​Over the next few weeks there will be a number of CE product releases, some of which will happen in conjunction with CES, while others will have their own release promotions.  In fact two popular Chinese smartphone brands, OnePlus (pvt) and Honor (pvt), will be announcing their newest models, the OnePlus Ace 3 and the Honor X50 GT tonight, while Oppo (pvt) is set to release  its Find X7 series on 1/8, Honor again on the 10th with the Magic 6 series, the ROG (2357.TT) 8 gaming series follows on the 16th, and the crecendo on January 18 with Samsung’s  (005930.KS) Galaxy S24 flagship smartphone series.
As always, each model will offer its unique feature set combination to entice consumers to trade in their old phones and step up to the new, but there is one feature than spans all of these smartphone brand offerings, and that is they all use one form or another of Qualcomm’s (QCOM) Snapdragon 8 chipset, although there is some expectation that the Oppo Find X7 might also offer Mediatek’s (2454.TT) Dimensity 9300.  Its early in the year, with lots of new smartphones to be released, but we have to note that at least for January, Qualcomm seems to be at the top of the hit parade as far as smartphone chipsets, although said chipset decisions were made months ago.
That said, all of the smartphone excitement will fade away quickly as Apple (AAPL) is thought to be releasing its Vision Pro XR device in the US on January 27th, finally revealing (hopefully) the details about its first venture into the AR/AV/XR world, or the world of ‘spatial computing’ as Apple calls it.  While the hardware details of the Vision Pro will be revealed this month, the $3,500 price tag will be a bit of a challenge for consumers, and we expect, with corrective optical inserts, and a number of other optional extras, the real cost will be ~$4,000.  Perhaps not enough to stop a number of super-fans that will buy anything with the Apple logo ttached, or the “I have to be the first” crowd, but the steep price will be a bit much, even for ardent iPhone fans.
Apple needs to set itself apart from other VR/AR players, particularly Meta (FB), whose seeding philosophy, while costing a bit of change, has allowed them to rule the VR space for years, so why not start high, as the price can always be reduced but rarely can increase?  It sets Apple apart while giving the psychological impression that there is some inherent value in the device itself that ‘allows’ Apple to charge such a high price, but we believe that has little to do with the hardware, and in fact, we expect the price will be justifiable if the device operates as it has been advertised.  That does njot mean that the hardware will perform, as Apple is smart enough to know that they need to make sure the quality of the hardware is a given before the dvice hits the shelves, but the Vision Pro’s ability to create a new user environment will be the key to its success.
The risk to Apple is if the user experience does not live up to expectations, the hardware is a moot point.  Apple has set a picture in the minds of potential buyers of a new concept in the user’s environment, one not dependent on games or the ‘metaverse’, but one that promises a more flexible environment thjat allows the user to do whatever they so desire (work, play, relax, socialize) more easily and more efficiently than is possible outside of the Vision Pro environment.  No longer would an analyst be struggling with multiple monitors, multiple windows, and desktops, but would have an open space as wide as necessary to work with.  Apple also promises that videos will take on new dimension and give the user visual opportunities that were not available before, all of which will operate without lag or workariounds, and that is only a piece of what the Apple marketing machine has promised or implied, and that is a lot to live up to.  Apple has had it’s big winners (iPhone, iPod, App Store) and its failures (Lisa, Butterfly keyboard, Firewire), so the Vision Pro will be a game changer one way or another, and we should know before mid-year.

​When consumers say a CE product is ‘hot’, that is usually a good sign, however, despite the positive expectations and strong pre-orders, the new iPhone 15 series is hot, but not necessarily in a good way.  It seems that some consumers have found that their new iPhone’s have been getting hot, hot enough that they automatically shut down until they can cool down.  While this does not seem to be a widespread problem, it does seem to happen across the entire iPhone 15 line, which tends to end the speculation that it is related to the Titanium shell that is used on the iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max.  While the internet was abuzz with speculation about why this might be happening, such an issue can quickly become a marketing nightmare, as it did for Samsung (005930.KS), when it was forced to recall 2.5m Note 7 smartphones in September of 2016 when they were found to not only overheat, but also catch fire due to battery issues.
