Alibaba To Set Up New Chip Company Amid Fear of US Tech Dependency (cnn.com) 60
hackingbear shares a report from CNN: China's biggest tech firm announced Wednesday that the new [semiconductor] business will develop artificial intelligence chips for cloud computing, internet-connected devices and other sectors. Alibaba's chief technology officer, Jeff Zhang, said the e-commerce company's advantages in algorithms and data put it in "a unique position to lead real technology breakthroughs in disruptive areas, such as quantum and chip technology." "The market for chips is controlled by America ... and suddenly if they stop selling, what that means, you understand," Alibaba Executive Chairman Jack Ma told university students in Tokyo in April. "That's why China, Japan and any country -- you need core technologies." Ma's remarks came shortly after the U.S. Commerce Department blocked American companies from selling parts to ZTE, a Chinese tech company that relied on U.S. suppliers, including chipmakers, to manufacture smartphones and telecommunications equipment. Slashdot reader hackingbear adds: "The since-lifted ban woke up China to the (political) risks of dependence on American technologies, just like the U.S. is afraid of dependency on Chinese rare earth products which account for ~80% of world's supplies."
Re: (Score:3)
dont they already have the fabs and plans for everything anyway????
No. The big modern fabs are in Taiwan, not PRC.
Re: (Score:3)
dont they already have the fabs and plans for everything anyway????
No. The big modern fabs are in Taiwan, not PRC.
Actually, each of the big fab houses have larger facilities in the mainland as opposed the island. Labor is cheaper there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have facilities there to soothe the Chinese government. But the thing is, they are two process generations behind because of trade restrictions.
Re: (Score:1)
Random trivia: "dian nao" () is the chinese word for computer, it literally translates as "electric brain". A very appropiate name for an AI chip, I think.
Ma said several things (Score:3, Interesting)
Paraphrase: "Trade should not be used for war, but should instead foster peace."
This does shed some light on the full ramifications of protectionist trade policy... much like thermonuclear war, there are no winners.
Re: Ma said several things (Score:1)
The winner is Putin.
Re: (Score:1)
Says the guy setting up a company to benefit from protectionist trade policy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ma said several things (Score:5, Insightful)
China, for decades, has been engaging in very severely "protectionist" trade policies, which the prior 2 administrations just bent over for and didn't do a damned thing.
In particular, China engages in "hidden" barriers to trade, rather than tariffs. But they are no less barriers.
For example, China may say there is no tariff on imported steel. But will order the semi-state-controlled automobile manufacturers to use only Chinese steel in their factories.
So even though there is not a "tariff", per se, they still aren't buying American steel.
(That's just an illustration, by the way. I'm not talking about steel in particular. They've done similar things all across their centrally-planned economy.)
Trump realizes that... but you didn't. He's negotiating, using tariffs, to get China to bring down those other trade barriers. In an attempt to ultimately remove trade barriers and move closer to free trade.
Honestly. Learn a little about the subject you are discussing. He may be using tariffs, but only as a lever to eventually remove trade barriers.
It's not possible for Trump to start a "trade war" with China. They've been at trade war with us for decades. You just didn't know it, and past administrations were sitting on their thumbs.
Re: (Score:3)
Those are called "non-tariff barriers".
China hasn't been having a trade war with the US, that's nonsense. China is/was an emerging economy and had seen how the US fucked with other similar economies in the region, and did what it thought was right. You can argue that it wasn't the right thing (I would) but now China has reached the stage where it is looking to do trade deals that remove such barriers anyway. CSTPP did it, and it's been talking to the EU about it.
Trump blundered in at just the wrong moment,
Re: (Score:2)
This does shed some light on the full ramifications of protectionist trade policy... much like thermonuclear war, there are no winners.
Yeah, like when you have to partner with a Chinese company to do business there. China has been the most protectionist nation literally for all of recorded history, except maybe a brief moment when you could have given that name to Japan.
Rare Earth Monopoly Nonsense (Score:2, Interesting)
The rare earth metal monopoly the Chinese have is only predicated on their propensity to rape their environment with horrific processing of said metals.
Before China, the US was the biggest producer. It just so happened a Chinese company bought out the US one thanks to Billy "didn't inhale" Clinton administration's inability to understand long term plans.
The second they decide to screw with sales is the second another producer will come out and usurp them (like the Japanese recently did).
It just means that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All it would take is some country in Africa deciding to priortize their infrastructure and education
Can you let us know when that happens?
Re: Rare Earth Monopoly Nonsense (Score:1)
It is already happening. Chinese companies are inveyting heavily in infrastructure and education in several low--cost African countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excess Bitcoin capacity (Score:2)
China developed this huge industry around bitcoin ASICs and mining.
The excess capacity can now be used to make AI chips.
