华为任正非亮剑了：我们总忍耐，人家还是不放过我们，所以我们就自己呐喊一点声音,美国都起诉我们了，怎么可能还谈判，法制国家，就要依靠法庭判决。
任总接受彭博电视采访纪要--转自华为论坛
2019年5月24日
1、记者：任总，谢谢您接受我的采访。近期特朗普总统有讲话，从安全角度、军事角度来说，他认为华为是一家危险的公司。您对此如何回应？
任正非：我不知道他为什么会理解为危险。我们为世界30亿人提供信息通信服务，帮助非洲等艰苦地区、其他地区都能沟通信息。我们就像过去“传教士”一样在深山老林中努力传播文化，我们的精神也有宗教般的虔诚，是为人类服务的，怎么会认为我们是危险的公司呢？5G不是原子弹，5G只是一个信息传播的工具，传播内容跟工具没关系。就像麦克风，不能说麦克风能够传递声音就是危险的，可能谁说了什么话、说话的人才是危险的。工具怎么会是危险的呢？
所以，他讲这点缺乏依据，他自己是否有信心把他讲的这句话解剖给大家听一听？
2、记者：美国最近把华为列入了“黑名单”，美国立法者认为这对华为来说是死刑。您认为，这个决定对华为是一个生死决定吗？
任正非：第一，美国不购买我们的设备，是市场经济的自由行为，买家不买、卖家不卖，这没有问题。美国认为信息不安全，美国都没有我们的设备，它的安全与我们有什么关系呢？以后它也不会买我们的设备，美国安全和我们有什么关系呢？没有任何关系。
美国是一个法制国家，最要讲的是证据，美国至今也没有提供我们有什么危害安全问题的证据，就把我们放到这个名单中。最近记者提问蓬佩奥：“证据呢？”他说：“你问的问题是错的。”我认为，把我们放到实体清单中也许是错误的。
美国不能恐慌过度，美国在世界上是长期处于绝对优势的国家，即使未来有一些国家追上来了，那美国也是相对优势。在个别问题上，个别公司有所突破，应该是值得高兴的，因为我们共同为人类提供一种更好的服务，这些服务怎么会被认为是威胁呢？
被放到这个实体清单中，华为会不会死呢？我们不会死，但是飞机已经被打得千疮百孔了。就像这张照片，是一架二战时前苏联的伊尔2轰炸机，华为实际上现在就是这个样子，华为已经被打得千疮百孔了，但是我们还是不想死，还是想飞回来。我们现在的处境是困难的，但不会死。美国把我们放到实体清单中，我们公司可能有一定的困难，但是我们会一边飞，一边修补漏洞，一边调整航线，一定能活下来了。至少在5G等问题上，我们还是会在世界上领先，竞争对手不是一两年能赶上我们的。
3、记者：刚才的飞机理论非常有趣。一些公司被要求不能提供给华为组件和软件，这些公司包括高通、英特尔、谷歌，如果没有他们的这些组件和软件，华为还能生存多久？
任正非：美国不是世界警察，它不能管全世界，全世界都会根据自己的商业利益和立场来确定自己是不是和我们交往。确定和我们不交往的公司，我们就要去补这个“洞”，飞机上一边飞，一边用铁皮或纸把洞补上，飞机还可以继续飞。能飞多长时间？要飞到才能说，一个破飞机，我们怎么知道可以飞多长时间。我们希望能飞到喜马拉雅山顶上，我们的理想是到珠穆朗玛峰顶，美国也想去珠穆朗玛峰。美国从南坡爬坡，背着牛肉罐头、咖啡……；我们背着干粮，没有矿泉水，只有雪水，在北坡爬坡。
美国采用了极端的手段对待华为公司，美国为什么这么恐惧？美国这么强大，华为这样一个小公司怎么会被这么重视？我觉得很兴奋，被这么重视了，被世界夸大了作用。别人给我们做那么好的广告，我很感谢。
4、记者：您刚才说到珠穆朗玛峰，这是什么意思？珠穆朗玛峰，您感觉是什么样的？在登上珠穆朗玛峰峰顶之后，您的最终目标是什么？
任正非：华为要在技术上努力达到很先进、为人类提供最尖端服务的目标。当然，美国公司也想达到这个目标，我们共同达到这个目标，共同为人类服务，有什么不好呢？
5、记者：近期美国针对华为的行动，您认为对华为更加痛苦，还是对美国供应商更痛苦？
任正非：双方都痛苦。
6、记者：最近大家的关注点都在5G技术上，没有了美国供应商，华为还能保证5G产品的质量吗？
任正非：5G没有问题，我们在最先进的产品上都有能力自己管理自己。
记者：在核心的网络服务上，你们是否已经开发出可以替代别人的芯片？
任正非：是的。
记者：有没有一个大概的时间？你们自己研发的芯片什么时候开发出来？什么时候可以替代使用？
任正非：其实一直都在使用。我们过去采取的是“1+1”政策，一半用华为自己的芯片，一半购买美国的芯片，这样使得美国公司的利益也得到保障，我们也在实践中得到验证。如果美国对我们的制约多，我们购买美国芯片就少一点，使用自己芯片多一点；如果美国公司得到华盛顿的批准，还可以卖给我们，我们还是要继续大量购买美国芯片。我们和这些公司都是“同呼吸，共命运”的，不能因为我能做成芯片就抛弃伙伴，这样做以后就没有人愿意跟我们长期合作了。
我们做芯片的目的，不是要替代别人形成一个封闭的自我系统，而是要提高自己对未来技术的理解能力。因此，我们并没有准备完全替代美国公司的芯片，而是和美国公司长期保持友好。所以，不是说什么时候拿出来替代，而是一直在使用自己研发的芯片。
7、记者：为了确保华为的部件供应，有没有计划改变目前的供应链？
任正非：还是要保持原来的供应链不会改变，还是要向美国公司下订单，如果美国公司不能给我们供应时，自己供应自己的百分比就会提升，自己要想办法解决自己的问题。
8、记者：目前来看，华为在5G上是领导者，美国对华为的行动会不会给竞争对手一些优势，给诺基亚、爱立信多一些优势？
任正非：挺好的，它们多赚一点钱也是为人类服务。诺基亚、爱立信都是很好的公司，当年在欧盟反倾销制裁华为公司的时候，第一个反对的是瑞典和芬兰，可能是爱立信和诺基亚做了工作。我们相互之间从来都很友好，没有视为敌人。因此，它们多拿一点市场份额，替我们为人类服务多担一些责任，有什么不好？
9、记者：在5G方面领先竞争对手大概两年，这两年的差距会随着时间推移而减少吗？
任正非：当然了。因为我们被打得满翅膀都是洞，如果我们因此飞得慢一点，别人飞得快一点，当然可以追上我们。不过我们也在拿铁皮修补我们的洞，如果洞修好了以后，我们还是要飞快些的。
10、记者：目前这些情况对于CBG业务有多大程度的损害？例如智能手机、平板电脑，因为外国供应商不仅仅是给你们提供芯片，还包括软件，想问一下对于CBG的破坏有多大？
任正非：对华为肯定有影响的，但是影响的大小是由每个产品、每个部门自己评估，找到一些替代解决的方案，这就是救济措施。我们还是会保持合理前进，增长达不到预计目标，但还是在增长。在最艰难的环境中，我们还增长，体现了我们多么伟大。当然，我这个人这辈子从未自吹过，只是在最困难的时候，自己夸了自己一次。
11、记者：之前华为超过了苹果成为世界上排名第二的手机供应商，第一季度手机销售额增长了50%，之前有没有目标成为世界上排名第一的手机厂商，现在目标有变化吗？
任正非：苹果这么大，前两年我们变成了“桃子”，比苹果大一点点，过两年我们变成“李子”，比苹果会小一点，但还是可以给人们吃的，只是李子带一点酸味、苦涩。
记者：您还是想在手机上成为第一名是吗？
任正非：没有，我们可以变大，也可以变小。华为是非上市公司，不追求数量增大，也不追求利润高低，存活下来就不错了。
12、记者：关于操作系统的问题。听说华为在研发自己的操作系统，这个操作系统长什么样？大概什么时候可以上市？
任正非：操作系统在技术上不难，难的是生态。苹果和谷歌的生态做得非常好，我们从来都支持苹果、谷歌、微软的生态，一直追随它们。将来如果我们自己做，包括物联网等也需要新的系统，我们是不是能做好一些简单的操作系统？现在我们还不能肯定说可以做得很好，但是会努力。就像做其他零部件、芯片、产品一样，我们会努力。
记者：主要挑战是要建立生态系统，苹果、谷歌都花了多年时间建立了生态系统，这是华为的挑战，我的理解对吗？
任正非：是的。
13、记者：有一些说法，中国北京方面可能会针对苹果采取一些报复性行动，您认为中国政府应不应该采取这样的措施？
任正非：第一，绝对不会。第二，如果采取这个行动，我第一个站出来坚决反对。为什么要限制苹果？苹果是伟大的世界领袖，没有苹果就没有移动互联网，没有苹果给我们展现这个世界，这个世界就没有这么丰富多彩。苹果是我们的老师，它在前面领着前进，我们作为一个学生决不会反对老师。如果有这个行为，你来采访我，我会第一个站起来发言，反对封锁苹果的决定。