Apple (AAPL) has responded to the on-line furor over the weekend, making the following statement:
“We have identified a few conditions which can cause iPhone to run warmer than expected.  The device may feel warmer during the first few days after setting up or restoring the device because of increased background activity.  We have also found a bug in iOS17 that is impacting some users and will be addressed in a software update.  Another issue involves some recent updates to 3rd party apps that are causing then to overload the systems.  We are working with these app developers on fixes that are in the process of rolling out.”
What is Apple actually saying?   Your phone will be hot for a few days after you start using it because things are running in the background that will stop after a few days.  What things and what are they doing, and what will they be finished with in a few days?  What ever these ‘few conditions’ are or why they are running the phone hotter than normal, Apple did not say.    Is the bug in iOS 7 part of the overheating problem, and when will it be addressed in a software update?  What are the ‘3rd party apps doing that would overload the system?  Are they demanding too much processor time or bandwidth?  When will this be fixed, whatever it is?
We give Apple credit for at least addressing the issue quickly, however the bigger question is whether Apple will disclose the actual issues and whether the software fix will affect the abilities of the iPhone if it is the only alternative.in the near-term.  Apple lost a $500m class action lawsuit in 2020 for throttling the performance of some iPhones in order to fix processor and battery problems without informing consumers and faced similar suits in Europe.  It will be essential that Apple is honest with consumers, about the issue and the fix, given past history.  If they need to throttle performance to avoid the issue until a more permanent fix can be found, that’s fine (coming from an Android user), but more specific details are necessary to keep the general public from becoming wary of problems with the iPhone 15 series, and you know competitors will use that to their advantage whenever possible.  Waiting for the “Forged in Fire and still on fire!” YouTube videos…

Smartphone chipsets and processors are designed to be highly specific to their use cases, and while they can also be used in tablets, laptops, wearables, and some smart TVs, they are designed to be the hub that controls most of the functions of your mobile devices.  There are only a few major independent smartphone processor brands, Qualcomm (QCOM), Mediatek (2454.TT), and UniSoc (pvt), but a number of smartphone brands produce their own application processors and have for many years.  These processors are either exclusive to the brand or are sold externally, but in most cases, they remain internal, with independent suppliers designing and supplying the majority of smartphone brands.
That is not to say other brands have not tried their hand at designing their own silicon, with Samsung (005930.KS) among the earliest with its Exynos 3 processor, used in the 2009 Galaxy S, and Apple’s A4 processor, used in the iPhone 4 in 2010.  2016 was a big year for self-designed application processors, with Lenovo (992.HK) releasing its Tiantian processor in its Vibe K5+ phone, and ZTE (000063.CH) releasing its N1 processor in its Axon 7 model that same year.  Huawei (pvt) joined the club with its Kirin processor series in 2020, although that was made expedient when the US banned exports to the company, and Google (GOOG) more recently with its Tensor processor series.  The remaining brands typically use Apps from Qualcomm and MediaTek, who battle each other on a model-by-model basis.
The problem with commercial application processors are designed to perform a variety of tasks well, but are not designed specifically for a particular smartphone brand or model, which tends to make smartphone models and brands more generic. For example, there are currently 32 smartphone models that use the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 processor, across a broad swath of brands, from Samsung to Xiaomi (1810.HK), and 16 models use the MediaTek Dimensity 9000, including One Plus (pvt), Honor (pvt) and Vivo (pvt), while 3 models use the internally designed Samsung Exynos 2200 processor, all of which are Samsung phones.  With all three having release dates withing 3 months of each other, the commercial Aps tend to reduce the diversity between models and brands.
