name of overthrowing communist regimes.

China has a totalitarian government, but it's existing more in harmony with the world than the US government has for all of my life, so I don't think you can say that the Chinese government will conflict with other countries while in the same breath implying the US government is better.

reply
You're going to find China's history as wanting as the US's in that regard. Plenty of Chinese arms found their way to theaters of war in all corners of the globe during the latter half of the 20th century, and continue to do so in the Donbas today.

Or maybe you can look into what happens to nations in China's immediate neighborhood that resist Beijing's designs.

North Korea, a prison camp masquerading as a country, exists solely because of China. Had Mao not intervened on behalf of the Kim family, UN forces would have asserted control up to the Yalu. To this day, the Chinese have been breaking international law by helping Pyongyang dodge sanctions over the DPRK's nuclear weapons program. Same with Russia, actually, despite them both sitting on the UNSC, which passed the sanctions.

China also illegally occupies Tibet and has for over 75 years.

All of this points to a country very much not existing in harmony with the world.

As far as the US government being better, it's not about any given government being better. It's about whether or not totalitarianism can continue on peacefully. It cannot. This is evident on its face.

reply
Kind of an okay job, but they could do better. I might feel differently if I lived in Tibet, Hong Kong, Xinjian, Myanmar, etc.
reply
[dead]
reply
> Also, who decides which entities are adversaries? I don't personally consider "China" my adversary. As an American who has to deal with US companies, many of them are far more antagonistic to me than a foreign country 10K km away.

I could see a dude in Ukraine having exactly the same perspective vis-a-vis Russia in 2013, and look how that turned out.

Myopically individualistic perspectives, focused on your individual wants and day-to-day experiences, miss a lot of stuff.

reply
> I could see a dude in Ukraine having exactly the same perspective vis-a-vis Russia in 2013, and look how that turned out.

Nobody in Ukraine who wasn't already explicitly pro-Russian thought that in 2013, did they? Russia-aligned individuals poisoned the third president of Ukraine during his presidential campaign, very likely with direct assistance. You'd probably have to go back to Leonid Kuchma's term to find average Ukrainians not profoundly concerned about Russia, and that was a relative high point.

reply
> You'd probably have to go back to Leonid Kuchma's term to find average Ukrainians not profoundly concerned about Russia, and that was a relative high point.

You're being too literal. I'm sure Ukrainians weren't actually so stupid as many Americans can be.

My point is you could transplant that logic (elevate individual, myopic interests and gripes; lose sight of the community you're part of), into a situation that we've already seen play out (Ukraine v. Russia).

reply
I am observing that it is a bad analogy.

China is not a threat to the daily life of individual Americans in the way Russia has always presented a threat to Ukrainians.

China isn't even a threat to the the daily life of individual Americans in the way that Russia was (and arguably is)

reply
> China is not a threat to the daily life of individual Americans in the way Russia has always presented a threat to Ukrainians.

My whole point is that looking at it from the perspective of the "daily life of individual Americans" is the wrong one.

Also, while no two situations are going to be exactly the same, I think it's false to say "China is not a threat to the daily life of individual Americans." It'd be happy to turn the US into a weak, low-tech country whose only exports are agriculture and natural resources. I can't find it right now, but I've read a quote from some high-level Chinese official to that effect.

reply
If you are an American company US backdoors are annoying but hard to avoid given the government will find ways to compell access anyway. Adding potential avoidable foreign back doors does not improve your security.

I wouldn't tell a Chinese company to buy from Cisco. I wouldn't tell an American one to buy from Huawei.

reply
Exactly. This is not a question of whether you get spied on, it is a question of who gets the monopoly for spying on you. Between extortion groups, cybercrime syndicates, foreign governments and last but not least my own government, there's not much room for real privacy online these days.
reply
>> 1. As a practical matter, no one can audit systems so thoroughly to determine a system built by an adversary won't act adversarially.

> Can we audit American corporations?

What's your point? Did you even read what I wrote? The five words of your comment seem to be pretty sloppy:

1. If you're taking about their products, which is probably what you meant: if you think they're your adversary, then the answer is no, it's pointless.

2. But your comment as written reads as if you're talking about auditing the corporations themselves, which does in fact happen (for tax and financial reporting purposes).

reply
This is essentially asking every country in the world to be subservient to US tech in perpetuity. They didn't sign up for that.
reply
To make conversation productive, please define "national security" in this case.

For example, if China can't install its hardware in Pentagon, why is it a threat to national security.

On the other hand, if you say, Intel will be in trouble because of these chips, then I would say, so what? Wasn't this a dream of MBAs, educated by the top US schools, to outsource everything in business to cheaper service providers (e.g. manufacturing to China, software development to India and etc,.)

Where is the threat and what is the threat?

reply
"To make conversation productive, please explain how outsourcing your strategic industry and know-how to geopolitical rivals and enemies is a threat."

You have a funny definition of "productive".

reply
In the 1980s, when Japanese firms were 7 of top-10 in world market cap, the trade magazines were screaming about Japanese fifth gen computers, silicon prowess, etc. and cyberpunk SF mandatorily had Japanese locales thrown in ...
reply
3. China was not stupid enough to rely solely on the free market to develop strategic industries. A few deliberately old sources to show this is not a sudden new development:

Back in 2014, the central government set up the China National Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund. - https://www.scmp.com/tech/enterprises/article/2145422/how-ch...