社会上有人说“既然打华为了，我们也打苹果”，我从来都是反对的，不能这样看。苹果为人类服务也是一种伟大，为什么不能用苹果？我家人中也有用苹果的，当然他们两种手机都有用。
记者：这种民粹主义、民族主义会让你觉得担忧吗？
任正非：我们坚决反对民粹主义和狭隘的民族主义，经济要走向全球化，要合作共赢。世界这么大，怎么会只有一家公司做这个事情呢？不赞成。即使我们真能做到第一，也要和大家团结在一起，为人类共同服务，而不是自己去服务。
14、记者：特朗普总统多次表示过，在中美贸易谈判中，华为可能会成为一个因素，您认为有可能吗，有多大可能？
任正非：美国已经起诉了我们，我们也起诉了美国政府，既然进入了法律程序，有什么好谈的？还是通过法庭来解决。另外，我们和中美贸易谈判也没有关系，美国基本没买过我们的产品，即使以后要买，我们还未必会卖。我认为，还是要关注法庭判决，相信美国司法系统是公开透明的。
记者：但是他是总统，说华为可能会成为贸易谈判的一部分，所以我还是要提下。
任正非：如果他给我打电话，我可能不接，当然他也没有我的电话号码。
15、记者：您认为可以和特朗普达成协议吗？特朗普说在达成协议方面是大师，您也是谈判能手，你们俩之间可能会达成一个协议吗？
任正非：美国都起诉我们了，怎么可能还谈判，法制国家，就要依靠法庭判决。
16、记者：您曾认为特朗普总统是一个伟大的总统，现在还这么认为吗？
任正非：特朗普是一个伟大的总统，他去全世界说“华为是一个伟大的公司，千万不要卖零部件给它”。这不就是宣传华为了不起，我们合同增加，订单供不上货了。我觉得他是一个伟大总统，宣传了华为的伟大。
17、记者：很多人都会把中兴和华为相比较，去年中兴遭遇了一些事情，最后达成协议，改变了董事会，接受了罚款，并且接受了美国的监督。如果解除华为禁令需要付出一些条件，有没有你们可以接受的条件？
任正非：我不了解中兴，跟中兴没有接触过。美国在纽约东区法院起诉我们，我们在法院上抗辩，还是法庭上见。
18、记者：您女儿现在加拿大被软禁，而且她面临引渡到美国，也面临着银行欺诈、违反伊朗制裁的起诉。特朗普总统说过，可以介入到这些事情帮助你的女儿，您会欢迎他介入吗？
任正非：加拿大是一个法制国家，我们还是在法庭上澄清加拿大政府执法过程中的违法问题。孟晚舟没有任何欺诈行为，这点我们已经在法庭上陈诉了，将来双方都可以拿出证据来，我们是有证据的。所以，孟晚舟所蒙受的冤枉可能是政治性的，特朗普本来就代表政治，怎么来解决问题？就是让我们国家给它好处，我们没有犯罪，凭什么让国家拿好处给美国？
记者：最近有跟孟晚舟对话吗？
任正非：有。
记者：她怎么样？
任正非：在读书，在软禁环境中学习。
19、记者：您觉得你们针对加拿大和美国的法律行动会帮助你们，还是会有一些风险？因为会增强、会煽动更加紧张的局势。
任正非：是加拿大和美国对我们采取行动在先，而我们在后反诉，怎么能说在后的人响应了美国的号召，我们就成为扰动社会秩序的呢？既然它知道扰动社会秩序，为什么要起诉我们？它们起诉我们，我们就不能反诉吗？美国是一个公平、开放、透明的国家，你有起诉我的权利，我也有抗诉的权利。
20、记者：您觉得美国针对中国长期的战略是什么？有些人说要限制中国的崛起？
任正非：我不懂政治，也不是政治家，政治的事情要问特朗普去，他是政治家。
记者：您有非常丰富的经历和经验，又创造了这样一个了不起的成功公司，去过非常多的国家，对于国际上发生的事情有非常多的了解。有些人说，我们现在可能到了一个点，会有新的冷战，这会带来风险吗？
任正非：首先，我不认为我自己有能力，我的能力也是集中精力管企业，两耳不闻华为公司以外的事情。包括中国的事情，我也不发表言论，因为我也不了解中国其他企业的做法。
我到其他国家是去旅游，如果你要问我哪个地方咖啡好喝，哪个地方的风景好看，我可以滔滔不绝介绍给你，但是你问这个国家的政治，我是不懂的。
21、记者：有人说，如果我们按目前的道路走，未来可能会出现两个技术生态系统：一个是由中国驱动，另外一个是由美国驱动的。您怎么看？
任正非：第一，世界走过了崎岖不平的道路，在工业化时代，我们有窄轨铁路、标准轨迹铁路、宽轨铁路，影响了世界贸易的流通。由于那个时候是一种慢速的工业社会流通，交通阻碍并没有这么大。交通的多制式方式演变到通信标准体系来，一直到4G都是多个标准体系，给人类带来的就是“成本贵”，使得人类不能简单地使用。到5G以后的带宽成本大幅下降，一个小体积的设备可以代替体积很大的4G设备，比4G容量大20倍，比2G容量大10000倍，但是体积小很多，能耗只有1/10。
很多穷人在新时代可以很便宜用到宽带，使穷人更容易接受文化教育。将来信息社会传播时，非常偏僻地区的小孩子可以看到世界是什么样子，进步速度很快，就会种更多的粮食、创造更多的财富，来解决人们脱离贫困的问题，这是有益社会的。
技术是否可能分裂成两个标准系统，现在我不能肯定地回答。如果将来是两个标准，两个标准在交汇的时候，一个标准在南边爬坡，一个标准在北边爬坡，到山顶的时候，我们不会跟对方“拼刺刀”，我们会拥抱对方，为人类信息化服务的胜利大会师。为了庆祝大会师，我们好好喝一杯，因为山上只有雪，用雪代替香槟干一杯，终于为人类做到了共同服务。一个标准、两个标准还是多个标准，其实都不重要，重要是降低服务的成本。
22、记者：您今天坐在这里，预估一下贸易战会持续多长时间？之前有中国有位前任高级官员说可能会到2035年，但是马云说可能会持续20年，您的预判呢？
任正非：我不知道怎么预判。我只管我们公司，公司可大可小，打一打，我们缩小一点，变成小乒乓球；再大一点，变成排球；再大一点，变成篮球。大与小，对我们来说可以随时调整。
23、记者：有一些人批评说，华为发展到今天主要靠偷知识产权和获得政府支持，您的看法是什么？
任正非：美国都没有做出来，我们已经做出来了，我们怎么去偷美国没有的技术？怎么去偷美国未来还没有发明的东西？至于我们是不是有政府的背景，我们是由KPMG审计的，你们可以问他们要审计报表，妄断不见得是正确的。如果我们技术上落后于美国，美国政客有必要这么费劲打我们？正是因为我们领先了，才打我们。
24、记者：之前你们面临过很多法律诉讼，包括跟思科、摩托罗拉、T-mobile，这些诉讼反映了华为公司哪些文化？华为采用了什么措施应对这些诉讼的影响？
任正非：首先，这些官司都有美国法庭判决，要尊重法庭的结论。公司一贯严格管理员工不做违规的事情。我们公司的技术内容极其庞大，首先要问我们给人类做了什么贡献？我们有90000多项专利，主要是近期形成的信息社会专利，数字社会的信息底座有我们巨大的贡献。其中11500多项核心专利在美国注册，美国政府已经授予了我们权利的。要逐步去理解华为对人类的贡献，就可能会慢慢化解一些矛盾。
25、记者：华为是从落后于爱立信、诺基亚这些公司，慢慢发展成为5G的领导者，你们是如何做到的？采用了什么样的步骤？是如何实现这样跨越式发展的？
任正非：首先，我们把别人喝咖啡的时间都用了在工作上了。总的来说，我们付出的努力比别人多。第二，我们个人都没什么钱，公司赚的钱都分给了大家，可以吸引很多优秀的科学家、优秀的人才加盟到队伍来。我不是一个大富豪，当然也算一个小富豪，过去说我是穷人是可以的，但经历了二十多年，我被逼成了富人。中国有句话“财散人聚”，把财散去以后，全世界科学家都愿意跟我们合作，走到我们这个队列，我们怎么会走不快呢？美国的钱被华尔街拿走了很多，科学家拿得很少，可能科学家就跑到我们这儿来了。
26、记者：如果国家发生危机，找到您说“需要你们给国家帮助，需要进入你们的网络，需要你们提供一些信息，这些对国家、对政府、对人民是有利的。”
任正非：我们绝对不会安装后门，绝对绝对不会做这件事。因为我们是为人类服务，不是为情报服务，为什么要去安装后门？
记者：加入中国共产党，您是宣过誓的，如果中国共产党领导找您解决中美之间的冲突，您还会维护您的公司吗？不去做共产党让您做的事情吗？
任正非：共产党的誓词是忠于人民，没有宣誓把美国作为敌人，誓词里没有这句话。
记者：你们在实际操作中会用什么样的步骤拒绝国家的请求？
任正非：从来都没有发生过这种事情。德国报纸发布了一篇文章，说华为公司系统没有找到后门。英国说华为受到了全世界最严厉的审查，所以英国才会信任我们，坚持要用我们的设备。这是历史证明的，未来我们更不会去做这个事情。