Then there is price, and while with so few AP producers there is likely less price competition than there should be, custom APs are considerably more expensive to produce considering the smaller number of units.  That said, as noted above, a number of smartphone brands do design and have produced their own APs.  However, as the smartphone business is facing another year of declining volume, the cost-effectiveness of such development programs is being questioned, and only 3 days ago, Oppo (pvt), the 4th largest global smartphone brand (~10% share in 4Q ’22) shuttered its chip design company ZEKU (pvt) with no advanced warning to employees, customers, or HR, who was hiring new employees up to the 11th. 
Oppo had released its first self-developed chip in 2021, along with its own power management and Bluetooth audio silicon and had been said to be taping out its own 4nm processor recently, while building a $650m chip R&D center.  The company’s CEO said that current revenue did not meet expectations and that the investment in self-developed chips was so large that the company could no longer afford to support the project and issued its termination.  That said, some employees seem to differ with those comments, noting that the AP processor tape-out is not due back from Taiwan Semi (TSM) until late Jun, and if successful, would have put considerable pressure on Qualcomm.  They take it further in that they say that company executives have been in the US earlier this month and were warned by the US that Oppo faced sanctions if it continues with its current self-developed processor path, in order to protect Qualcomm’s position.
None of these allegations are supported with documentation at this point, but it seems that a warning from the US, after the devastation that has been done to Huawei’s smartphone business, might be enough to shutter what has been a ~$7b investment for Oppo, rather than be added to the US ‘naughty’ list and see its share of the smartphone market disappear in a few months’ ala Huawei.  Shades of Teddy Roosevelt’s 1901 speech where he said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick”.  Maybe they were smart enough to realize that the economics were not good no matter what the situation was in a market that is not growing or maybe they realized that they would not be able to buy an semiconductor equipment going forward and would fall behind commercial AP manufacturers.  Too soon to tell but its not a good sign for the Chinese semiconductor industry and one that will empower US politicians to continue to keep the pressure on China.

​Last October we noted that Apple (AAPL) had included the ability to make emergency call (text message) in areas that were not covered by cell service, through the iPhone 14 and 14 Pro..  The service, available for free for two years in the US, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland and the UK, if you have iOS 16.1 or later, and while the service is available for travelers to those countries in an emergency, if the phone was purchased in China, Hong Kong or Macao, those phones do not include the service.  Apple is spending ~$450m, primarily with Globalstar (GSAT) to ensure access to the company’s 24 LEO satellites for emergency-only texts, as long as the user is in view of the open sky and the horizon.
While sat-phones have been around for many years, particularly those based on high-earth orbit satellite systems (~22,000 miles), which can handle higher data volumes but require the user’s phone to ‘find’ a HEO satellite.  LEO satellites are ~900 miles up and smaller, but there are at least two or three available to phone users at all times, and do not have to be ‘found’ by the user’s phone.  HEO based phones are therefore more expensive but are more capable.   Military applications are obvious, but those working in remote locations, such as off-shore platforms, disaster recovery workers, or forestry workers, all have difficulty connecting using typical cellular services, while able to connect, especially in an emergency, via satellite.  We note that Google (GOOG) search results for the phrase ‘satellite phone’ originate primarily (US only) from Alaska, Montana, Kansas, Idaho, and Oregon, none of which are surprising.
Of course, Apple’s service is an emergency convenience, but has already started a trend, with Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) announcing that while it will not be including such services in the Galaxy S23 series, it is building a 5G NTN (Non-terrestrial network) modem into its Exynos chipset, that will give it similar capabilities to the Apple service but will also allow the user to send photos and videos, stepping up the competition and pushing it past ‘emergency services.  Qualcomm (QCOM) has also announced that they are working with Iridium (IRDM) to build emergency satellite services into its Snapdragon Mobile Platform by mid-2025.