Over the next decade, China plans to invest up to RMB 1 trillion (US$161 billion) into its domestic semiconductor industry as it seeks to become a global power in the sector. In recent years, Beijing has repeatedly stated that developing its own integrated circuit (IC) industry is of integral national strategic concern. - https://www.china-briefing.com/news/chips-all-in-investing-i...

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

reply
> 3. China was not stupid enough to rely solely on the free market to develop strategic industries. A few deliberately old sources:

Yeah, I agree. The US and its allies took the wrong lessons from the economic aspect of the cold war. They saw Western capitalism out-perform Soviet central planning, then let capitalist ideologues run amok.

China has the advantage: since it's not run by capitalist ideologues it better able to correct the deficiencies of capitalism AND it can exploit predictable capitalist behavior for strategic advantage.

reply
> Over the next decade

That was a 2016 article.

We're at the other end of that investment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZSvDYDfd78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBhQrz9EJ40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KrdcTsScKk

It did not quite turn out like china wanted.

This isn't to be dismissive of what they ARE delivering - china has the potential to be very big in RAM, and Storage in the comming decades. But I'm not sure that they met their industrial and geopolitical goals with these efforts.

reply
OH, BUT we have fable! We have AI! of course we can answer these questions? can't we? which is true: America's AI is a super powerful defense against our enemies or America's AI is too stupid to defend against such a threat, and only sactions and import controls will suffice.

Just seems like you're inventing things to be scared of.

reply
it's a hardware problem, you run into engineering, materials, and physics issues. we're not talking about reverse engineering software
reply
Xiaomi doesn't do business in the US anyway.
reply
The angle is to pressure other countries to ban them as well.
reply
deleted
reply
same playbook than Huawei
reply
I wonder if the Trump T2 phone will get this chip.
reply
Man I forgot about that nonsense. I can’t imagine any self respecting person picking one up.
reply
It's a U24 Pro - somebody compared them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1ytw85Npt8
reply
So it’s an overpriced middle of the road phone to signal ones devotion to Trump and doesn’t actually deliver on several of its core promises (like made in USA).
reply
Just to be accurate, they don't say that it's made in the USA. They only say its assembled in the USA. Perhaps in the past they made some statement that it would have been, but the current box and marketing don't.
reply
Yeah they updated it way late in the game when they couldn’t hide it anymore, well after money had exchanged hands. That certainly qualifies as a broken promise.
reply
Still a massive market looks like.
reply
Last i read most of the money came from people not reading the fine print on their $100 deposit and only a few thousand have actually been distributed.

Looking now I see maybe tens of thousands of open orders still

reply
"Looking now"? Is this something they publicize for some unknowable reason?
reply
I don’t want to get bogged down in a source dispute - this is very easy to search and/but I only spent about 60s on it. I am hardly an expert. Feel free to look it up as well and tell me how I am entirely wrong. This was a combination of AI responses + thumbing through the sources linked to make sure it wasn’t invented whole cloth.

I do not think they are selling well. That seems to be the consensus here.

reply
I don't think they are selling well, either. I was wondering at your source since it would be very atypical for any company to give any numbers at all, let alone a company that's so outwardly sketchy, let alone numbers like "This is the number of orders we have standing open despite being actively in production." This is the exact kind of thing I would not expect to be easy to search, and it'd be ripe for AI hallucination.

The only numbers I can find in a quick search of my own are the leaked numbers stating 30,000 orders placed from 10,000 customers, with nothing said about shipped orders.

reply
I mean, yeah?

It's generally a bad idea to use information-handling hardware from your main geopolitical rival.

reply
It can be confusing to follow who the rivals are. Russia and North Korea are friends and Canada is the enemy. China seems more liked than Canada.
reply
It's only confusing if you take a buffoon's attitude at face value, which is rather hard to do in a country where half of the people actively work to thwart what he does.

Which brings me back to my point about totalitarianism.

reply
And everybody forgets the true power of Apple: scale. Can that supposed miracle chip be readily found in million of phones within 6 months? Or will Xiaomi keep selling 90% of their phones with 2 year old chips, reserving these chips to their 2000$ foldables?

This post serves Xiaomi because it implies competitiveness when the reality on the ground will remain unremarkable, and it helps fearmongers because they can latch on to Xiaomi's attempt to appear competitive.

reply
Their power of scale applies to less and less regions. Xiaomi, in particular, delivers that to China where Apple previously slapped and now is becoming a niche player. It's the same as with German car makers. The trend have now reversed, with Chinese manufacturers starting to dominate on foreign markets and it's also something that was unfathomable just a few years back.

They have proven countless of times by now that they are not to be ignored.

reply
When I buy my phones I do not give a flying fuck about "scale". All I care is what do I get for my pesos from various offerings.
reply
What you get for the money IS scale.
reply
Sounds like BS. I got me a nice phone and it is not from Apple
reply
Are you really cheerleading right now for massive, monopolistic, post-capitalism corporations? The thing you have decided to focus on is not only irrelevant to the topic at hand, but irrelevant in the minds of most consumers.

Current Apple hardware has a number of selling points for me, but the number of iPhones they've carelessly pumped into the world is not one of them. If anything, contemplating the amount of slave labor which Apple has contributed to leads to the opposite effect.

Additionally, in China, Apple maintains around a quarter market share vs Android's three-quarters share. The argument you are making is not even coherent.

I myself would be on a Xiaomi phone if GrapheneOS were able to support one.

reply