U.S. trade restrictions will lower Huawei’s smartphone revenues by about $10 billion this year, the firm reported. But that is much less than it originally expected.
Huawei originally projected that the trade restrictions would lower its smartphone revenues by about $30 billion.
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
“It seems it is going to be a little less than that,” Huawei deputy chairman Eric Xu said this week at a news conference, noting that its smartphone business is doing “much better” than originally expected. “You have to wait until our results in March … But a (sales) reduction of more than $10 billion could happen.”
Huawei’s smartphone business had been exploding before the U.S. government got in the way: It generated about $50 billion in revenues in 2018, half of the firm’s overall revenues, and over $31 billion in the first half of 2019. Huawei, the second-biggest maker of smartphones worldwide, had expected to overtake Samsung in the top spot by the end of 2019.
Now, of course, that won’t happen. Huawei will need at least another year to recover from the impact of the U.S./China trade war and its evidence-free blacklisting by the U.S. government.
Helping matters, Huawei’s sales in China have surged since the U.S. blacklisting in a wave of patriotic support for the company. Sales in China are up over 30 percent, year over year, thanks to the U.S. action.
Stooks
<p>"<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">its evidence-free blacklisting by the U.S. government"</span></p><p><br></p><p>I am sure Paul Thurrott is right up there on the list of people that US intelligence shares that kind of information with and any day now you will be looped in on the intel.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#451307">In reply to Stooks:</a></em></blockquote><p>Apparently there isn't <em>anybody</em> on that list because the US hasn't given any evidence to our allies. As I and others have stated before, the evidence wouldn't be covert material. Any evidence would be embodied in the products themselves and easily discovered given governments' resources.</p>
Stooks
<blockquote><em><a href="#451311">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>Ummm OK "skane2600" of thurrott.com comments section. Hey wait is that the CIA or NSA calling your phone so you can give them an update on your latest Intel?</p><p><br></p><p>If the US or its allies had intelligence that China was doing something nefarious via Huawei that they would simply tell the world about it?</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#451317">In reply to Stooks:</a></em></blockquote><p>Do you intend to use that same lame joke on every comment you make on this topic?</p><p><br></p><p>European countries received warnings about Huawei from the US but if they received any evidence of from the US, it apparently isn't convincing since those countries haven't banned Huawei products. As I said "intelligence" is the wrong word to use, it's "evidence" that is important here and hearsay isn't evidence in a technical matter.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#451356">In reply to red.radar:</a></em></blockquote><p>The issue here is whether there are backdoors in Huawei's equipment, not whether they are squeaky clean.</p>
chocolate starfish
<blockquote><em><a href="#451356">In reply to red.radar:</a></em></blockquote><p>We don't know these alleged engineers you have talked to nor do we know you. </p><p><br></p><p>So, do we believe a long respected tech reporter in Thurrott whose future success depends on him being trusted by readers or do we believe a random person posting a comment on an internet comment section?</p><p><br></p><p>I mean you no disrespect as I don't know you but I'll trust the one who has a known history of being genuine and trustworthy.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#451457">In reply to terry jones:</a></em></blockquote><p>Please quote his anti-american comment. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#451392">In reply to NoFlames:</a></em></blockquote><p>If you make a claim and you want others to believe you, you present your evidence. If you don't present evidence there's no basis for believing your claim. it really can't work any other way because not presenting evidence is indistinguishable from not having any. </p><p><br></p><p>In this particular case, the rights of US citizens are being restricted and so the government has an obligation to back up their claim with evidence particularly because the nature of real evidence in this case has no national security implications. Real evidence wouldn't come from covert informants but from engineers. </p><p><br></p><p>As far as the CFO being arrested is concerned, what she has been accused of has nothing to do with the issue here.</p>
PeterC
<p>A 30% increase in home market sales speaks volumes when considering the Chinese Govt tech target of self-reliance by 2025….. </p>