Right now the idea of building satellite communication into smartphones is one that has rarified use, but will likely garner the inevitable, “My iPhone 14 saved my life when I was lost on a mountain top…”headlines and push other smartphone brands to add the service to high-end models, but satellite service can be challenging and expensive, so unless the average smartphone user is a global traveler who remains off the beaten path, it seems to be a service with a limited (but helpful) usage profile.  A e-Sims become accepted by smartphone brands and carriers, the ability to sign up to a cell service in a foreign country for a relatively short time becomes a simple process, which obviates one reason for owning or renting a sat-phone, but Apple can create considerable buzz and seems to have set the tone for a new round of competition among major smartphone brands, so we expect to hear more about such plans over the next few months.  

While we note that gauging the success of Samsung’s (005930.KS) just announced Galaxy S23 flagship smartphone series in South Korea is a datapoint that might not translate globally, it does give some color as to the potential success of the series going forward, at least on a relative basis.  Samsung announced the new series on February 1, with three models, the Galaxy S23 Ultra, the Galaxy S23+, and the Galaxy S23 in order of price and feature set, with the three South Korean carriers able to take pre-orders for delivery beginning on the 17th, with Samsung announcing this morning that as of the 14th, pre-orders amounted to 1.09m units, above last year’s record of 1.01m units. 
Of the three models, the S23 Ultra garnered ~60% of the pre-orders, the more generic S23 ~23% and the S23+ ~17%, with the fact that the Ultra has a 200 MP main camera (plus 4 others) and a 6.8” display, while the plus has a 6.6” display and a 50 MP camera (plus 3 others), while the S23 has a 6.1” display and also a 50 MP camera (plus 3 others).  With a difference of $200 between the Ultra and the plus, it seems most early buyers are willing to fork up the extra cash for the high-resolution camera, although there are many discounts and promotions being offered that can lower the price, particularly with trade-ins, new carrier accounts or when using carrier credit cards for purchase.
In recent years Samsung has had difficulty maintaining robust flagship smartphone sales, and the elimination of the Galaxy Note series in lieu of folding models was an indication that the company recognized a need to refresh the premium side of its smartphone offerings.  Breathing life into smartphones that have changed relatively little over the last few years was not an easy task, and the economic weakness being experienced on a global scale in 2022 did little to help, but Samsung continues to dominate the foldable smartphone market, and maintains a significant manufacturing lead over other OLED panel producers. 
That said, it will take time for Samsung’s foldable smartphone line to gain enough end user acceptance to generate consumer momentum toward the smartphone market, along with the potential for Apple (AAPL) to join the foldable market in a year or so, but Samsung does have he ability to stretch in terms of form factors, as we have noted in the past, and we expect a third foldable model to appear this year or b next, although it might be considered more of a tablet than a smartphone.  Either way, if it is practical and generates consumer excitement, it will help to offset the mid and low-tier competition Samsung faces from Chinese brands, where Samsung has less of an advantage.
 

We had made a forecast for Chinese smartphone shipments for the 4th quarter and while the December numbers are not yet in, the official Chinese smartphone shipments for the last two months are 47.16m units, surprisingly 15.6% higher than our estimate, which pushes us to raise our December shipment number from 19.4m units to 22m units.  If this is correct (or close), that would put the full year at 265,65m units, down 24.3% y/y, and the 4th quarter up 16.4% q/q but still down 32.0% y/y, and above our most recent 252m unit estimate.  Most recently we have seen a full year tally of Chinese smartphone shipments totaling 287m units, which would imply a 44m unit shipment month in December, making it the best month this year, by 33%, so we are wanting to understand what the basis for that estimate was, given that our 11 month data is based on information provided by the Chinese government, which, if anything, leans a bit to the high side.
Over the last year 5G shipments in China have tracked fairly closely to overall shipments, representing between 85.1% and 72.2% of total shipments, although the spread narrowed considerably during 2H of 2022.  For the full year, using a proportional 16.97m 5G units in December, we estimate 5G shipments for the full 2022 year to be 207.6m units, or 78.1% of total shipments, down 22.0% y/y, the first year 5G shipments have declined since 2019 when China began releasing such data.  Given the current share, which we expect to expand a bit further this year, we expect 5G shipments in China to be a function of the overall health of the Chinese smartphone market, with far less dependency on the growth of 5G installations across the country than in previous years and more on China’s own macro environment. 