27、记者：您提到英国，英国之前有一个网络安全中心发出的报告，他们有一些担心，之前提出关于网络安全的问题华为并没有很好的解决，可能还是有一些风险？
任正非：报告是很善意地批评我们的，华为也不是完美无缺的，发现问题就去改进。同样，至于安不安装后门，你也去采访别的美国公司，看那些公司对世界怎么回答这个问题。
28、记者：您如何描述您跟中国政府之间的关系？
任正非：缴税，遵守中国的法律。
记者：被列入黑名单以后，您跟中国政府沟通过吗？
任正非：不需要，我们跟美国政府在法庭上见，为什么要跟中国政府说话？
记者：好像有报道说，中国政府考虑给你们提供财经方面的支持，您会考虑吗？
任正非：没有这回事，将来财务报表都能看见的。只是西方银行给我们的贷款减少，我们会向中国银行多贷一些。过去我们大量在西方银行贷款，因为他们利息低，但是如果西方银行不给我们贷款时，中国银行贷款利息高一点，我们也要贷款。这是商业行为，跟政府没有关系。
记者：中国政府或者下属任何实体，有没有持有华为的任何股份或者任何一部分？
任正非：一分钱人民币都没有。
29、记者：一部分问题或者所有问题最终都是信任的问题，美国对华为和中国存在不信任。除了已经做过的动作，还会有一些另外的动作提升信任吗，比如重组公司或者让公司上市等举措？
任正非：第一，我们与客户经历了三十年的磨合，和三十亿人口有良好的沟通，这种信任不是哪个人说句话就可以改变的。第二，如果说为了让你们相信，就要上市，我们不会的。我们本来就没有问题，不怕人家说有问题。
30、记者：目前在欧洲的争论，你们是占上风吗？
任正非：肯定是占下风的，因为美国掌控世界舆论的能力非常强，华为只是微弱的声音，像风吹小草的声音，被大海的海浪声压住了，但是我们不能一点声音都不喊出来。我们过去相信“沉默不是懦弱，忍耐不是麻木”，我们总忍耐，人家还是不放过我们，所以我们就自己呐喊一点声音。呐喊有多少人能听得见？没有多少，因为美国舆论掌控上还是非常厉害的。
31、记者：你们业务成功，当然就说明了你们在客户层面已经建立了很多信任关系。但我说的是政府侧，作为华为公司的CEO和创始人，您是否认为自己本可以做些什么，来建立信任和提升信任？
任正非：其实绝大多数政府还是很信任华为的。人类发生任何灾难时，第一个站在灾难前面的大概都是华为公司。在日本“3.11”大地震核泄露严重危机关头，别的公司都走了，只有华为公司和难民反方向前进，抢救恢复通信设备，有利于核电站的抢修。当时孟晚舟从香港飞东京，飞东京的航班上只有两个人，一个是孟晚舟，一个是日本人。
我们对人类的命运是负责任的。印度尼西亚大海啸，我们第一时间捐献了大量现金和设备，第一时间去了几百人到海边恢复通信设备，有利于抢险救灾。
智利九级大地震时，我们有三个人困在地震中心找不到。代表处打电话给我，是不是要派队伍去找。我说，不知道还会不会有余震，现在不要去找，否则找的人又陷入地震灾难里去，先耐心等待。等待几天以后，这三个人打来电话，当地主管并不知道公司决策“把生命放在第一位”，就说哪个地方微波坏了要他们赶快抢修一下。为抢险救灾服务，这些人背着背包往灾难中心走。为这件事情，我们拍成了三分钟的真人小电影。我去智利看他时，智利首富送了我一箱高级葡萄酒，我全送给他了，他高高兴兴端着走了，并没有分一瓶给旁边坐着的高级领导。小伙子很朴实，很了不起。
还有疾病肆虐的非洲，瘟疫、埃波拉病、艾滋病、疟疾，这些地方都是华为在战斗，很多华为员工得过疟疾。华为用美国军队的名言“上过战场、开过枪、受过伤”来提拔干部，没有在艰苦地方工作过是不能升为高级干部的。
32、记者：回头看您个人的经历，我想让我们的观众了解您是怎样一个人，以及到底是什么促使您创立了这家公司？之前您是人民解放军的工程师，后来在1987年创办了华为，可以介绍一下这段历史吗？
任正非：其实我的历史分为两段：第一，在计划经济的体制中生存。在大裁军之前，我在军队里服役，是计划经济体制。在这个体制里，我是副团职的工程师。但是突然大裁军，我们集体被裁了，被扔到市场经济的海洋中。第二，市场经济体制。那时根本不懂市场经济为何物，比如这个东西买进来10块钱，怎么卖出去12块钱给人家，这不是骗子吗？当时我们的思想还处于禁锢中，在大海中一口口呛水，而且对人超级信任，我在一个小公司工作时，钱被人骗走了，然后我去追款，没有钱请律师，就自己学法律，自己当律师，把世界的法律书都读了一遍。我悟出一个道理，市场经济就两个东西，一个是货源，一个是客户，两个之间的交易就是法律。我永远不可能掌握客户，能掌握的就是货源，我能遵守的就是法律。这就是我们做研发的动机，自己要研究商品，通过合法交易手段，从客户那里把钱赚过来。
在这个情况下，原来的公司也不要我了，我只好重新出来工作。正好中国开放改革之后，允许知识青年回城，政府没法给他们安排工作，就允许他们卖大碗茶、卖馒头。在深圳，允许一部分人做科技公司，我想试试看，就创办了华为。是生活所迫，无路可走，创办了华为。然后我就沿着这个思路，做好货源，合理卖给客户，赚客户的钱。就是这么一个道理，建设这个公司，走到今天。
33、记者：您1987年创立公司的目标是什么？
任正非：那时连饭都没得吃，就是生存，活下去。那时我的孩子很小，她妈妈经常给我说，她要在下午五点去市场买些烂鱼烂虾，给孩子吃，因为小孩不吃蛋白质长不好，我们只能维持最低标准的生活。那时候我们不可能有什么目标，能不能活下来还不知道。我在公司最著名的口号就是“要活下来、活下来、活下来”，今天我们“烂飞机”的口号还是活下来，没有多么远大的理想。
34、记者：您是否曾经想象过，有今天这样的地位吗？
任正非：一个人没有欲望，反而更加有能耐。我就是没有欲望，也不想拿钱多，所以我只有一点点股票。在2000年，我连房子都没有，我和太太租的房子只有这个会议室一半大，30多平方米，而且西晒，没有空调。我们没有退路，退回去也是贫穷，往前走还有一些希望，往后走是绝对没有希望的，所以我们就硬着头皮继续往前走，突然看到阳光了，突然发现到山顶了。美国不打我们，我们还不知道在世界有地位；美国一打我们，我们才知道自己原来还挺有地位，挺光荣。即使今天华为垮了，我们也觉得光荣，是特朗普把我们打死的，不是其他什么人。
35、记者：您在军队的经历多大程度上影响了您管理公司的风格？
任正非：我们没有退路，只有一步步往前走，像“驴子磨磨”一样往前走，走一走，出来一些成果。有了成果以后，“小毛驴”更有干劲了，一步步走，不知道怎么就走到前面了。军队的性格就是不畏艰难险阻，一步一步前进。
36、记者：您说2000年也是困难时期，当时思科控告华为侵犯了他们的知识产权。相比现在，您觉得是现在更困难一点，还是那个时候也是挑战最大的一段时期？
任正非：我们没有不困难的时期，任何时候都是最困难的时候。
37、记者：据报道称，2000年时你们想把公司卖给摩托罗拉，最后没有成功，这样的转折对您来说是一件很开心的事情吗？
任正非：这事摩托罗拉很傻，那个星期高尔文下台，詹德上台，二把手马克跟我们谈判完成所有的交易合同，所有文件全签完了，我们穿着花衣服在沙滩上赛跑、打乒乓球，等待批准，结果詹德否决了这个审批。多年后我见到爱立信CEO时，他说马克谈到这段历史时都流泪了，多么好的收购，怎么否决了？
那时我们还是怕美国，知道发展下去，最终要和美国交锋，所以我们有自知之明，就准备把公司卖了去开发旅游、拖拉机，但是没有卖成功。我们公司重新讨论“要不要继续走这条路，还是卖掉？”我是一个妥协派，从来都是能妥协就妥协。但是，少壮派们说还想继续干下去，他们都是技术出身，如果不干下去，他们去搞旅游，拿个旗子当导游，他们觉得自己不擅长，他们还要搞技术。我说，那十年以后有可能跟美国发生冲突，要往前走，就要努力提高自己的水平，大家达成了一致。今天我们被打得焦头烂额，“飞机”百孔千疮，但是大家很团结，没有分歧，意见更统一了，与当年预判过有关系。但是能不能活下去，还不知道。有人问“打中发动机、油箱怎么办？”不要说发动机和油箱，不卖油给我们，飞机还能飞吗？这些都会成为新的问题，面对问题，解决问题，走一步算一步，逐渐去探索。
你让我回答“我们的飞机能不能着陆”，要着陆了才能算数，现在“烂飞机”还在天上，有时候狂风吹一下，“烂飞机”是经不住吹的，可能就掉下来了。
记者：因为这样的事情是不是让华为更强大了？
任正非：不见得，应该说经历一次洗礼，可以让我们思想脱胎换骨。
38、记者：您认为，华为未来最大的机会在哪里？