As the cliche goes, "every future product will have a little bit of AI in them"
Extra popcorn, please (Score:3)
I enjoy watching this trade war for some twisted reason. It's like a slow-motion showdown at the Not O.K. Corral. I might change my mind when our collective eye gets put out, but for now the show is bigly great.
China is acting really nervous, while Mr. Orange is giddy jabbing sticks into their beehive (and all beehives for that matter).
Turns out acting batshit insane politically... (Score:2)
... has a chilling effect on our trade. It's so unfair!
Re: Turns out acting batshit insane politically... (Score:1)
The Don wasn't elected as a man, but as a weapon to fuck up globalism that has eviscerated rural America.
Payback is a bitch!
Where will they get ... (Score:1)
Will we see a division named Alibaba and the Forty Thieves?
How many times has this been threatened/Rumored ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really nothing like using a threat instead of action. Not even the Russians were silly enough to fall for that, and always made us deploy before they would negotiate a reduction.
In this case I can't even count the number of times China is going to develop it's own OS, it's going to Develop it's own X86 clone. You know what it's true. They will do it as soon as they figure they can steal what they need to make it happen and it's in their interest to do so. If you think otherwise you haven't been paying attention since Nixon opened up China.
Re: (Score:2)
So knowledgeable. Except as reported right here on Slashdot numerous times this year, China has already licensed x86 from AMD and are in fact producing their own chips which are almost identical to Epyc.
Yeah what's your point ? That just reinforces what I said an you were too dense to understand. China is doing things that make sense for China, when they make sense for China displacing dependence on western IP by hook or by crook has always been their game.
It's only dimwits like you that believe it when they say things like "Oh we wouldn't of done this really we wouldn't but you forced our hand, how bout kissing our ass to make it right"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah what's your point ? That just reinforces what I said an you were too dense to understand.
Obviously my point was that it's already happened. Yeah, I feel so stupid.
Yeah seeing as you can't distinguish an ongoing process from one time events.
Re: (Score:1)
It's like how Germany and the rest of the NATO "allies" are threatening to increase their defense spending to the required 2% by 2024. It'll never happen, but it sounds good.
Can anyone tell me why we have a military alliance with them? To have a military alliance, you have to have a military. They're just free riding on us and laughing all the way to the bank. They have nice things because they don't have to pay for defense. Then they sneer at us because we're militarist fascist baby-killers. Why do
Re: How many times has this been threatened/Rumore (Score:1)
Officially NATO was founded as a way to be prepared for when Germany rises again and starts anotger world war.
Also officially, Soviet Russia applied for membership, and was denied. Shortly after, Germany itself became a member of this alliance against themselves.
And they pay for their own weapons. So far there has been only one NATO member who has ever been tardy with their payments (and it's not Germany).
You tell me why you have this alliance.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know, man. That's a really good question. Why the hell are we in the business of defending Europe from...the Germans? Why isn't it Europe's responsibility? Why aren't they paying for themselves? They can't even pay the minimum 2%. They're cheapskates, and ungrateful ones at that. They repay our generosity with hateful rhetoric about how we are baby-killing monsters who need to get out of Europe. Yaknow, I agree with them.
Do we really have something to lose as Americans if we pull back our e
Re: (Score:2)
Your whole argument is flawed. One of the most social welfare states in Europe is Sweden and they aren't even in NATO. So you can have both. You Americans don't have it because you simply don't want to.
Back in the Cold War the countries now in the EU had vastly more military spending and in fact had more social benefits than they have now, where much of it has been privatized.
Re: (Score:1)
Why the hell are we in the business of defending Europe from...the Germans? Why isn't it Europe's responsibility?
And how come Germany is part of the defense against itself? How does that make sense?
Why aren't they paying for themselves?
They are. Every NATO member has to pay for the upkeep of the NATO.
They can't even pay the minimum 2%.
Nobody can without going into ever increasing national debt. And the Maastrict criteria for the Euro's stability don't allow that.
I know that 2% doesn't seem like much, but it's of the GDP, not of tax revenue. So these 2% can be a multiple of a government's entire budget.
Especially when only a small percentage of the budget goes to the military, as is the cas
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Correct. I fully support the disbanding of NATO.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Putin's panzers would be in Paris in no time.
Unlikely. Not only has Putin never started a war, France is also an important business partner for Russia. And there are a few countries between Russia and France.
Europeans won't fight for their countries and their militaries are an underfunded joke.
No, they are busy fighting for your country, and paying for it with their own taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
china already makes their own chips (memory, cpu) and has their own os (kylin). that's not the issue here. AI on a chip is.
And China has been pursuing it's own AI strategy all along. Given its military and economic importance (scale of 1 to 10 it's about a 90) is there a chance in hell they will willingly be dependent on any outside nation for the tech ?
Re: (Score:2)