Huawei would have surpassed Samsung to become the number one smartphone maker in the world this year. Then the U.S. happened.
“We would have become the largest [smartphone maker by volume] in the fourth quarter of this year,” Huawei chief strategy officer Shao Yang said Tuesday during a speech in Shanghai. “But now we feel that this process may take longer.”
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
Huawei surpassed Apple to become the second-biggest smartphone maker in the world last year and its heady growth in recent quarters suggested that it would pass Samsung for the top spot by early 2020. But Shao provided some data to prove his contention that this milestone would have happened in 2019, had the U.S. government not blacklisted the firm, triggering software and hardware supply problems.
Huawei, he said, sells 500,000 to 600,000 smartphones every single day. It’s not clear if those figures represent the tally from before or after the blacklisting. But some are estimating that the company’s smartphone sales will fall as much as 25 percent this quarter. And that could continue unless the U.S. blacklisting—a vile trade war tactic disguised as a national security issue—is ended.
Huawei’s rise was all the more impressive because the firm has almost no presence in the U.S. smartphone market.
Bats
<p>LOL…..does anyone care what the Huawei Chief "Strategy" Officer has to say? Of course, he's going to say that.</p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#434659">In reply to Pbike908:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's always funny to me when someone mentions Trump fighting "elitists". He, of course, is an elitist himself although not actually as rich and powerful as he says and imagines he is. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#434773">In reply to HoloLensman:</a></em></blockquote><p>Trump is neither a Globalist or a Nationalist, he just a "Trumpalist" i.e. he looks out only for himself.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435026">In reply to HoloLensman:</a></em></blockquote><p>What sort of "need" are you referring to? Do you think people run for President because they can't find a job or are poor? He ran for President for attention (and if you believe Howard Stern, to get a raise on The Apprentice"). His consistent need for attention is quite obvious.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#434847">In reply to MachineGunJohn:</a></em></blockquote><p>Isn't it obvious? Which of the people you listed position themselves as anti-elitists?</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#434846">In reply to MachineGunJohn:</a></em></blockquote><p>As is the case with the US, if they had discovered a backdoor in equipment they could state it without any security issue. They don't, because they haven't. At least the US has mentioned their belief even if they haven't provided the necessary evidence to back it up. In the absence of any official statement we have no reason to believe it's true.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#434851">In reply to MachineGunJohn:</a></em></blockquote><p>I disagree. The US government discouraged cell companies from featuring Huawei's phones long before the ban which limited their US market performance. We had to buy ours from Amazon. Perhaps a lot of people visiting this site have no problem affording the latest flagship phone but the vast majority of people in the US can't. If being unable or unwilling to spend $1000+ for a smartphone makes one price sensitive, than most in the US fit the criteria. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#435011">In reply to YouWereWarned:</a></em></blockquote><p>What part of the mission-critical 5G infrastructure is our Huawei phone? The broad nature of the ban lays bare the false justification that this is about security.</p>