Strict COVID restrictions slowed 5G deployment progress across China last year, and with many of those restrictions being lifted, deployments will likely pick-up, but we are quite skeptical as to the coverage data that the Chinese government has been promoting, and if the data in the US is any example, it bears little practicality to consumers.  Typically many cities that are claimed as ‘covered’ have very spotty 5G service and while the coverage maps look well filled, the detail is far less so, with statistics used more for promotion and politics than actual consumer results.
Chinese brands continue to hold the major share of the Chinese domestic market (84.9%) and while it has deteriorated a bit over the last 4 years (86.5% last year), incursions, particularly by Apple (AAPL), have made little impact on overall domestic brand share in the Chinese smartphone market.  With Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) the only major smartphone brand with a very minor share in China, we expect relatively little change unless Samsung continues to expand and market its foldable line on the Mainland, which, while facing domestic competition, seems to be considered among the most prestigious smartphone devices with Chinese consumers, along with Apple.  However price sensitive buyers do have domestic foldable alternatives and there are still many pockets of nationalistic pride that would push marginal buyers to domestic brands, so for the 2023 year, we expect only a minor reduction in domestic share.
All in, it was a difficult year for CE in China, and smartphones in particular, but while we are careful to temper any enthusiasm against both a poor macro-economic situation on the Mainland, and a festering anti-China manufacturing posture for many global companies, we do take heart in that in recent months, while poor in terms of y/y performance, shipments have been, at the least, relatively stable, which we expect to continue into 1Q.  The Chinese smartphone market is maturing, and with that comes slower growth and more macro affectations, which certainly seems to be the case in recent months.  As that continues we expect the Chinese smartphone market to have basically the same competitive and economic characteristics of the global smartphone market and track more closely to the global markets each year.  That said, Chinese brands have the advantage of lower cost, but also face some political issues, such as those in India, that can offset those cost advantages.  It is up to both the Chinese government and Chinese smartphone brands as to how those issues will play out this year, and over the last year both did little to smooth those relationships that can help Chinese brands gain share outside of the Mainland.  Maybe 2023 will be different, although it is still hard to be overly optimistic.

Early 4Q smartphone shipment readings have just started coming in, with even some of the more previous forecasts seeing additional reductions.  One source that had estimated total smartphone shipments for 2022 of 1.176b units only a bit over a month ago, cut its full year 2022 forecast by an additional 1%, doing the same for this year’s estimate, and reduced its 5G smartphone shipment estimate for 2022 by 2.6%, along with a similar reduction in this year’s target.  While none of this is surprising, those estimates were among the most aggressive toward the downside, and only 5 weeks later are being reduced, which gives some measure of by how much the global CE space saw demand decline. 
If the trend is any indication, we would expect further reductions for 1Q, although Samsung’s typical flagship (non-foldable) release schedule will help a bit.  While we might have seen the effects of inflation on CE product demand at its worst in 4Q, we expect demand to show only modest signs of recovery on a y/y basis given the demand strength seen in 1Q ’22, and while we still expect those comparisons to be negative in 2Q, 3Q should begin to see such comparisons remain flat or turn positive.  Unfortunately much of that scenario is based on how poorly the CE space did in 2H ’22, so there are still questions as to what might help push demand in the back half of this year and those are far from being answered.  As Chinese New Year comes relatively early this year (1/22), results from the holiday will give some help in understanding whether or by how much of a recovery will be seen in China, which will go a long way toward building a more realistic model for the 2023 year.

