Sources: White House holds off Huawei reprieve after China counter-punch

US suppliers are still staring into the abyss as reports emerge the US Government has halted its special-permissions programme to work with Huawei due to Chinese retaliation.

According to Bloomberg, applications for special-licenses to continue supplying Huawei with US components, products and services are currently on hold, as the US Government ponders the latest counter-move from the Chinese Government; a halt to purchases of US agricultural equipment.

Just as there was a moment to celebrate, dozens of US firms are now allegedly back to square one.

The licenses themselves have proved to be popular, with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross suggesting his department had received 50 applications, as of last week. This is not to say 50 companies will be given permission, the US Government has hinted the majority will be turned down, though it is back to purgatory the suppliers go.

Entry onto the Entity List has caused a significant headache for numerous parties around the world. Not only do the US suppliers have to figure out where they are going to recapture lost revenues, but potential customers in other markets have to assess the quality and resilience of the products following a disruption to the supply-chain.

Last month, Ross announced the Commerce Department would start accepting applications for licenses to receive permission to trade with Huawei. That said, no advice was offered on the criteria said applications would be measured against, aside from an ill-defined reference to national security.

What is also worth noting is the mentality of those considering the applications. Refusal would be front of mind, unless the application was compelling enough.

However, this has all been turned upside-down.

We might have been expecting retaliation from Chinese Government, though few would have assumed the White House would snap the olive branch extended to US suppliers who are losing a major customer. This is allegedly what is happening today.

This tit-for-tat trade battle has now entered the realms of finger pointing. Trump has suggested he would loosen controls on Huawei if China increased purchases of US agricultural equipment. China has stopped purchases because the noose is still firm grasped, but the US is not willing to let go because China has not ramped up its purchases.

It’s a Mexican stand-off with private companies, in both countries, feeling the pain of government posturing and flexing, as egos are massaged by enablers and yes-men looking to gain favour with short-sighted and morally-bankrupt politicians.

Looking at the collateral damage, numerous US technology companies saw share price decline following the rumours. Skyworks Solutions, where 10% of revenues are attributable to Huawei, recently reported quarterly earnings with a $127 million hole in the spreadsheets. Total revenues were 16% down in comparison to the same period of 2018, prior to the Huawei headache.

Interestingly enough, there are several companies who have publicly stated they have applied for licences. Micron and Xilinx, two US semiconductor companies, have said the license is key as their role in the supply chain can be replaced by a foreign alternative.

If the rhetoric of the trade-war is to help US companies in the long-run, the very opposite is being done with these two organisations; once they are out of the supply chain, it will be very difficult to get back in. Most likely the only way will be to renegotiate contracts at less favourable rates to convince Huawei to ditch newly found alternatives.

Google is another which will pray for the end of the trade-war and ban on supplying Huawei due to the emergence of Harmony OS, the Chinese vendors in-house OS which could be applied to smartphones and smart devices. The emergence of another contender in the OS segment could lead to Google losing real-estate on millions (if not billions) of devices for its products such as Google Play, Chrome and Google Maps.

Right now, it is difficult to see this trade-war as anything more than a battle of egos. It was supposed to counter nefarious activities of the Chinese Government, creating a platform for US companies to thrive. However, with alternatives being sought and created, the temporary damage could turn permanent very quickly.

US suppliers do not want to permanently lose a lucrative position in the supply chain of one of the worlds’ fastest growing technology companies, though that is the reality some will have to face.

Another Trump tweet paints an uncomfortable picture for Google

Twitter is the battlefield and an iPhone his weapon; the hawkish President Trump has seemingly declared war on the hipsters and IT geeks of Google.

Once again, with little evidence, Trump has declared war on a technology company. This time however, the Commander in Chief has directed his venom towards a domestic enemy of the Oval Office. Thanks to the seemingly unfounded accusations of tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel, the President now has the idea Google is under the influence of the Chinese Government.

