Huawei is better positioned for long-term competition than Samsung due to its commitment to an independent ecosystem.
Focus on sustainability through extended updates and repairability, and a strategy of technological innovation to differentiate itself also help, are not as important though.
While Samsung benefits from a mature Android ecosystem and global reach, Huawei's approach of building its own HarmonyOS and prioritizing user-centric longevity is designed for sustained competition, particularly in markets that value its specific advantages like camera technology and repairability.
Ecosystem and software
Huawei: Has developed its own operating system, HarmonyOS, to reduce reliance on US technology and build a self-contained ecosystem.
Samsung: Relies on the widely-used Android ecosystem, which provides seamless integration with a vast range of apps and services globally.
Long-term value and sustainability
Huawei: Offers an eight-year major update and ten-year security patch commitment for HarmonyOS devices, along with free battery replacements and a modular repair program, which enhances long-term value and sustainability.
Samsung: Provides a seven-year update commitment for its 2025 flagships, which is a significant improvement but still less than Huawei's offering in this area.
Innovation and hardware
Huawei: Continues to focus on hardware innovation, particularly in areas like camera technology, long-lasting battery life, and novel form factors like three-fold smartphones.
Samsung: Excels in areas like display technology, foldable phones, and overall software polish, backed by a mature and versatile hardware portfolio.
Market and competition
Huawei: Has found success by focusing on specific features like camera quality and competitive pricing, building a strong brand loyalty, and leveraging technological innovation as a key differentiator.
Samsung: Holds a strong position in the global market due to its brand presence, widespread carrier support, and deep integration with the Google ecosystem.
Challenges
Huawei: Faces challenges due to ongoing geopolitical issues, which have impacted its access to certain chips and software, though the company has worked to mitigate these effects.
Samsung: Faces intense competition from all major players, including Huawei and Apple, and must continually innovate to maintain its market leadership.
Huawei's Long-Term Edge Over Samsung: A Resilience-Driven Advantage
While Samsung currently holds the global smartphone crown with broader market access and a mature Android ecosystem, Huawei's trajectory in 2025 positions it as the more adaptable player for sustained competition. U.S. sanctions since 2019—intended to hobble Huawei—have instead catalyzed a pivot toward self-reliance, vertical integration, and aggressive innovation. This has transformed Huawei from a vulnerable supplier-dependent giant into a diversified tech powerhouse, less prone to external disruptions. Samsung, meanwhile, thrives on global scale but faces risks from geopolitical fragmentation, supply chain dependencies, and a stagnating smartphone upgrade cycle. Below, I break down the key reasons Huawei is better equipped for the long haul, drawing on market data, strategic shifts, and ecosystem developments as of late 2025.
1. Technological Self-Sufficiency and Vertical Integration
Huawei's forced independence has birthed a closed-loop ecosystem that's harder to disrupt, mirroring Apple's model but with faster iteration. Sanctions barred access to U.S. tech like Google services and advanced chips, prompting Huawei to invest $23 billion in R&D in 2023 alone—outpacing Samsung's relative spend. This has yielded:
In-House Chips and 5G Leadership: Huawei's Kirin processors (e.g., the 7nm Kirin 9000S in the Mate 60 series) deliver competitive performance with superior battery efficiency and thermal management, often outperforming Samsung's Exynos in real-world tests. By 2025, Huawei leads global 4G/5G infrastructure with 70% Chinese-made components in flagships, reducing reliance on TSMC or Qualcomm.
HarmonyOS Ecosystem: Now powering 900 million devices, HarmonyOS—built from scratch in a decade—rivals Android and iOS in seamlessness, connecting phones, EVs, wearables, and smart homes. Samsung's fragmented mix (Android + Tizen + SmartThings) lags in integration, per 2025 analyses.
This vertical stack insulates Huawei from future bans or shortages, while Samsung's exposure to U.S.-China tensions (e.g., potential tariffs on Korean fabs) could squeeze margins.
