Recently, a professional blogger (Keyan shuo keyan) sparked heated discussions in the industry: Huawei announced that it will stop sharing some key technology licenses from 2025, because some manufacturers have packaged Huawei technology as "independent research and development" after using it, and even competed with Huawei for technological achievements. The blogger pointed out that the domestic mobile phone industry has long relied on Huawei's underlying technology, forming a "parasitic" industrial chain structure. Huawei's move will force these vendors to confront the hollowing out of their technology and push the industry back to the essence of true innovation.
In the view of the editor of China Exportsemi, this point of view is straightforward and powerful, and it also reveals a broader question: have Chinese technology companies really established a technological moat under the slogan of "independent research and development"? Is Huawei's move an industry clearance or a reshuffle of China's technology ecosystem?
Ⅰ From the perspective of the development history of mobile phones: sharing is the driving force of innovation, but it is not a perpetual motion machine
Looking back at the history of smartphones, we will find that technology sharing has really driven the development of the entire industry at some stage. From the ARM licensing model to the open source of the Android system, to the standardization and sharing of major supply chains such as BOE, Sunny, Luxshare Precision, Xilinx, Hynix, etc., it is the standardization and sharing of these technologies that give many new brands the opportunity to enter the market with low barriers and grow rapidly.
Huawei was well aware of this in its early years, and its "technology co-construction" strategy gradually closed the loop since the Mate 20 era, where new technologies were monopolized for a few months and then opened to licensing. This mechanism not only ensures its first-mover advantage, but also enables domestic brands to form a camp against international brands.
However, the problem is that after a long period of "free riding", some companies forget that they still need to repair cars, build cars, and even build roads. It's like building a tram for someone else, but others always use it to change the color and add a tail wing to say that they are their own "flying machine".
Figure: Huawei stops sharing technology licenses
Ⅱ From the perspective of the logic of scientific and technological development: technology really cannot rely on "borrowing" to stand up
Technological development is never just about "application assembly". To truly innovate in science and technology, we must master the underlying principles, material breakthroughs and system design.
Such as:
* Huawei's "Qinghai Lake Battery" is backed by in-depth research on electrolytes, thermal management, and energy density.
* Satellite communication is not as simple as sending a signal, it includes antenna arrays, channel protocols, spectrum applications and encryption mechanisms;
* The core difficulty of the return of Kirin chips is not only design, but the closed-loop collaboration of EDA, process, IP licensing and advanced packaging.
Therefore, when some manufacturers rely too much on "off-the-shelf solutions", or even only do marketing around parameter stacking, what it exposes is not market acumen, but disregard for technical laws.
What's more dangerous is that under the spread of this atmosphere, the whole industry is "waiting for the head brand to feed", and gradually loses its independent judgment and will to develop research and development.
Ⅲ From an international perspective: China needs more companies that are "willing to develop alone for a decade"
Looking at the world, enterprises with real scientific and technological originality are deeply engaged in long-term, high-risk, and difficult-to-realize fields:
* Apple has its own SoC team, and the M series chips that have been sharpened for ten years have today's ecological synergy;
* Tesla's battery, motor, and AI driving chips are all self-developed, and never rely on the "industry general package";
* It took Nvidia more than a decade to turn CUDA and GPGPU into AI infrastructure;
* TSMC has focused on processes for decades, and even giants such as Intel have begun to OEM for it.
Huawei's "confident" technology licensing is due to decades of investment in the entire chain from communication infrastructure, IP self-development, operating system, and system architecture. And many domestic manufacturers, as soon as they learn to assemble wheels, have self-proclaimed "technology leaders", which is obviously distorted.
Therefore, Huawei's closure of authorization is not a "block", but an "activation". Activate the true technological autonomy of this industry and awaken everyone's renewed respect for the "origin of technology".
Ⅳ Editor's observation: The industry is a short-term pain but must face a "technical naked swim".
Huawei's termination of the license will undoubtedly bring a "food-cut" blow to some manufacturers: they may be quickly exposed in terms of folding hinges, battery life, signal performance, satellite communications, etc. But it's an industry deep-water test, a test of "who's a real naked swimmer."
The editor of China Exportsemi believes that this kind of labor pain must be experienced:
1. Real technology companies will start to make up for it and shift their marketing investment to R&D.
2. Supply chain companies will be forced to upgrade from "passive adaptation to Huawei" to "active participation in technical standards".
3. Consumers will also learn to distinguish whose technology is the "pat on the head combination" and who is the bottom polish.
Eventually, the market will reward those companies that "engage in R&D in a down-to-earth manner", and will also eliminate bubble brands that "sell mobile phones by hot words".
5. Conclusion: Sharing is not charity, self-research is the confidence
Huawei's choice is not to close its doors to peers, but to remind everyone: don't use sharing as an excuse for dependence.
Technology is not a takeaway, you can't just click on it. Making products requires faith, but making technology requires a sense of loneliness, time and mission.
After the "de-dependence on Huawei", we will wait and see who can really stand up.