Speaking at a conference, Thiel used his keynote speech to launch an attack at the internet giant. Theil posed three questions to the audience; firstly, how many foreign intelligence agencies have infiltrated Google’s AI work. Secondly, whether Google’s management team believes it has been infiltrated by China. And finally, why it was working with the Chinese Government and not the US Government.

To be clear, aside from Thiel’s accusations, there is little evidence of such grand conspiracy theories.

That said, the burden of truth is not a consideration which is greatly appreciated by the current administration. Throughout the entire Huawei saga, no evidence of collusion with the Chinese Government has been presented to the general public, and it seems it hasn’t been presented to allied Governments either. Numerous nations have refused the call to ban Huawei without suitable evidence, and the resistance continues today.

Bearing this in mind, the Googlers should have something to worry about. Trump has demonstrated he can make life awkward for those who get his wrong side.

For the moment, there are no details of what an investigation would entail or whether the threat of treason is genuine. Another trend which we have witnessed over the last 29 months is the huffing and puffing nature of the President. This might be nothing more than a bicep flex against a company deemed to be a domestic enemy.

Trump has had a difficult relationship with Google over the last few years, with the President and many of his supporters suggesting conservative voices are being supressed on the digital highway. Perhaps we should not be surprised Trump has targeted another mainstay of Silicon Valley.

One has to question how many fronts the Trump war campaign can fight simultaneously; the enemies of the White House are starting to add up.

Industry quietly lobbies against Trump’s anti-globalisation agenda

Slowing down the progress made by Huawei on the global stage might be a win for the White House, but US firms are not seeing the benefits as some are reportedly lobbying against the infamous ban.

In a televised interview this morning, Huawei Founder Ren Zhengfei suggested sales forecasts will be negatively hit by the firms debut onto the US ‘Entity List’, taking two years to get back onto the 2018 trajectory. For the White House, this might be vindication of its aggressive anti-Huawei agenda, but not everyone is happy about how events are unfolding.

According to Reuters, US semiconductor firms are quietly lobbying the US Department of Commerce in an attempt to limit the negative impact of the ban. Let’s no forget that while the White House might seem against globalisation trends right now, the success of these firms is largely based on the idea of free-trade and capitalising on the rapid evolution of international markets.

The issue which these firms face is one of commercial loss and gain. Huawei is one of the industry’s biggest consumers of semiconductor products, with the firm rumoured to spend roughly $20 billion a year on such products. When you look at the impact on some firms, you can see why the semiconductor industry is getting a bit twitchy.

Last week, Broadcom lowered its sales forecast for the year by $2 billion, pointing towards one of its customers being caught up in an international trade-war. Although Broadcom has not explicitly stated how much of the total revenues are attributable to Huawei, firms are only compelled to do so when it is more than 10% of the total, the numbers would suggest it is not far off that percentage.

And Broadcom is not alone on relying on Huawei as a customer. Qorvo depends on Huawei for 11% of its total revenues, while Lumentum has said Huawei accounted for 18% of all shipments during the last quarter. As a result, Lumentum’s sales forecast is now $30-35 million less for the year. Xilinx is another chipmaker which has been impacted by the ban on selling components to Huawei, and there are others as well including Intel and Qualcomm.

As a result, numerous lobbying efforts are reportedly being held behind closed doors to mitigate the impact. This might be exemptions or the creation of loopholes, but the friendly-fire is quite notable in this segment.

What is worth noting is that there are other lobby efforts going on also. Google is rumoured to be in active conversations, suggesting its operating system Android should be exempt from the ban on the grounds of national security. Google is arguing that should it be banned from working with Huawei, it would not be able to provide timely security updates which could make the devices vulnerable to hacking and data breaches.

However, there is a commercial angle to all of these arguments which might gain more traction in the minds of the government puppeteers.

At Google, the firm has a dominant position in the OS market. Huawei’s alternative OS might not be able to dislodge this position, but it does have a significant domestic market to drive user adoption. If a suitable alternative to Android emerges from the Chinese telco flagbearer, it would not be unimaginable to see mass adoption in the Chinese market. Once it has domestic domination, it would not be unusual to see international expansion to the China-friendly nations. This would potentially erode Google’s influence on the world.