2. Dominance in High-Growth Segments Like Foldables and AI
Huawei is outpacing Samsung in emerging categories that drive premiumization and future revenues:
Foldables Market Share: In H1 2025, Huawei captured 48% of global foldable shipments (up from 24% in 2024), versus Samsung's 20%—a reversal fueled by innovative designs like the triple-folding Mate XT Ultimate ($4,000) and budget Nova Flip ($750). In China, Huawei's foldable share hit 68.9% in Q3 2025, with shipments surging 17.8% YoY to 2.63 million units. Foldables now boost average selling prices (ASPs) and profitability, areas where Samsung's Galaxy Z series feels iterative.
AI and Compute Ambitions: Huawei's Ascend chip roadmap (new AI chips annually through 2030) includes HBM-integrated clusters rivaling Nvidia's, with supernodes linking thousands of processors. Its AI driving systems and GPU cards threaten Nvidia in China, while Samsung trails in AI hardware beyond mobile. Huawei's cloud and energy units grew 17% in 2024, diversifying beyond consumer electronics.
Samsung's AI push (e.g., Galaxy AI) is software-heavy and Android-tied, limiting scalability in a bifurcated world. Huawei's hardware-software synergy positions it to capture AI's trillion-dollar boom.
3. Resilience and Market Rebound
Sanctions slashed Huawei's profits 70% by 2022, but by Q1 2025, net profits soared 564% YoY to $2.7B, with total revenue hitting $100B—surpassing pre-ban peaks. Smartphone sales jumped 72% in early 2024, reclaiming top spot in China (19% share vs. Samsung's 21%). Globally, Huawei's 9% share trails Apple's 16%, but it's expanding in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East via local apps.
Samsung shipped ~60M units in Q1 2025 for $9B revenue, but the overall market is flat—upgrades slow, specs commoditize. Huawei's "battle-ready" ethos (per founder Ren Zhengfei) has fostered a culture of rapid pivots, like Hubble Investments funding domestic lithography and gallium-nitride chips. This contrasts with Samsung's conglomerate sprawl, where smartphones fund fabs but face eroding margins (e.g., HBM competition from SK Hynix).
Critics note Huawei's China-centric focus limits global reach, and software ecosystems (e.g., app availability) still lag Android. Yet, in a deglobalizing world—think U.S. chip curbs or EU data rules—Huawei's sovereignty is a moat. Samsung's global bet assumes stable supply chains; Huawei's assumes disruption, which is the safer long-term assumption.
In sum, Huawei isn't "winning" today—Samsung's 2025 volume edges it out—but Huawei's sanction-forged independence, innovation velocity, and diversification make it the antifragile contender. By 2030, as AI and foldables mature, Huawei could eclipse Samsung in profitability and influence, proving adversity was its ultimate accelerator.
“A year after Mario Draghi's report on European competitiveness, the continent's position in global value chains continues to be a subject of intense discussion. Initiatives such as Eurostack, Gaia-X, and debates about technological sovereignty highlight a persistent asymmetry: while Europe possesses relative strength in industrial production, it lags behind in digital infrastructure and platform technologies.
The challenge lies not only in technological dependence but also in the limited ability to translate existing resources into strategic power. ASML exemplifies this dilemma: globally indispensable, yet not integrated into governance structures that support Europe's geopolitical objectives. This leads to a fundamental principle: power can only be exercised geopolitically if it is first generated structurally – and this depends on the positions that European companies occupy within digital ecosystems.
Samsung provides a cautionary tale. Despite its global reach, technical excellence, and considerable financial strength, the company failed to establish a proprietary operating system that could compete with Android. The hardware remains first-class, but control over interfaces, app ecosystems, and user data rests with others. The failure was not in the attempt itself, but in the difficulty of displacing established standards once network effects and developer lock-in take hold. For Europe, the lesson is clear: strategic positioning requires early, continuous, and targeted investments in control points – not merely in infrastructure or scaling.
