It’s not really disputed, and the article is just trying to throw shade. For example, this gem:
Huawei’s ownership is a murky matter because the company has never, in more than three decades of existence, sold shares to the public.
It’s like they don’t understand the concept of a cooperative? If a company sells public shares then it’s owned by share holders.
Also, painting the fact that Huawei works with the government as being outlandish is also hilarious. Every US tech company works with US government and gets massive government subsidies.
In fact, if the government exercises some control over the company that’s actually a very good thing.
Did you read the article? They’re not calling Huawei bad, they’re just highlighting the differences between what a “share” means in China and what it means in the western world.
Sharing profits with the employees is definitely a good idea at least morally and I would guess that it’s pretty great as an incentive too. But do they actually own the company? Could they fire the founder (currently deputy Chairman) Ren Zhengfei who nominally owns only 1% of the company?
Huawei has not died off amidst a total lack of chip foundry supplies, and its business is going well. Even countries that face sanctions from USA have a hard time struggling.
This has been disputed though. Their own marketing material is perhaps not a good source alone.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/technology/who-owns-huawei.html
It’s not really disputed, and the article is just trying to throw shade. For example, this gem:
It’s like they don’t understand the concept of a cooperative? If a company sells public shares then it’s owned by share holders.
Also, painting the fact that Huawei works with the government as being outlandish is also hilarious. Every US tech company works with US government and gets massive government subsidies.
In fact, if the government exercises some control over the company that’s actually a very good thing.
New York Times calling Huawei bad is like Global Times calling Apple bad. Can we agree this is not disputed?
Did you read the article? They’re not calling Huawei bad, they’re just highlighting the differences between what a “share” means in China and what it means in the western world.
Sharing profits with the employees is definitely a good idea at least morally and I would guess that it’s pretty great as an incentive too. But do they actually own the company? Could they fire the founder (currently deputy Chairman) Ren Zhengfei who nominally owns only 1% of the company?
What if they could? And why would they need to, when Ren’s leadership is clearly top notch for coworker employees?
Clearly top notch? How would you know that? Honestly asking.
Huawei has not died off amidst a total lack of chip foundry supplies, and its business is going well. Even countries that face sanctions from USA have a hard time struggling.