任正非：现在我们活下来的问题还没有解决，怎么讨论未来？美国给不给我们通行证活下来？还没有解决，谈未来太遥远了。
39、记者：说到生存的部分，华为很有名的一点是在研发上的投入非常多，每年收入10%会投入到研发，这也是促使华为能够站在5G前沿的主要催化剂。现在美国对于华为有这样的行动，你们会在研发上投入更多，用于自研产品和组件吗？
任正非：过去在销售时，我们依据成本推演定价，价格定得比较低，挤兑了西方公司，害一些公司破产了，我是有愧的。现在我们的价格总体定得比较高，比爱立信、诺基亚定得高，那我们赚的钱多。我们内部的分配标准和西方相比已经具有更大优势了，如果员工再分更多的钱下去就变成懒汉了。为了让我们的员工不成懒汉，就把更多的钱用在科学研究和未来的投资上，这就是增加土地肥力。苹果是世界上最伟大的公司，苹果举着一把大“伞”，价格卖得很贵，下面很多价格便宜的公司可以活下来。我们要向苹果学习“伞”举得高一点，当然会稍低一些，其实我们也不低，因为还有很多低成本的措施。钱赚多了，就投科研，投未来。
只要我们还有饭吃，只要不饿死，我们一定会继续加大投入。即使最困难的时候，我们也要对明天投入，否则未来没有希望。如果我们已经亏损，发不出工资是另外一回事，现在没有那个问题。我们能节约的钱要节约下来，在研发投资上不要削弱，否则将来一定会死的。
40、记者：说起人才获取问题，因为现在这种局势，很多中国学生被美国拒签，很多学术人员无法留在美国，对华为来说是不是潜在的机会，可以去吸引人才加入华为？
任正非：看华为各个用人的部门在专业上需不需要这些人才，如果需要，当然可以的。
41、记者：未来您觉得最重要的技术变革是什么？
任正非：人工智能。
记者：对于公司和您自己来说，是不是会增加对AI的关注度？
任正非：现在我们的AI芯片、AI系统在大规模投入应用，生产线、管理体系如果不用AI，管理成本很高，就腾不出钱来搞研发。此外，在我们的产品中，人工智能也用得很多。
42、记者：您计划在CEO位置上再做多久？
任正非：我也不知道，过一段时间吧。
记者：有继任计划吗？
任正非：一直有继任计划。继任不是交给个人，而是交给一个群体，群体下面还有群体，一群群套着这个群体，像链式反应一样，是一个庞大的继任计划，不是一个人的。不然，万一这个人生病了怎么办？何况我们还是一架“烂飞机”，所以继任不是一个人，而是一群人。
43、记者：回到之前供应的话题，主要供应商（像英特尔、高通、谷歌）都限制了华为的供应，不仅仅在组件上，而且在软件上。您打算怎么渡过这个难关？能透露应急计划的具体细节吗？
任正非：美国公司都要评估自己的利益和所处环境，然后做出决策。我们支持供应商进行评估，现在是媒体上说得比较多，但很多情况并不是很明确。
记者：听说一年前就开始了应急计划，就有这样的准备，为什么那时候就想到这个应急计划呢？怎样做的呢？可以介绍一下吗？
任正非：应急计划也不完全是为了应急，是为了领先行业。行业技术如果跟不上来，我们当然要做更先进的芯片、更先进的部件，但是我们也只是做一部分，不是几千、几万个都这样做，那就是高成本了。今天我们这架飞机最核心的“发动机”、“油箱”做了准备，“翅膀”上还有很多地方没有准备，我们要梳理，哪些地方有问题就去修补。两、三年以后，你再来采访我们，就知道我们能不能生存了。
44、记者：刚才说到生存，想问到底什么东西可以杀死华为？
任正非：自己对未来没信心，自己没有意志，自己没有坚强的努力，这才是真正杀死自己的最大杀手。
45、记者：有一些说法，之所以会造成这样的局面，是因为之前中国限制了一些美国顶级技术公司，美国为了跟上中国的步伐，也限制中国公司，您怎么看？
任正非：它可不是只限制我们进入美国，而是在世界范围内围剿我们。如果只限制我们进入美国市场，我们高兴死了，因为本来就不想去美国。
记者：很多人说中国限制了很多美国顶级技术公司在中国运营，那么看起来美国限制中国是很公平的。
任正非：他们现在跑到全世界去游说，可不是限制我们进入美国的问题，是限制不能买到零部件。美国通过立法的方式限制我们，得找到我们的过错，因为美国司法是三权分立的国家，不能立法机关投票表决就给我们判决，违反它的宪法。那么我们就要告它违反宪法。
46、记者：之前您跟中国媒体说，希望中国能够加快改革开放的步伐。如果中国早一点加快改革开放的步伐，现在局面不会是这样？
任正非：我们公司这件事情与国家是否加快改革开放是两件事情，不能关联起来。我一直是支持国家开放改革的，因为开放改革使中国走向了繁荣富强，中国不能闭关了，中国闭关自守的五千年是贫穷的五千年，中国开放的三十年是繁荣的三十年，因此开放是有利于中国的。这与华为公司的命运没有关系，支持中国继续要开放。
但是，开放有序也是必要的，是一步步有序来。就像美国是一个最开放的国家，不是不准华为进去吗？美国可以有序地管理，那中国有序管理也是可以理解的。
47、记者：您今天坐在这儿，想象一下五年以后华为什么样？对华为五年以后的愿景是什么？您的期望是什么？
任正非：五年时间不想象，先把三年的事情说清楚。三年以后你再来看我们，如果华为死了，请你带一束玫瑰花放在墓前；如果华为还活着，我会送你大蛋糕。我希望你三年后来的时候不要带玫瑰花，而是我给你现做一个大蛋糕，这是我的理想。但是眼前怎么样，还是未知数。
记者：还是生存？
任正非：生存永远是第一位的，没有生存就不可能有发展。我从来没有做梦，去梦想怎么样，还是要现实主义来解决问题。
48、记者：之前说到2003年思科的案子，从那时开始到现在，您作为CEO有没有一些您可以做的，缓解大家对于信任的担忧，或者如果华为员工真的窃取别人知识产权，您可以做一些什么？
任正非：思科案子发生之前，我们也是非常重视知识产权的管理的，所以这么大的官司，才会是和解。但是让我们更加警醒，要加强知识产权的管理，我们的知识产权对人类的贡献是很大的，我们内部的管理约束也很多。
49、记者：听说华为有一种文化，会比较强力地推动员工往前进，要去赢，类似于狼性文化。这种文化是不是引发一些情况，比如窃取T-mobile橡胶头，是不是这种激进的文化导致的呢？
任正非：个别案件已经进入司法程序，还是按法庭的判决来处理，公司总体管理还是有效的。
记者：公司有没有建立过这样的机制，奖励窃取别人知识产权的行为？
任正非：绝对没有。
记者：美国司法部好像说华为内部有这样的奖励机制，如果窃取了别人知识产权，会有奖赏？
任正非：美国司法部已经提起了诉讼，还是要依靠法庭来判决。
记者：您也不会容忍这种制度？
任正非：绝对不可能。
Ren Zhengfei's Interview with Bloomberg TV
May 24, 2019
Q1: Mr. Ren, thank you very much for the time to talk to us. President Trump has described Huawei as a dangerous company. He said, and I'm quoting, "From a security standpoint and from a military standpoint, this is a dangerous company." How do you respond to that?
Ren: I have no idea why he considers us to be a danger. We provide information and communications services to three billion people around the world, including those in underdeveloped African countries and other hardship regions. Like missionaries in the past, we try hard to bring culture (communications services) to the depths of the thickest forests. We have been serving humanity with religious devotion. How is it possible that he considers us to be a danger?
