Huawei is supported by its competitor Ericsson against trade blocks

Even one of Huawei’s biggest competitors: Ericsson, has come out to criticize the impositions and blockades against the Chinese company.

In the race to develop infrastructure for 5G networks Huawei it was one of the companies with the greatest power and speed in the market. Until the locks started by the administration of Donald Trump.

The initial movement of the United States was replicated in other nations, where little by little the Chinese company began to be vetoed or relegated from tenders and telecommunications projects that ended up benefiting other firms, such as Nokia and Ericsson.

It is a situation that could undoubtedly favor its competitors, but which is delicate for the free market.

Ericsson defends Huawei

It is under that scenario that Borje Ekholm, the CEO of Ericsson, one of the companies that was positively impacted by the Huawei veto, has come out to defend the situation of its Chinese competitors in an interview for the Financial times.

There the executive highlighted the nuances of this situation where an imbalance and decrease in the natural competition of the market is perceived:

I belong to that category of people who believe that competition makes us a better company in the long run.

It may be painful in the short term, but in the long run it drives us to be more innovative and make better products for our customers.

Think of 4G networks: the debate in Europe was: what is the killer app? Americans and Chinese launched 4G faster and the consumer app economy is now dominated by American and Chinese companies.

Ekholm stressed that they have competed against Huawei, but have also worked together on the development of the 5G network standards.

His recent veto on the deployment of networks of this type in Sweden was considered by the executive as a not so positive development.

Since in the long term it would impact the rhythm and development of infrastructure in countries where these kinds of restrictions are imposed.

In the end, it was not a direct defense, but it was an open criticism against such measures.