Navigation
21Vianet 2600Hz 3Com 3GPP 3Leaf 4G 4G licensing 5G Africa Alcatel Shanghai Bell Alcatel-Lucent Alibaba Android antiitrust Apple APT Satellite Arete AT&T auction backbone Baidu Bain bandwidth base station Battery broadband cable CBN CCP censorship Cfius China China brands China FTTH China hi-tech China market China media China Mobile China Mobile Hong Kong China Science China Telecom China Unicom chips Ciena Cisco civil society CNNIC Communist Party convergence copyright CSL cybersecurity Datang drones Egypt Elop Ericsson EU Facebook FDD LTE FDD-LTE feature phones Fiberhome FLAG forecasts Foxconn FTZ Galaxy S3 Google GSMA GTI handset handsets Hisilicon HKBN HKIX HKT HKTV Hong Kong HTC Huawei Hugh Bradlow Hutchison India Infinera Innovation Intel internet investment iOS iPad iPad 2 iPhone IPv6 ITU Japan KDDI KT labour shortage Leadcore low-cost smartphone LTE MAC MAE Mandiant market access Mediatek Meego Miao Wei Microsoft MIIT mobile broadband mobile cloud mobile data mobile security mobile spam mobile TV mobile web Motorola music MVNO MWC national security NDRC New Postcom Nokia Nokia Siemens Nortel NSA NTT DoCoMo OTT Pacnet Panasonic patents PCCW piracy PLA politics Potevio price war private investment Project Loon Qualcomm quantum Reach regulation Reliance Communications Ren Zhengfei Renesys RIM roaming Samsung sanctions Scania Schindler security shanzhai Sharp SKT Skype smartphones Snowden software Sony Ericsson spectrum Spreadtrum standards startups subsea cables subsidies supply chain Symbian tablets Tata Communications TCL TD LTE TD-LTE TD-SCDMA Telstra Trump Twitter urban environment USA US-China vendor financing Vitargent Vodafone New Zealand WAC WCIT Web 2.0 web freedom WeChat WhatsApp Wi-Fi Wikileaks Wimax Windows Mobile WIPO WTO Xi Guohua Xiaolingtong Xinjiang Xoom Youku YTL ZTE
« Is malware taking over our smartphones? | Main | At last, a mobile spam crackdown »
Thursday
Apr102014

What China's innovation gap tells us

Earlier this week I posted to Light Reading about the almost total absence of telecom start-ups in China, despite it being the world’s largest supplier of telecom gear.

It’s the one high-tech sector where the country can claim leadership, and the lack of start-ups is a significant gap in what Chinese call the 'industry chain’. Not that start-ups are the sole engine of innovation – far from it – but they are a great way of concentrating resources and attention on specific issues and technologies.

The industry structure is at the heart of the problem. The oligopoly in the services market means operators have little incentive to innovate, and this in turn puts market power in the hands of vendors, who make sure small vendors stay small.

Other factors also come into play, such as the weak research sector and corruption and plagiarism in science, compounded by the government's ham-fisted attempts to micro-manage innovation.

There’s an interesting analogy in the aviation sector, another vertical where China has great ambitions. Citing a new Rand Corp report, the Wall Street Journal points to the tension between the airlines, who want the most efficient aircraft possible, and the state-owned manufacturer trying to find buyers for its dud planes. (For those interested, James Fallows’ excellent China Airborne examines China’s innovation and wider economic potential through the lens of aviation.)

China’s telecom sector of course works far better than that, benefiting from a genuinely competitive supplier market, but similar strains between vendors, operators and government ambitions exist, as demonstrated by the mandating of TD-SCDMA and TD-LTE.

In the short-term this hardly matters for the telecom sector. Start-ups aren't the be-all and end-all of innovation, and there is plenty of global competition both to challenge the vendors and ensure operators get the technology they need.

But it's a problem for China, which aims to refashion its economy through science and innovation. Its inability to extract more innovation out of its massive telecom industry reminds that it is still a developing country and that achieving manufacturing scale is not the same as achieving thought or technology leadership.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>