​Huawei (pvt) has been the target of anti-China sentiment in the US government going back to 2012 when government agencies were banned from using Huawei’s telecom equipment.  Things escalated further in 2019 when then President Trump added the company to the US Entities list, extending the ban to US commercial telecom networks, and eventually tightening the rules to force both US and foreign companies from supplying advanced semiconductor technology and components to the company.  As is well documented this caused Huawei, once the 2nd largest smartphone vendor behind Samsung (005930.KS)[1], to fall to a share 85% below its peak, while its global telecom business also declined significantly.
Huawei’s founder vowed that the company would survive the loss of US components and technology by building local sourcing with the help of the Chinese government.  Over the past few years Huawei itself, and many Chinese government sponsored programs and subsidy enticements have helped to build the infrastructure that Huawei, and other banned Chinese companies need to survive, but it is hard to gauge how much dependency Huawei still has on foreign components given the Chinese government’s positively biased propaganda extoling the virtues of locally produced components. A recent teardown of Huawei’s Mate 50 Pro, the company’s most popular smartphone (released in September of 2022) gives some indication as to the progress Huawei has made toward local sourcing.
According to the most recent teardown, ~90% of the components in the Huawei Mate 50 Pro smartphone are sourced from Chinese companies.  The display, which tends to be the most costly single component, is sourced from BOE (200725.CH) and Visionox (002387.CH), which is not surprising,, with the lens cover supplied by Lens Technology (300433.CH), with a long list of Chinese companies supplying everything from structural parts, analog chips, batteries, PCBs, and touch and fingerprint ID components, but there were still a variety of components produced outside of China, some of which are key components.
In particular Qualcomm (QCOM) provides the 4G processor, a number of power management chips, an audio codec, RF transceiver, Wi-Fi, and power amplifier, many of which operate under it’s Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1 processor that runs the phone.  SK Hynix (000660.KS), Samsung (00930.KS) , and Micron (MU) provide memory, along with HiSilicon (pvt), which is owned by Huawei.  Qorvo (QRVO) provides RF front-end silicon, ST Micro (STM) supplies encryption protection, NXP (NXPI) NFC, audio power amp, and battery charging management, while Maxim (ADI), IDT (IDT), Skyworks (SWKS) and Broadcom (AVGO) all supply various sensors and other silicon.
While Huawei has developed its own OS (Harmony 3.0) the company must still rely on outside companies for its main processor, the Qualcomm Snap 8+ which is produced using a 4nm process as China’s silicon fabs have been unable to develop the necessary technology to duplicate much silicon at these node levels.  Even more stringent limitations on EUV and potentially DUV tools from ASML (ASML) have made things even harder, forcing the Chinese semiconductor industry to try to develop such tools internally, a process that will take years.  The big issue that still remains however is the inability to access current versions of Android or access to the Google (GOOG) store applications, which continues to keep Huawei’s markets primarily in China.
That said, Huawei has certainly gone a long way from the over 70% non-local component content seen a few years back, and while there have been fits and starts as to negotiations between Huawei and the US government, we expect little will change unless the global (and US) semiconductor industry goes into a sustained downturn, at which point we would expect some of those restrictions to be eased, although that would likely not be this year.  In the interim, Huawei will have to try to eke out another percent or two of local sourcing to keep from inciting the US government to tighten sanctions further.


[1] Huawei – 19.4% Samsung 19.5% in 2Q ’20 according to our composite smartphone shipment database.

​As the world’s largest smartphone brand, Samsung presents consumers with a large variety of smartphones at as many price points as possible, but while the aim is to capture every possible smartphone buyer, be it a potential $116 M04 series buyer or a $1,150 Z Fold series buyer, presenting such a wide variety of models and price points can become an expensive proposition from both a production cost perspective and a marketing perspective.  The chart below shows the number of models that Samsung has offered each year since 2016 compared to normalized (2016) global smartphone shipments and those of Samsung alone.  It can be seen that while global and Samsung’s own smartphone shipments declined between 2018 and 2022 (we assume a flat 4Q ’22), the number of models offered by Samsung increased until 2021 when offerings began to be reduced, now falling below the 2016 starting point and nearing the low point seen in 2017.