In the semiconductor space, the risk is of the emergence of a homegrown Chinese-semiconductor industry.

This is not to say China does not already have a presence in the semiconductor space but forcing Huawei away from the US could be the catalyst the slumbering sector needs. Companies like Shenzhen Fastprint Circuit Technologies and Jiangsu Changjiang Electronics Technologies have been making financial gains in recent months, both in terms of revenues and share price, while Huawei’s HiSilicon has also been ramping up.

The US is dominant in the semiconductor market and will probably continue to be. There is a gap in competence for core technologies in the Chinese segments to eclipse this position, though the risk is erosion of profits. The more competitors there are on the market, the lesser the market share for US firms. This assumption might well be exaggerated when you consider the preference of Chinese firms for a homegrown supply chain.

For the semiconductor industry, this should be seen as a red-flag. The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) has already suggested the industry is in a bit of a slump at the moment, with sales for April down 14.6% year-on-year. The SIA does have international members, though its biggest role is to represent the interests of US manufacturers. The last thing these firms need right now is more bad news when the market is already dampening.

The result of this friendly-fire is conversations behind closed-doors. The Trump administration is seemingly trying to dilute the influence of China on the rest of the world, though it appears to be having the same impact on some US firms. We’ve said this before, but the result of this trade-war seems to be nothing by a net-loss globally right now; no-one is winning, and it seems to be a matter of damage limitation.

What the White House should be wary of is whether this anti-China agenda is starting to look like a personal vendetta for the President. If there is notable damage to US firms as well as Chinese, the White House must question whether the current strategy is the most effective.

Is ‘Make America Great Again’ is the motto of the White House, it would be useful for the rest of us to understand how much friendly-fire will be tolerated in the quest to destroy the Silk Road.

US officials ask for delay to Huawei ban on competition grounds – report

Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought has requested the ban on Huawei technologies be delayed by two years, sounding very similar to Huawei’s own argument.

In a letter to the White House, Vought is arguing the ban should be delayed in certain areas to ensure national security considerations and objectives can be suitably met in the new procurement landscape. Vought is currently on the clock, as rules signed into law last year are to be officially introduced in 2020. These laws would place a ban on any government funds being used to purchase Huawei products, services or components.

The issue which is currently being faced is in the procurement functions. Vought is suggesting the ban has been rushed in and would significantly reduce the number of vendors available for government agencies to work with. Interestingly enough, this is remarkably similar to the argument Huawei has been using to counter the ban. Of course, this reference would certainly not be made by the White House.

Plenty of arguments have been put forward by the under-fire Chinese firm, most recently there has been a challenge to the constitutional legitimacy of the rules, though the competition claim is one which was made back in October 2018.

At the time, Huawei suggested that banning its technologies and services in the US could hand control of the global 5G economy over to China. In a filing to the FCC, Huawei suggested the price and speed of infrastructure deployment would be impacted as competition would be reduced. This is quite a reasonable point to make as this segment of the telecom’s world is incredibly short on tier-one suppliers, or at least those which can match the quality of equipment provided and the support services which follow.

The letter from Vought is not making the exact same point, but the principle is very similar. Too many contractors rely on Huawei in their own supply chain, therefore banning Huawei would prevent any government agencies from working with these vendors. This would decrease competition for valuable contracts, potentially pushing up the price while lowering the quality of service offered.

Although the US has made its stance against China and Huawei very clear, the White House has shown on numerous occasions it is willing to be flexible with its own principles if it suits its own agenda. President Donald Trump attempted to reverse the ban on ZTE last year, once it had achieved its aims, only to face opposition in the House.

It would appear the national security argument can once again be ignored if there is too much pain is experienced by federal agencies. There seems to be little concern of the impact to private industry, see the complaints from rural telcos or those organizations where Huawei is an important customer, with these companies little more than pawns ready for sacrifice.

