Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history.
Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them.
No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper.
The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) manufacturing capabilities.
The 3-nanometer process is more than just a technical issue, it is a full-chain challenge encompassing materials, equipment and production workflows.
TSMC and Samsung are the only companies in the world capable of stably mass-producing 3-nanometer chips, with the former holding an overwhelming market advantage.
If Xiaomi’s so-called “independently developed” Xring O1’s fabrication requires outsourcing, its claim of autonomy is meaningless.
Whoever is willing to take on this task would effectively be aiding the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in establishing a false narrative of technological independence under the banner of chip nationalism, thereby putting themselves at risk of becoming entangled in geopolitical and trade tensions.
Given the escalating US-China technological and trade tensions, helping Chinese firms mass-produce advanced chips would inevitably conflict with US tariffs and sanctions mechanisms.
US President Donald Trump imposed high tariffs on high-tech products tied to China’s supply chain, and any products associated with the CCP’s “military-civil fusion” are considered strategic risks.
If TSMC were to manufacture chips designed by China, the US would likely regard the move as indirectly supporting Chinese strategic technologies.
This would give the US ample reason to exert pressure, impose sanctions or even cut off critical parts of TSMC’s supply chain.
The announcement of Xiaomi’s Xring O1 chip was a political publicity stunt.
It serves to gloss over the CCP’s narrative of being a technological superpower and attempts to use private enterprise to repackage the soft power of national strategy.
In reality, it is merely labeling design achievements as “independent,” only to outsource manufacturing to overseas foundries and reimport the finished products to be sold in the domestic market.
Under this framework, it would be impossible for China to escape this bottleneck in advanced chip manufacturing, let alone achieve true strategic autonomy.
Elliot Yao is a reviewer.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
An American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) spokesperson on Saturday rebuked a Chinese official for mischaracterizing World War II-era agreements as proving that Taiwan was ceded to China. The US Department of State later affirmed that the AIT remarks reflect Washington’s long-standing position: Taiwan’s political status remains undetermined and should only be resolved peacefully. The US would continue supporting Taiwan against military, economic, legal and diplomatic pressure from China, and opposes any unilateral attempt to alter the “status quo,” particularly through coercion or force, the United Daily News cited the department as saying. The remarks followed Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently sat down for an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson in which he openly acknowledged that ChatGPT’s model behavior is indeed influencing the entire world, and that he himself is responsible for the decisions related to the bot’s moral framework. He said that he has not had a good night of sleep since its launch, as the technology could bring about unpredictable consequences. Although the discussion took place in the US, it is closely related to Taiwan. While Altman worries about the concentration of power, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already weaponized artificial
RSS