[deafpolygon]

Fair point on the need for nuance—I could have made that clearer. But the core idea still stands: Huawei can’t operate outside the CCP’s interests. Sure, the Party isn’t managing daily tasks, but it sets the rules of the game. Everything Huawei does ultimately aligns with national goals, whether by design or necessity. That makes it a de facto state apparatus.

Calling Huawei a “counterparty” suggests it has real independence. But in China’s system, especially with big tech, that’s just not how it works. The CCP doesn’t need to own a company to control it. There are legal, political, and financial levers that ensure Huawei stays on track. That’s not comparable to how companies operate in the U.S. or EU, where they can push back on the state without fear of retaliation.

I get why my comment came off as simplistic, but it’s not baseless. If we want to understand what we’re dealing with, we have to be honest about the structure Huawei operates in. Misreading that is a bigger risk than calling it what it is.

[FooBarWidget]

If you so believe that you're not misreading them, you ought to test those beliefs. Advocate for emulating their model. They're obviously doing something right, to have grown so much, and it's in your interest to make yourself stronger. The result of your emulation will tell you whether your image of them was right, or whether you misread them. Have skin in the game.