Perhaps we should be surprised at the consistency of hypocrisy coming out of the White House, but such are the lowly levels standards are currently being set, we are not.

FCC and Oval Office locking horns over 5G

The FCC originally looked like a diligent foot-soldier for the President, but with the nationalised 5G infrastructure argument seemingly emerging again, heads are set to butt.

Reports have been emerging in various corners that the White House is revisiting plans to develop a nationalised 5G network, a plan originally raised in January 2018 to keep the US at the front of the technology arms race. The plan was shot-down back then, and the FCC has already raised set the tone of resistance through social media over the last week or so.

Following the President’s twitter rant last month, which saw the Commander-in-Chief bemoan progress being made by the telcos, FCC chiefs set their position out quite firmly.

In the case of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a retweeted message from 2018 reiterates a point which was made when the plans were first suggested; hands-off from the government is the best stance. This seems to be one of the only positions the Democrat and Republican representatives on the board of the FCC seem to agree on; the telcos should build the US 5G network, not the government.

Although the White House has not released any official statement confirming its favour of a nationalised 5G infrastructure, the defensive position entrenched by Pai and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel suggest there have been conversations which neither like. These tweets could be viewed as in-direct opposition, with the pair attempting to get ahead of the game.

According to Politico, this isn’t the only conflict which is emerging either. The Trump 2020 re-election campaign team have been pushing the benefits of a government-owned, wholesale infrastructure, while the current Trump political administration are keen to avoid the topic. While the disagreement is hearsay and reports for the moment, it would not surprise us if the Trump campaign led with such a promise.

This sort of political manoeuvre fits perfectly into the Trump playbook from his first election campaign. It hits pain-points for US citizens in the politically less-attractive states, the very people Trump was able to mobilise in 2016. However, attacking the digital divide in rural communities is not a new trick, Hilary Clinton used this tactic in 2016 also, but a nationalised 5G infrastructure will appeal to those who feel ignored by corporates. Trump has shown he can communicate effectively to those who believe they are under-represented by mainstream politics, and this angle could prove to be an effective tool.

The idea which seems to have been raised here is to create a wholesale network in partnership with a private third-party. The government would fund the deployment of the network, while the third-party would manage the operations and wholesale business, creating a system which would operate like the electricity market, with parties ‘purchasing connectivity’ on a rolling basis.

Theoretically, this position sounds wonderful. The arguments for nationalisation are often very compelling, and it could be justified as an effective way to spend tax-payers money. However, nationalised businesses and infrastructure have been shown to be ineffective time and time again. The government is not equipped to manage such projects in the long-run and not savvy enough to compete against private entities when they emerge. It might sound very appealing to voters who are stuck in the chasm of the digital divide, but it will not help the US in the global technology arms race.

As Brenden Carr, a Republican FCC Commissioner, notes above, private industry is the best way to secure a leadership position in 5G. This is a lesson which has been learned numerous times over the years in the US; when you leave private industry alone, simply creating a legislative and regulatory framework to encourage growth, much can be gained. In the technology world, this is perfectly evident with the success of Silicon Valley.

The dominance of the US on the technology stage is being widely challenged, though it seems the ego of the Trump party is getting in the way of logic. First to market does not necessarily mean the best, but this seems to be the angle which the President’s team is taking.

The big question is what impact this will have on the future for the Republican party. Should these rumours of a nationalised network evolve into reality, a split may well appear in the rank and file. The Republican FCC representatives are clearly not happy about this position, and neither are the science and technology advisors in the White House. However, you can’t argue that such a campaign promise would be very attractive to those who currently reside on the wrong side of the digital divide.

Here is what the Trump 2020 electoral campaign team will have to assess; is the long-term detriment of communications infrastructure a fair trade-off for the lure of ‘Middle America’ votes in the 2020 election? We suspect they won’t be looking much further beyond 2024.

Trump’s Huawei executive order not much more than a power play

Rumours are swirling around Washington DC suggesting President Donald Trump is on the verge of signing another executive order, this one the final blow to Huawei’s US ambitions.