5G is not an atomic bomb. It is a tool for communicating information. The content of communications has nothing to do with the tool. Take a microphone as an example. We cannot say that this microphone is a dangerous tool, because it can transmit and amplify voices. But those who speak with a microphone may say something that poses a threat. How can a tool itself be dangerous?
His accusation is unsubstantiated. Does he have the confidence to analyze the accusation for the public?
Q2: The US decision to blacklist Huawei is being framed by some US lawmakers as a death sentence for the company. Do you see this as a question of life and death for Huawei?
Ren: First of all, the US has decided not to purchase our equipment. This is their freedom in a market economy. They can choose not to buy or sell a product. This is not an issue. But the US believes that we pose a threat to security. We have virtually no presence in its market. How does its security have anything to do with us? It has nothing to do with us.
The US is a country ruled by law. In such a country, what's most important is evidence. But the US has failed to present any evidence to prove that we are a security threat and instead has directly added us to this blacklist. A journalist once asked Mike Pompeo where the evidence was. See what his reply was. He said that they asked the wrong question. So I think it may be wrong to add us to the Entity List.
The US is acting with too much anxiety. This is irrational. The country has dominant advantages all over the world and this has been so for quite a long time. Even if some countries manage to catch up in the future, the US still has its relative strengths. Certain companies make some breakthroughs in certain areas. They should be happy about this, because other players can work with them to provide better services to humanity. How can they consider this a threat?
Is it possible that Huawei will collapse after being put on the list? No, we won't. But our aircraft is bullet-riddled. As you can see in this photo, this is an Il-2 bomber made by the former Soviet Union during World War II. It is actually a portrayal of Huawei. Despite being badly damaged, we don't want to crash and just want to make our way back home. Our current situation is difficult, but it won't cause us to collapse. Adding Huawei to the Entity List may cause us some trouble. But we are repairing our aircraft while adjusting our route back. We will definitely survive.
We will still be a global leader in 5G, as well as some other areas. And our competitors won't be able to catch up with us within one or two years.
Q3: You talk about the aircraft analysis and it's an interesting one. The list of companies that supply Huawei with components, as well as software, and are now cutting off the supply of both is growing. This includes Qualcomm, Intel, and Google. So I guess the question is, how long can you survive without these supplies, in terms of both components and software?
Ren: The US is not the world's police and should not seek to manage the whole world. Other countries can decide whether to do business with us based on their own interests and positions. If a company decides not to trade with us, we'll patch that hole in our aircraft with sheet metal or cardboard. We will keep flying and do the repairs at the same time, so that the aircraft continues to fly. How long can it fly? How should I know? We hope to make it to the top of Mount Everest. That's our ideal. The US shares this same ideal. The difference might be that they climb up from the south, with a backpack full of canned beef and coffee. We are moving up from the north with field rations. Without bottled water, we need to melt snow to drink.
Why does the US go to such extremes when dealing with Huawei? What makes them so scared? The US is so powerful. Why does such a small company as ours deserve so much attention from them? I'm thrilled about this, as we are valued and our role has been exaggerated. What the US has done is publicity, good publicity actually, for us. I'm very grateful for what they have done.
Q4: You talked about reaching Everest. What does that mean? What does Everest look like for you? What is the company's ultimate goal once you reach it?
Ren: I think Huawei's goal is to work hard to develop advanced technologies and provide cutting-edge services to humanity. The US also wants to achieve this goal. What's wrong with us sharing this same goal and providing services to humanity?
Q5: Do you think the recent actions by the US will be more painful for Huawei or for your US suppliers?
Ren: It hurts both.
Q6: In terms of 5G, because there has been a lot of focus on 5G technologies, can you continue to offer the same quality, in terms of 5G technology, without US components?
Ren: We don't have problems with 5G. We can maintain the quality of our most advanced products.
In terms of the services of core networks, have you developed your own chips that can replace US supplies?
Ren: Yes.
Do we have a timeframe when those in-house chips developed may be able to be used as a substitute for some of those US supplies?
Ren: Actually, we have been using our in-house chips for a long time. We used to have a "1+1" policy – half of the chips we used came from Huawei, and half from US companies. This could protect the interests of our US suppliers as well. We could also verify that our products worked in real-world scenarios this way. If the US imposes more restrictions on Huawei, we may have to use more of our in-house chips than those from the US. If Washington allows US companies to continue selling chips to Huawei, we will continue buying US chips in large quantities. US companies and Huawei have a symbiotic relationship. We will not discard our partners just because we are able to make chips on our own; otherwise, no one would be willing to cooperate with us in the long term.
Our goal in making our own chips is not to substitute other companies and create a closed system. Our goal is to better understand future technologies. We don't intend to completely substitute the chips of US companies. We hope to maintain long-term, amicable relationships with US companies. The point is not that we will replace the chips from the US when ours are already. We've been using our own chips all along.
Q7: Are you looking to change your supply chains at all to ensure that you have the components that you need? Is that a process that you're looking at now?
Ren: No. We will keep our existing supply chains unchanged, and will continue placing purchase orders with US companies. If they can no longer provide supplies to us, then the proportion of our in-house products will increase. It is up to us to find ways to solve our own problems.
Q8: As it stands, Huawei is the leader in 5G technology. Can the actions of the US be an advantage to your competitors like Nokia and Ericsson?
Ren: Yes, it will be good for these companies. When they can make more money, they can better serve humanity. Both Nokia and Ericsson are great companies. Many years ago, when the EU wanted to sanction Huawei for dumping practices, Sweden and Finland were the first to object. I would say this was due to prompting from Ericsson and Nokia. We have treated each other well, and we have never seen each other as an adversary. Isn't it a good thing if they can secure more market share and assume more responsibility for serving humanity in place of us?
Q9: You talked about having two-year lead in terms of 5G on your competitors. Does that lead get eroded?
Ren: Of course. If we fly slower because our aircraft wings are riddled with bullet holes, our peers can certainly catch up because they can fly faster. But we are fixing these holes, and when this work is done, we will fly faster.
Q10: How much damage do you expect to be felt in the consumer division of your business – smartphones and laptops, which depend on US chips and US software?
Ren: Huawei is definitely impacted. The precise extent of impact will be assessed by the respective product line or department. They will find alternatives, or remedies, so to speak. We will pursue reasonable progress. Our growth rate may not be as high as predicted, but we will still see growth. The fact that we can continue growing in the most challenging environment shows that we are a great company. Of course, I have never bragged about myself in my whole life; I'm just praising myself this time because we are facing the biggest difficulty so far.
Q11: And you have bragging rights because earlier this year you overtook Apple as the No. 2 smartphone maker as your smartphone sales in the first quarter jumped by 50%. And because you do have the goal of becoming the No. 1 smartphone maker in the world, does that goal now have to be shelved?
Ren: Apple is huge. Two years ago, we became a bit bigger than them – like a peach. In the next two years, we may have become smaller than them, like a plum. But a plum is still fit for consumption, even though it may taste bitter.
So you still want to be the No. 1 smartphone maker?
Ren: No. We can scale either up or down. Huawei is not a public company, so we don't aim for big numbers or high profits. Survival is the best thing we can hope for.
Q12: I want to ask about your operating system. We've been told that you want to develop your own in-house operating system. Can you tell us what that's going to look like and when we can expect to see that?
Ren: When it comes to the operating system, the difficulty is not the technology. Building an ecosystem is the most difficult thing. Apple and Google have built robust ecosystems. Huawei has always supported the ecosystems of Apple, Google, and Microsoft. We have followed their lead. There will be new operating systems, for the Internet of Things and the like. Can we develop some simple operating systems? I can't say for sure that we will be doing very well in this, but we will make effort. Just as how we produce other components, chips, and products – we put effort into it.
So the key challenge is building an ecosystem, because Apple and Google spent years building their ecosystems. Will that be a key challenge around OS?
Ren: Yes, you'd be right.
Q13: There are calls by some in China for Beijing to retaliate against Apple. Is that an option that China should be looking at taking?
Ren: Definitely not! If it were, I'd be the first to oppose such actions. Why should we act against Apple? Apple is a great leader in the world. Without Apple, there would have been no mobile Internet, and the world would not have been as colorful as it is today. Apple is like a teacher to us, leading our way forward, and a student would never act against his teacher. If Beijing does so, you can come interview me and I will be the first to voice my opposition to blocking Apple.
Some people say that since the US has blocked Huawei, China might as well block Apple. I've always been against this idea. Apple is a great company that serves humanity. Why shouldn't we use Apple products? Some of my family members are using iPhones, and Huawei phones as well, of course.
Does that nationalism and populism concern you?
Ren: No. We strongly oppose populism and petty nationalism. In a global economy, we must work together to achieve shared success. We live in a big world, and it's impossible for a single company to support the world alone. Again, we strongly oppose populism and nationalism. Even if we can rise to become the world's No. 1, we will partner with others to serve humanity, not just by ourselves.
Q14: President Trump has repeatedly suggested that Huawei could be a factor in any trade deal between the US and China. How likely is that, do you think, from your perspective?