Given the prospects for a weak 1Q ’23 and relatively flat global smartphone shipments this year, we expect that Samsung will reduce the number of models it offers again this year, particularly for those lines where volumes have been decreasing.  We expect there will be a new foldable model released this year, likely a double folding smartphone, but we also expect the flagship ‘S’ line to be narrowed to two, rather than three models, as rumors that Samsung has abandon 2023 development of the Galaxy S+ line to concentrate on the better selling ‘regular S’ and the Galaxy S Ultra, which has replaced the former Galaxy Note line, also cannibalized by the Galaxy Fold series.  Samsung’s Mid-priced Galaxy A series and the lower priced Galaxy M series have some price overlaps, so we would expect to see at least two model eliminations in those series, after the A40 and M40 series were eliminated last year.
All in, Samsung needs to continue to focus on best selling models in each series to keep its own component inventory levels low, along with those of its OED/OEM partners, especially given the increases seen in component costs last year.  All things to all people is a great philosophy but it doesn’t take into account the inventory, marketing, and stocking costs associated with smaller volume models, and against a backdrop of relatively weak overall smartphone volume growth, the necessity to focus on higher margin and higher volume models becomes even more important.   We expect 2023 will see an overall continuing reduction in the number of smartphone models Samsung offers, with an emphasis on the top and bottom models in each smartphone price tier.

We have mentioned previously that the Indian government has been investigating a number of Chinese smartphone companies that operate on the sub-continent, with Xiaomi (1810.HK), Vivo (pvt) and Oppo (pvt) seemingly in the governmental crosshairs.  While financials and business practices are certainly the focus of these investigations and a number of discrepancies have already been found, border conflicts between China and India have raised the level of tension between the two for the last 2+ years and have politicized the fact that Chinese companies are the dominant suppliers of smartphones to the Indian market with a 62.3% share in 3Q.
Things have taken a turn for the worse this week when Indian authorities halted the exportation of some 27,000 Vivo smartphones (value of ~$15m) from be shipped out of India to other countries.  The Vivo phones were produced in India at Vivo’s Noida facility, which the company built in 2015 and has increased production from 50m units last year to 60m this year, with a target of 120m units in the future.  Vivo can meet all of its smartphone demand for India itself currently and has just begun shipping the excess to nearby countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Thailand.  The phones in question are being held at the New Delhi airport over questionable export declarations, particularly their value.  India’s own cellular and electronics lobbying association wrote a letter to the government, asking for a quick release of the devices and how the incident is a negative toward the encouragement of manufacturing for export in the country, but the government has refused to comment on the investigation.
All in, the conflicts between China’s smartphone vendors and the Indian government will do little to encourage companies to establish or increase their manufacturing bases in India, but at the same time, Chinese smartphone brands have been playing fast and loose with import and export rules and have been extremely ‘creative’ when it comes to financials, finding many ways to show losses that allow for tax incentives and subsidies on a local basis, and profits for the parent companies in China.  As India is relatively new to the global manufacturing world, and is somewhat unused to the ‘Chinese way’ of doing business under a totalitarian government that hides considerable graft and subterfuge, they seem to have decided to show that they will not stand for such double-dealing recently, and while that will counter some of their “Made in India” momentum, it does set the tone for a more rational approach to manufacturers from other countries, particularly semiconductor companies that might be looking to diversify away from China while still feeding a large and growing market. 
As the two counties now have populations that are almost the same (China is the larger by 2.76%) and India is a Democracy while China is a single-party dictatorship, India’s show of strength toward Chinese companies, despite their dependance on, puts them in stead with the US and its allies, who are key to developing the infrastructure necessary to build India’s electronics and semiconductor business.  Hopefully these skirmishes do not move Chinese smartphone vendors out of the country before others, such as Samsung (005930.KS), can fill the gap, although a key executive at Xiaomi’s India division resigned yesterday as the case against the company, whose assets have been seized, winds through governmental channels.