While the document itself will actually have very little impact on Huawei’s business, it is more of a symbolic blow to the kit vendor, as well as other Chinese businesses looking to exploit the riches of the Land of the Free. While the rumours were originally reported last week, by the time you get back to the office on Monday the order may well have been signed.

In a single signature, Huawei, a representation of China’s ambitions in the global technology and telecommunications industry, could be officially and explicitly shut out of the worlds’ largest economies.

Although details on the executive order are limited to rumour and hearsay for the moment, officials have stated this order will not impact electronics companies or products which incorporate Chinese components. This is a political move to demonstrate the power of the US. Trump is making a statement to China; look at what I can do to one of your flagbearers.

As it stands, Huawei’s involvement in US communications infrastructure is pretty minimal. T-Mobile US CEO John Legere has very publicly stated his business will very much avoid using Huawei equipment, while back in August Trump signed the Defense Authorization Act into law which effectively banned any meaningful work Huawei or ZTE could do in the US.

Huawei’s, and ZTE to a lesser extent, condemnation has become nothing more than a symbol of US dominance on the technology world. Trump is posturing, demonstrating what will happen to anyone who challenges the US leadership position. Over the last few months, US delegations have been visiting governments around the world to pitch the idea of a ban, admittedly with varied success, though there have been some willing to listen. Banning ZTE from using US components or IP brought the firm to the brink of extinction. The US forced Canada to arrest the Huawei CFO. A lot of this is a demonstration of power.

This is of course a complex and rich tapestry, and there are numerous intertwining and independent narratives going on. Some of it will be political, some economic, some espionage assumptions will be true and there will be validity to accusations of a government-influenced unfair playing field. This is an incredibly complex matter. But look at what the executive order actually is.

Huawei is already incredibly limited in the US, the damage to ambitions has already been dealt, this is chest beating from Trump.

White House congratulates itself for catching AI bug

President Trump is set to sign several bills into law, each of which aims to stimulate US ambitions in future technologies and productivity.

While the lion’s share of the attention will be directed towards artificial intelligence, there are other bills which have been slipped in including advanced manufacturing and Quantum Information Science. One of the more important groups which is emerging from this announcement, the National Council for the American Worker, is perhaps the one which will get most over-looked though.

“I am eager to work with you on legislation to deliver new and important infrastructure investment, including investments in the cutting-edge industries of the future,” Trump said in a White House statement. “This is not an option. This is a necessity.”

Focusing on the National Council for the American Worker for the moment, this is an area where the US could genuinely prove itself to be forward-looking, instead of focusing on aging buzzwords.

The top-line aim for the Council will be to craft the masses to ensure they are suitably qualified and positioned to reap the benefits of tomorrow’s society. This means investigating how curriculums can be altered to ensure the right skills are being offered to young people, but also awareness campaigns to generate an understanding of what will be required of young people in the world of tomorrow.

What is less clear is the impact on the people of today. This is not directly covered in the press jargon, though there is an objective for the Council to work with the private sector to ensure the skills chasm is reduced. The White House has not said it directly, though this is pretty much as close as any government has come to recognising technologies such as AI are not going to be beneficial to everyone in today’s society.

Government rhetoric surround AI has been pretty consistent around the world. Firstly, AI will create wonderful products and services for consumers, and secondly, it will make businesses more profitable, creating new job opportunities. This might be true, but no-one has recognised there is going to be pain.

People will be made redundant. Jobs will be lost to software, automation and consolidation. Some people will not be suitable candidates for the newly created roles. These scenarios are utterly unavoidable. Unless government recognise this pain, nothing can be done to adapt to it. If nothing is done, there will be elements of society who will be left behind, qualified for roles which no longer exist. Governments have to wake up and be mature.

Elsewhere the President has unveiled a National Strategic Plan on Advanced Manufacturing and has also signed the National Quantum Initiative Act into law. Quantum Information Science is an area which seemingly fits perfectly into the Silicon Valley mould, looping back around to the semiconductor revolution which spurring the region into action decades ago. With 5G on the horizon encouraging exceptional growth in computing power, this is a segment which will almost prove critical in the future.