Ren: The US has sued us and we have filed our counterclaim. Now that the cases are undergoing legal proceedings, what do we need to negotiate? We will leave them to the court. We don't have anything to do with China-US trade talks. The US has bought almost nothing from Huawei, and even if they want to in the future, we would not necessarily sell to them. It's better that we wait for the court's ruling. I believe the US justice system is open and transparent.
I just had to bring it up because it's the President saying, Huawei could be a part of these trade negotiations, which is why I brought it up.
Ren: If he called me, I might not pick up. He doesn't have my phone number though, of course.
Q15: Trump says he is master of the art of the deal. You're a deal maker as well. Do you think you could make a deal with Trump if that was a possibility?
Ren: How can we negotiate with Trump after the US sued Huawei? The US is a country ruled by law. We should leave the case to the court.
Q16: You have said in the past that you think President Trump is a great president. Do you still think he is a great president?
Ren: Trump is a great president. He tells the whole world that Huawei is a great company and not to sell us components. As a result, we are winning more contracts and can hardly keep up with the increasing orders. He is a great president because he tells the world how great Huawei is.
Q17: Many people see parallels between ZTE and Huawei. ZTE last year accepted a deal with the US that involved changing their board and paying a significant fine. It involved quite significant oversight as well. Are there any conditions that would be possible to Huawei if that meant lifting the yoke of these restrictions?
Ren: I don't know about ZTE and haven't engaged with them before. The US sued us at the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where we will defend ourselves. We will see them in court.
Q18: Your daughter is being held in Canada and faces extradition to the US from Canada, and she's facing charges in the US of fraud and breaking sanctions against Iran. Those are the allegations from the US side. President Trump has suggested that he could intervene to help your daughter, presumably you welcome that kind of intervention?
Ren: Canada is a country ruled by law. We will clarify in court how the Canadian government acted illegally during its law enforcement. Meng has not committed any fraudulent activities. We have made this clear in court. Both the US and Huawei should provide evidence in court in the future, and we have our evidence. Meng was treated unfairly, which may have been politically motivated. Since Trump himself is a politician, how could he intervene? He just wants China to offer some benefits to the US. We didn't commit any crime, so why should we ask our country to offer benefits to the US?
Have you spoken with Meng lately?
Ren: Yes.
How is she?
Ren: She is studying while under house arrest.
Q19: Do you think the legal action against Canada and the US is helping your cause, or is there a risk that it inflames tensions?
Ren: The US and Canada took action against us first; we then countersued. Why are we considered to be the one disrupting the social order, when we are merely responding to the call of the US? Why did the US sue us even though they knew that it would disrupt the social order? Why shouldn't we file a counterclaim after they sued us? The US is a fair, open, and transparent country. It has the right to sue us and we have the right to defend ourselves.
Q20: What do you think America's long-term strategy is, when it comes to China? Do you think it is about trying to, as some would argue, contain China's rise?
Ren: I'm not a politician and I don't know about politics. You need to ask President Trump these questions because he is a politician.
You have rich experience and you've built up a phenomenally successful business. You've traveled to many countries and you're very well versed in what happens internationally. There are some who have said that this is the point when we are facing, essentially, a new cold war. Is that a risk?
Ren: I don't think I'm a very capable person. My capabilities are limited to managing this company. I turn a deaf ear to things irrelevant to Huawei and I don't comment on them, including things relating to China. This is because I don't know about the practices of other Chinese companies.
My travels to many countries have been for fun only. I could talk at length if you were to ask me about which places have good coffee, or which places have beautiful scenery, but I am not the right person to ask when it comes to politics.
Q21: OK, let me ask you about technology. Because there are those who say that if we keep going down the path we're going down, we'll have a situation where we, essentially, have two technology ecosystems: one driven by China, one driven by the US. Is that a risk?
Ren: The world has always walked a bumpy road. In the industrialized age, we had different standards for railways: narrow track, standard track, and wide track, which hindered the development of international trade. Back then, everything moved slowly, so the different standards of railways didn't create much trouble. When it comes to communications standards, we had multiple standards before 5G appeared. Different standards drove up costs for users and made it difficult to access communications services.
Since 5G appeared, bandwidth costs have been greatly reduced. In terms of network capacity, 5G is 20 times larger than 4G and 10,000 times larger than 2G, but the size of 5G equipment is much smaller and its power consumption is only a tenth of what 4G equipment consumes.
In this new age, even those without much money can afford broadband services, giving them more opportunities to receive cultural education. In the information society, children even in remote regions can see what the world looks like. Then they will develop faster, grow more harvests, and create more wealth. More people will be lifted out of poverty. All this will benefit society.
I'm not sure whether there will be two systems of technical standards. If yes, when the two sides meet at the top of the mountain, with one climbing from the north and the other from the south, we will not fight with each other; instead, we will embrace each other to celebrate our success in driving the digitization of humanity. We will toast to each other. Since there is only snow at the top of the mountain, we will use melted snow instead of champagne for the toast. Ultimately, we are jointly serving humanity. It doesn't really matter whether there is one standard, two standards, or more standards. What really matters is reducing service costs.
Q22: As you sit here today, what is your assessment of how long this trade war could go on? We've heard a former Chinese senior official say it could continue till 2035. We've heard Jack Ma say it could go on for two decades.
Ren: I don't know how to predict this. I'm only responsible for managing our company. Our business can be scaled up or down. When under attack, our business could be scaled down to the size of a table tennis ball. Then it could be scaled up to the size of a volleyball, and then to a basketball. We can adjust the size of our business anytime.
Q23: The critics of Huawei would say that you've got to where you are through intellectual property theft and government support. What is your response to that?
Ren: We have developed technologies that the US hasn't developed yet. How could we steal technologies that do not even exist? We would need to wait for the US to invent them first. Regarding whether we are supported by the government, we have been audited by KPMG, and KPMG can provide you with our audit report. Jumping to conclusions could result in a wrong judgment. If we were behind the US in terms of technology, would US politicians step up efforts to attack us? We are attacked because we are ahead of them.
Q24: In the past, you faced legal challenges from Cisco, from Motorola, and from T-Mobile. What does that say about the culture of the company, and what steps have you taken to address those issues that came up as a result of those legal cases?
Ren: First, all of these cases have been heard in court in the US. We must respect the courts' judgments. We require all of our employees to never violate any regulations or laws. We have a huge amount of technology. If someone asks what contributions we've made to humanity, I would say we have over 90,000 patents, many of which are patents we have recently obtained for the information society. We have made huge contributions to the information foundation of the digital society. Among our patents, over 11,500 core patents were filed in the US, and the US government has approved these patents. They should come to understand Huawei's contributions to humanity, and the disputes between us may be gradually resolved.
Q25: How did you manage to go from behind your competitors, like Ericsson, like Nokia, to being the leader in 5G? What steps were implemented? How did you manage to make that leap?
Ren: First, we work while others are having coffee. In general, we work much harder than others. Second, individually, we are not that wealthy. We distribute our profits to employees, and this helps attract excellent scientists and talent to join us. I am not super wealthy, although I suppose I am rather rich. It is true that I was poor in the past, but I have been forced to become rich over the past 20 years. As a Chinese saying goes, people gather around you when you share money with them. When we share our money, scientists around the world come to join us or work with us. That explains our fast pace of growth. Perhaps scientists come to join us because in the US, more money is going to Wall Street, not to scientists.
Q26: If at a moment of national crisis, the government came to you and said, "We need your help, we need your cyber skills, and we need access to your network because it's for the good of the country, for the government, for the good of Chinese people," how would you respond?
Ren: We would definitely not install backdoors. We won't ever do such a thing. We are serving humanity, not intelligence agencies. Why would we install backdoors?
You are a member of the Communist Party. You've taken an oath of allegiance to the Communist Party. If the Communist Party leadership came to you at the moment of conflicts between the US and China, do you say no to that oath? Do you break that oath and stand by the company? How do you make that decision?
Ren: According to its oath, the Communist Party of China is loyal to the people. The oath does not include anything against the US.
Just help us understand, what are the practical steps for denying a request like that in China?
Ren: The Chinese government has never made any such requests. According to an article published by a German newspaper, no backdoors have ever been found in Huawei's systems. The UK said it has the toughest and most rigorous oversight regime in the world for Huawei; that's why they trust us and continue to use our equipment. Huawei has a proven track record in security, and we will never accept any request to implant backdoors or collect intelligence for anyone in the future.
Q27: You mentioned the UK. They published a report through your cyber security center there last year, saying that they were very concerned that Huawei hasn't addressed some of the issues that they brought up with Huawei, that those issues posed a risk to Britain's telecom companies?
Ren: This report criticized Huawei in a well-intentioned way. Indeed, Huawei is not without its flaws. If there are issues that need to be addressed, we will make improvements.
You can also ask some US companies whether they would comply with any request to install backdoors, and see what their answer is.
Q28: How would you characterize your relationship with the Chinese government?
Ren: I pay taxes to the Chinese government and abide by Chinese law.