The framework is there for some potentially beneficial legislation, though we’ll see how this plays out. It could create a forward-looking landscape however it might just create a landscape which says its forward-looking.

Trump set sights on spectrum strategy

US President Donald Trump has unveiled plans to create a National Spectrum Strategy to prepare the country prepare for the introduction of 5G wireless networks.

The presidential memorandum, which was signed last week, directs the Secretary of Commerce to work with agencies and policy makers on all levels to develop a National Spectrum Strategy. As part of the strategy, the Secretary of the department will report annually to the President on efforts to repurpose spectrum, while a Spectrum Strategy Task Force will also be created which, including representatives from the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the National Security Council, the National Space Council, and the Council of Economic Advisers.

“American companies and institutions rely heavily on high-speed wireless connections, with increasing demands on both speed and capacity,” the memorandum states. “Wireless technologies are helping to bring broadband to rural, unserved, and underserved parts of America. Spectrum-dependent systems also are indispensable to the performance of many important United States Government missions. And as a Nation, our dependence on these airwaves is likely to continue to grow.”

Within 180 days, executive departments and agencies are required to report to the Secretary of Commerce on their anticipated future spectrum requirements, while the OSTP shall submit a report to the President on emerging technologies and the expected impact on spectrum demand. Once these reports have been submitted and assessed, the Secretary of Commerce will have to brief the White House on the status of existing efforts and planned near- to mid-term spectrum repurposing initiatives, as well as a long-term National Spectrum Strategy that includes legislative, regulatory, or other policy recommendations to rework the approach to spectrum management.

While work on spectrum has been underway for some time, this intervention from the White House demonstrates the importance of 5G to the US economy, and perhaps its long-standing battle with the Chinese to maintain control of the global economy.  Although Silicon Valley still maintains the leadership position on the worldwide technology and telecommunications industry, this grip is not quite as ironclad as it was in previous years. With digital taking over in the cockpit as the driver for almost every ‘developed’ economy around the world, a flexible, future-proofed spectrum policy is critical.

“We commend the administration for recognizing the importance of establishing a national spectrum strategy,” said CTIA President Meredith Baker. “With the right approach based on licensed wireless spectrum, America’s wireless carriers will invest hundreds of billions of dollars and create millions of jobs to deploy next-generation networks and win the global 5G race.”

“Spectrum has become one of the most critical inputs for the communications and information technologies that are driving America’s economic growth,” a statement from the NCTA reads. “The services that rely on unlicensed spectrum alone generated more than $525 billion in value for the U.S. economy in 2017. We look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue with the White House, NTIA, and the FCC on the development of a balanced national spectrum policy that will meet the growing need for both licensed and unlicensed spectrum to support next-generation wireless technologies.”

The attention from the White House will certainly be welcomed by the industry, though some have questioned why it has taken so long. With the Trump administration focusing on other areas, in particular looking outwards, some critics have questioned why it has taken so long for the White House to take a firm position in the 5G world. Democrat FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel is one who has questioned the sluggish nature of the administration, particularly focused on reports and action, suggesting it has allowed other countries such as China and Korea to steal valuable yards in the 5G race.

While specifics are relatively thin for the moment, the spectrum strategy might go some way to settle bickering in the industry. A good example is the battle between the autonomous vehicles camp, which is currently guarding largely unused spectrum reserved to allow vehicles to communicate, and telcos who want the assets opened up for wifi. This is only one example, but without a comprehensive, forward-looking, strategy in place, these arguments will not be settled.

Such a policy will provide much needed clarity in the industry, though six months is a long-time to wait with the 5G world fast approaching.

Trump takes next step in Chinese trade war

The United States Trade Representative will place a second round of tariffs on roughly $200 billion of imports from China, effective September 24, though it looks like Apple is passing through unscathed for the moment.

The 10% tariffs will be introduced on September 24, rising to 25% on January 1. Should China take retaliatory action, President Trump has promised to move onto phase three of the strategy, placing tariffs on an additional $267 billion of imports. While these tariffs are thought to spread to consumer goods, it seems some tech companies will escape any financial burdens, at least for the moment.

“After a thorough study, the USTR concluded that China is engaged in numerous unfair policies and practices relating to United States technology and intellectual property – such as forcing United States companies to transfer technology to Chinese counterparts,” said Trump. “These practices plainly constitute a grave threat to the long-term health and prosperity of the United States economy.”

While the White House has attempted to shield the consumer from the negative impacts of the tariff strategy, it was only going to be a matter of time. Not only would the domino effect of the initial tariffs eventually spread through various ecosystems, the US only imports so much from China. Two rounds of tariffs worth $250 billion was bound to hit the consumer pocket before too long. That said, certain products feature on the 300-list of exempt products.

You can see the full list of products on the tariff list here. It is of course incredibly wide ranging, it’s 192 pages long, though the consumer’s back pocket will almost certainly be hit. Seafood features heavily to start, and fans of frogs legs will also suffer. Vegetables are there, as is vinegar. Suitcases, golf bags, baseball mitts, bible paper, carpets, hats and car seats will also be included.

Looking at the technology industry, smart watches, wireless headphones and smart speakers are believed to be on an exempt list, though this is only from the US side. US heavyweights such as Apple might be largely free of collateral damage for the moment, though China will hit back before too long.

Trump might be looking to protect industries and consumers which will largely be in his support camp, though this is not to say Beijing won’t look to inflict damage here. In response to the tariffs imposed in June, China hit back against the farmers, and while iLifers might have been protected thus far it would certainly be a big scalp to claim. Considering the reliance Apple has on China, this would certainly be an effective move.

So far the consumer may not be that concerned about the escalating trade war, as the short-term benefits are a PR win for Trump. Presidential speeches can focus on driving more jobs back onto US shores and the bank accounts are bulging thanks to the tariffs. But this round of tariffs will certainly make life more expensive day to day.

In excluding certain products from tariffs, the Trump administration has simply pointed towards products which it believes could cause political damage. With such an open goal, we imagine the Chinese government will take an incredibly long run up at the consumer technology industry. Look out Apple, Beijing might be eying you up.

White House looks to get ahead of AI

The White House is set to host a conference with Silicon Valley’s best and brightest to learn how laws and regulations should be adapted to fuel the growth of artificial intelligence in years to come.

Google, Amazon and Intel are among the big names to be invited to Washington as the US government tries to get ahead of the trends, according to the Huffington Post. While building a framework which grants flexibility for innovation, rigidness for accountability and protections for the livelihoods of citizens is a complicated task, the White House is follows trends from around the world as rule makers aim to prove themselves relevant.

Over in Europe numerous countries have been attempting to tackle the upcoming wave of algorithms and swell of data, as has the European Commission. While it is critical for governments and bureaucracies to ensure developments do not negatively impact the day-to-day lives of citizens, the White House might also be concerned with progress being made over in China.

For many industry commentators artificial intelligence might be the defining factor of the digital era. 5G is claiming the headlines for the moment, but this infrastructure is nothing more than the foundations; it gives companies and entrepreneurs the opportunity to be innovative and explore new ideas. One of these ideas is AI, which already promises to be an integral part of every technological breakthrough in the pipeline from personalised healthcare to autonomous vehicles, and the management of smart cities.

Looking across the Pacific to China, the US government might be seeing progress and investments made by the Chinese government as a worrying trend. The country has already produced some of the most powerful companies in the technology industry, and looks to be fuelling another horde with money continued to be directed at next-gen technologies. The US might be home to the technology leaders of today, but should the country not create a suitable environment for the development of AI it won’t be too long before China dominates the technology world.

AI will be a critical component of the digital economy, and the importance of this conference should not be underplayed. Executives heading across to Washington will have to do their best to encourage an update of laws and regulations, but also ensure the government is being kept at arm’s length; the red tape is being prepped.