Have you spoken to the government since the blacklisting?
Ren: There is no need for me to do that. Regarding our issues with the US government, we will leave everything to the court to decide. Why would I need to talk to the Chinese government?
There have been reports that they might be looking at offering financial assistance to your company. Is that something you'll consider?
Ren: There has been no such thing. You will be able to see that in our financial statements. If Western banks reduce loans to Huawei, we may apply for more loans from Chinese banks. In the past, we borrowed a considerable amount from Western banks because of their lower interest rates. However, if Western banks refuse to offer loans to Huawei, we will get loans from Chinese banks even though the interest rates are higher. This is only about business. It has nothing to do with the government.
Does the Chinese government, or any of its entities, own any stake, any part of Huawei?
Ren: No, absolutely none at all.
Q29: A lot of this, maybe all of this, comes down to a question of trust and, from the US side, mistrust of Huawei and of China. Do you think there are additional steps, beyond the steps you've already taken, that you could take to improve that trust, whether that is restructuring the company or listing the company? Is there anything you can do to build on that trust?
Ren: We have worked with our customers for 30 years, and we are serving three billion people. The trust our customers and users have in us will not simply disappear because of something someone says to them.
Huawei will not go public in order to earn some people's trust. We are clean, so we don't need to worry about what others have to say about us.
Q30: Are you winning the argument in Europe?
Ren: We definitely do not have the upper hand. The US is very good at influencing public opinion around the world. Huawei's voice is too soft; it's like the sound of the wind blowing against the grass, which is overwhelmed by the sound of the waves at sea. Nevertheless, we need to speak out and make our voice heard. In the past, we believed that silence does not mean cowardice and tolerance does not mean apathy, and we kept stepping back, but they just didn't want to give us a break. So we want to say something. However, ultimately not many people would be able to hear what we say, because the US is very good at influencing public opinion.
Q31: Your business success certainly speaks to the trust that you have clearly built up with many of your clients. But the question of trust applies to the government, and I wonder if there is anything that you feel, personally as CEO and founder, you could have done to improve that trust, or to build that trust?
Ren: In fact, most governments trust Huawei very much. When disasters happen anywhere in the world, Huawei is often among the first to stand up and respond to the disaster. When a devastating earthquake hit Japan and caused a serious nuclear disaster on March 11, 2011, all other companies evacuated at this critical moment. But Huawei employees stayed and headed in the opposite direction towards the disaster-stricken area to restore communications equipment, which supported the repair of the nuclear power plants. When Meng Wanzhou flew from Hong Kong to Tokyo at that time, there were only two people on that flight. One was Meng Wanzhou and the other was a Japanese person.
We are a responsible company that works for the destiny of humanity. After Indonesia was hit by the devastating tsunami, Huawei immediately donated plenty of cash and equipment, and several hundred Huawei employees promptly set out to the coastal area to restore communications equipment, which greatly facilitated the disaster relief effort.
During the magnitude-9 earthquake in Chile, three of our employees were trapped at the seismic center and lost contact with us. The rep office called me, asking whether they should send people to find them. I said that since there might be aftershocks, we should wait patiently; otherwise, the rescue team could also be trapped by the earthquake. After waiting a few days, the three missing employees finally called us and said they were safe and sound.
However, the local director didn't know that Huawei had decided to put lives above all. He asked these three employees to go to repair the broken microwave devices. So they just got their backpacks and headed straight to the center of the disaster area to support the relief effort. We have made a short, three-minute video based on their story, with these three employees playing themselves.
Later, when I went to Chile, the country's richest man gave me a box of fine wine. I then went to see one of the three employees and gave the box of wine to him. He happily accepted and didn't bother to share a bottle with the senior executives sitting next to him. He is such a straightforward, great person.
In addition, Huawei has been working hard in many areas of Africa stricken by infectious diseases, such as plague, Ebola, AIDS, and malaria; many Huawei employees there even contracted malaria themselves. Therefore, Huawei applies a famous rule of the US army for promotion, which says that only people who have been on the battlefield, engaged in battle, and gotten scars can be promoted. At Huawei, people who have never worked in hardship areas will not be promoted to senior leadership positions.
Q32: Let me go back a little bit to your history. I want to paint a picture for our audience of who you are and what motivated you. How did you go from being an engineer in the People's Liberation Army to building and setting up Huawei as a company in 1987?
Ren: My personal experience can be divided into two parts:
The first was when I worked within the system of a planned economy. I had served in the army before the large-scale disarmament, when China adopted a planned economy system. Within that system, I served as an engineer up to the level of Deputy Regimental Chief. But all of a sudden, the army carried out a large-scale disarmament, and many of us had to leave. We were directly thrown into the vast ocean of the market economy.
Thus, the second part of my life was spent working in the market economy. At first, I had no idea what the market economy was about. For example, I didn't understand why people sold something at the price of 12 yuan when it was bought with only 10 yuan. Wasn't that cheating? My thinking was still restricted by past experience. Naturally, I choked many times in that ocean of the market. I also trusted everyone too much. When I worked in a small company, some people cheated me out of money. I tried to get the money back, but I couldn't afford to hire lawyers. So I studied the law on my own to defend myself. After I read the laws of many countries, I realized that the market economy was in fact about two things: the goods and the customer; and the law governs what's in between – the transaction. I can never control customers, but I could get hold of goods and follow the law. That's what motivated our R&D efforts. We must do research on goods and sell them to our customers through legal transactions, if we want to earn money from our customers.
In that situation, I was dismissed by my previous employer, so I had to find another job. It was right after China had adopted the reform and opening-up policy, and begun allowing educated young people to return to cities. The government also allowed these young people to do business, such as selling tea or steamed buns, since they could not arrange jobs for all of them. In Shenzhen, starting tech companies was allowed. So I decided to give it a try and started Huawei. Actually, I set up Huawei because I had no other way to make a living. Ever since founding the company, I have stuck to my original idea, which is to make quality goods and sell them to customers at reasonable prices to earn money. That's the very simple reason why I set up Huawei, and how it has managed to get where it is today.
Q33: What were your ambitions for the company back in 1987?
Ren: At that time, we didn't even have enough food. My only wish was to survive. My daughter was still very little. Her mother often told me that she needed to buy stale fish and shrimp in the market at 5 o'clock in the afternoon and cook them for our daughter to make sure she got enough protein, as children cannot grow healthily without enough protein. Back then, we were only able to maintain the minimum standard of living. It was impossible for us to have any ambitions, because we didn't even know if we could survive. My most famous slogan at Huawei is "survive, survive, and survive". Even today, the story of the damaged aircraft that I talked about is still about survival. I don't have great ambitions.
Q34: Did you ever imagine that you will be sitting here today in this position?
Ren: People who do not have much desire often turn out to be more capable. I have never imagined myself here, nor have I wanted to earn a lot of money. So I hold only a small portion of company shares. I did not even own an apartment back in 2000. My wife and I rented only 30 square meters, or half the size of this meeting room. It faced west and there was no air-conditioner.
There was no turning back for us. If we did, there would be nothing but poverty. But if we moved forward, there would be some hope. There was certainly no hope if we turned back. So we had to bite the bullet and forge ahead. Suddenly, we are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, and finding ourselves at the top of the mountain.
If the US had not attacked us, we wouldn't have known that we are somebody in the world. Thanks to them, we're now aware of where we stand and we are very proud. Even if Huawei collapsed today, we would still be proud. Because it was Trump, not a nobody, that defeated us.
Q35: To what extent does your military experience influence the way that you run the business?
Ren: There is no turning back. All we can do is to put one foot in front of the other. We have to plod on, powering the grain mill like a donkey. It's the flour we grind that gives us the drive to charge forward. Step by step, we have somehow managed to overtake others and stay ahead. The nature of the military involves facing up to difficulties and challenges and moving forward one step at a time.
Q36: You had another difficult period for the company in 2000. You talked about the year 2000, when Cisco sued Huawei over intellectual property infringement. Compared to that period, is now a more difficult period for the company than 2000, or was that still one of the most challenging periods for Huawei?
Ren: For us, there has been no period without difficulties. Every period is the most difficult.
Q37: It's also being reported that you considered selling the business to Motorola in 2000. I think it's 2000. Is that a happy twist of fate that you didn't end up selling the company?
Ren: I think Motorola was silly in this case. That week, Christopher Galvin was replaced by Ed Zander. Mike Zafirovski, Motorola's second chair, had negotiated with us on all transaction contracts and signed off on all the paperwork.
While waiting for final approval, we all put on floral-print clothes, ran around, and played ping pong on the beach. We then learned that Ed rejected this acquisition.
Years later, when I met the CEO of Ericsson, he said Mike had cried when talking about what had happened. He wondered why this great acquisition had been vetoed.
At that time, we at Huawei were afraid of the US. We knew that we were going to have to square off against the US as we continued to develop. We knew who we were then, so we planned to sell Huawei and go into the tourist and tractor sectors. But the deal failed, so we were engaged in new discussions over whether to continue with technology or sell Huawei to someone else. I was ready to compromise. That's my style. I always compromise if that's the right thing to do.
However, all of our younger executives said they wanted to continue with our business. They all had a technical background. If they gave up technology and went into tourism, they didn't think they'd be good at flying tourist flags. So they decided to stick with technology.
I replied, "We might be in conflict with the US ten years from now. So we need to move forward, and work hard to improve." They unanimously said yes. Now, we're in a hard fight, like an aircraft riddled with bullet holes. But we are not divided. We are even more united – this might have something to do with our forecasts back then.
But can we? We don't know the answer yet. Someone asked me what if the engines and fuel tanks are hit. Don't ask me whether our aircraft can still fly if no one sells engines, fuel tanks, or fuel to us.
These will all be new challenges. We will meet these challenges head-on. We have to play it by ear when exploring the way forward.
As for your question of whether our aircraft can land, I can't say it for sure, because what really matters is that we land safely. Now, this damaged aircraft is still flying in the air. It might not withstand fierce winds and might drop to the ground.
Does this make Huawei stronger, automatically?
Ren: Not necessarily. I would say it's a trial by fire. It helps us reinvent ourselves.
Q38: Where do you think Huawei's greatest opportunities lie in the future?
Ren: As we haven't yet solved the problem with our survival, how can we talk about the future? There is still a question mark over whether the US will give us the license to survive. It's too early to talk about the future.
Q39: Speaking of survival, the company is famous for spending heavily on R&D, 10% of revenue every year, and that in some respect has been a major catalyst of driving Huawei to the forefront of the 5G technology era. Given the actions that the US has taken, does that mean that you're going to have to ramp up that R&D spending even more to develop your own in-house products and components?
Ren: We used to set our prices relatively low based on our costs. This gave some Western companies a hard time; some even went bankrupt. I was not proud of that. But now our prices are set relatively high, higher than those of Ericsson and Nokia, and we have earned a lot of money because of this. Now our salary standards are higher when compared to the West. If we continued to distribute more money to our employees, they would become complacent. To avoid this, we are spending more money on funding scientific research and investing into the future. This is what we call "increasing the fertility of our soil" at Huawei. Apple is the greatest company in the world. Selling at high prices, Apple is like a big umbrella, beneath which many other companies sell products at lower prices and survive. Inspired by Apple, we have also opened an umbrella of our own; only ours is lower. We don't charge low prices, either. This is because we have many measures in place to bring the costs down. With extra money made, we will invest more into scientific research and the future.
As long as we have enough to subsist on, we will continue to ramp up investments. Even in the hardest times, we will still invest into the future. Otherwise, there would be no future at all. If the company suffered losses to the point where we couldn't pay employee salaries, that would be another story. We don't have such a problem at the moment. Moving forward, we will save money that could be saved, but we will not cut funds for R&D investments. Otherwise, the company would collapse.
Q40: When it comes to the fight for talent, we have seen many Chinese students having their visas in the US denied, and some Chinese academics being denied access to the US. Is that a potential opportunity for Huawei to attract Chinese talent to the company?
Ren: It depends on whether our departments in different domains are short of such talent. If yes, of course we are happy to bring them in.
Q41: What do you think will be the most significant technological changes in the future?
Ren: Artificial intelligence.
AI? Is that going to be an increasing focus for the company and for you?
Ren: At the moment, AI chips and AI systems are widely used at Huawei. Without AI supporting our product lines and management systems, our management costs would be enormous and there would be no extra money for R&D. In addition, AI has been widely used in our products.
Q42: How long do you plan to be the CEO of the company?
Ren: I'm not sure. Perhaps I will stay in this position for some time.
Do you have any succession plans in place?
Ren: We've always had a succession plan. My successor is not a single person, but a group of people under which there is another group of people and then another. It's like a chain that underpins a huge succession plan. Our succession plan is not about a single person. What if there was only one successor and that successor became ill? And we are a damaged aircraft. So our succession plan is not about a single person, but about a group of people.
Q43: I just want to bring it back to some of the original topics we talked about at the beginning around the supplies. We talked about how some of the major suppliers, like Intel, Qualcomm, Arm, Panasonic, and Google, are restricting their supply of components and software to Huawei. Just explain to us how you weather that storm. What exactly have you put in place in terms of contingency? Can you just give us a few more details around the contingency plans that have been put in place?
Ren: US companies must assess their own interests and their own situation before making decisions. We support suppliers making their own assessments. There has been a lot of media coverage about this, but what's really going on remains unclear at the moment.
But you started to put contingency plans in place over a year ago. We have been told. What made you take that decision? How did you know? What underpins that decision to start planning for this eventual reality?
Ren: Our contingency plans were not only meant to deal with emergencies, but also to help us become an industry leader. If the industry cannot provide advanced technologies such as more advanced chips and components, we will have to develop them ourselves. But we only develop some of them. We wouldn't be able to afford the costs of doing everything ourselves. We have prepared the core parts of the aircraft, including engines and fuel tanks. But we don't have many components to create the wings. We still need to examine which parts have been damaged and then fix them. Two or three years down the road, you will see whether we have survived or not when you come to interview us.
Q44: You talked about survival. What issue could be a cause that would kill the company?
Ren: The biggest potential killer of Huawei would be a lack of confidence, of willpower, and of unremitting effort.
Q45: One way to look at what happened to Huawei is to look at what China has done to US companies in the past, blocking some of America's top technology companies. So some would argue that, in some respect, the US is just playing catch up in terms of putting in restrictions around Chinese technology companies.
Ren: They are not just limiting our access to the US market; they are closing in on us all around the world. If they just limited our access to the US market, I would be willing to accept that, because I had no particular desire to enter the US market to begin with.
China has restricted many of America's top technology companies from operating here. So some would argue that it's only fair that it's leveling the playing field.
Ren: They are lobbying all around the world against us. It is not an issue of limiting our access to the US market. It is preventing us from buying parts and components. The US is even enacting laws to limit us, but they need to tell us what we have done wrong. The US is a country that exercises the separation of powers, but they reached a verdict on us simply following a vote by legislature. That was unconstitutional, so we filed a lawsuit against them.
Q46: You did talk to the Chinese press and you talked then that China could have reformed and opened up more quickly. I wonder if you think if some of those steps had been put into place around reform, around opening up the market here at an earlier stage, we wouldn't be in the position that we're now in.
Ren: We must not link our matter to the issue of whether China should accelerate its reform and opening-up. They are two different things. I have always been a supporter of China's reform and opening-up, because this initiative has already contributed towards China's wealth, strength, and prosperity, and will continue to do so. China must no longer close its door. It had closed its door for at least 5,000 years, during which China was poor. In 30 years of its reform and opening-up, China has become prosperous. Opening-up is good for China. This has nothing to do with Huawei's fate. I support China's continued efforts to open up.
However, it is necessary to open up step by step. The US is the most open country; but it still doesn't allow Huawei to enter its market, does it? If the US can open up step by step, why can't China?
Q47: As you sit here today, where do you see Huawei in five years' time? What is your vision for the company? What are your expectations for what this company looks like within that time frame?
Ren: I can't imagine what things will be like in five years' time. We'd better first imagine what things will be like in three years. When you come to visit us in three years' time, please bring a rose and lay it before our tomb if Huawei is gone. If Huawei is still here, I will give you a big cake. I hope that when you visit us in three years, you won't bring a rose, but instead, I will be baking a big cake for you. This is what I wish for, but I don't know what will happen in future.
Still survival?
Ren: Survival is always our top priority. Without survival, development won't be possible. I don't have any dreams. I think we still need to be practical and address the problems facing us today.
Q48: Just returning to the question of Cisco and the legal action it took in early 2003. Is there more that you could have done in your position between that period and now to address some of these concerns, whether it is concern about trust or examples of some Huawei employees infringing on intellectual property?
Ren: Even before the Cisco case, we had already attached great importance to intellectual property management. That was why we could settle such a big case with Cisco out of court. However, that case made us more alert. After that, we paid more attention to intellectual property management. Our intellectual property is a great contribution to humanity. We have many constraints inside Huawei in this regard.
Q49: In terms of culture, Huawei's culture is famous for driving its employees very hard to make those wings drive forward and push the company ahead of its rivals. Is that drive, that ambition, that relentless drive to be better, that culture in some ways to blame for some of these examples, whether it's the example of T-Mobile's Tappy robot when you had Huawei employees trying to get intelligence on that piece of equipment. Is that a statement, to some extent, of the culture of Huawei driving employees so hard?
Ren: For specific cases that are still undergoing legal proceedings, we will wait for the court to decide. In general, our management at Huawei is effective.
Has the company ever set up any systems at all or schemes to reward employees for stealing intellectual property?
Ren: Absolutely not.
The US Department of Justice said that there was a bonus scheme that was put in place to encourage Huawei employees to steal intellectual property?
Ren: The US Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit, and we need to wait for court decisions.
And you wouldn't condone such a system?
Ren: Absolutely not.
评论已关闭！