Digital sovereignty should not be equated with autarky or decoupling. Rather, it means preserving the capacity for action by embedding European companies in technological architectures that are not easily substitutable. Cooperation remains essential, but only certain forms of cooperation strengthen one's own bargaining power.
If companies are reduced to commodity layers, while others control data flows, software standards, or update cycles determine the level of dependence, which deepens rather than diminishes.
In the European corporate landscape, initial approaches to strategic reorientation are emerging. The Schwarz Group's involvement in StackIT, for example, marks the transition from internal digitalization measures to a service-oriented model. By building infrastructure that serves both internal logistics and external customers, Schwarz is expanding gradually while maintaining control. With recent investments in Aleph Alpha and the IPAI in Heidelberg, the company is also entering the field of AI infrastructure. This represents a deliberate attempt to position itself at the forefront of European foundation models. This approach avoids the trap of waiting for complete in-house development and instead focuses on early monetization and strategic anchoring within the ecosystem.
SAP demonstrates another path. As one of the few European companies with global influence in the enterprise software market, its strength is based not only on size but also on the ability to define technical standards for business processes and supply chains. Control over interfaces and workflows provides systemic leverage that extends beyond market share. As supply chains are increasingly organized in a data-driven and platform-mediated manner, SAP illustrates how European companies can remain relevant by anchoring themselves in coordination functions. However, this model requires continuous investment in interoperability, cloud migration, and integration into new ecosystems such as data spaces and industry platforms.
The same principle applies to industrial automation, software tools, and platform-related services. Strategic control means identifying leverage points such as interfaces, data sovereignty, or standard setting – and ensuring that European companies are not merely users but co-creators of these systems.
The field of autonomous driving illustrates the risks of the current approach. German automotive manufacturers are heavily dependent on US and Israeli partners such as Mobileye, Nvidia, and AWS. Critical components such as simulation environments, perception algorithms, and over-the-air updates are controlled externally. While partnerships do provide short-term functionality, however, does not enable European companies to shape future standards or secure long-term returns. The danger lies in remaining confined to the hardware level, as in the case of mobile operating systems, while strategic control is accumulated elsewhere.
Reclaiming strategic agency requires a realignment of software strategies. This does not necessarily mean building complete autonomy stacks, but it does mean influencing critical levels such as sensor fusion, vehicle operating systems, or update cycles. Joint development alliances, consortia, or actively participating in the design of sovereign cloud and AI infrastructures offer possible pathways. Without such steps, European OEMs risk becoming permanently tied to externally designed architectures.
The political conclusion is clear: Digital sovereignty cannot be imposed from above. It must emerge from below – through companies that embed themselves in technological systems in a way that allows them to co-design standards and control interfaces. Infrastructure investments are necessary, but not sufficient.
Strategic advantage arises from systemic leverage – from control over those value creation segments where learning effects, lock-in dynamics, and ecosystem coordination take place.
This includes supporting companies that take strategic risks – whether through investments in proprietary AI tools, the development of industry-specific platforms, or the internalization of central data and update processes. Public funding should not only focus on scaling, but specifically on measures that secure architectural influence. Cooperation with global software providers will remain necessary, but it must be structured in a way that allows European companies to retain data rights, shape standards, and develop their own capabilities.
Europe cannot exert international digital power as long as its companies are not structurally integrated into the platforms and protocols that organize global infrastructures. This does not require technological autarky, but rather a conscious strategy for the development, governance, and integration of digital capabilities into Europe's industrial base. Strategic control is not a rhetorical phrase, but the prerequisite for true sovereignty in the digital age.
Anke Hassel is a professor at the Hertie School.
Frieder Mitsch is an Assistant Professor at Waseda University in Tokyo.
Regaining strategic capacity requires a realignment of software strategies." [A]
Could Europe's Data Control Laws Play the Same Role for Europe like USA Sanctions Played for Huawei: Be Building Blocks for Digital Sovereignty amid Trade-Offs?
Digital sovereignty in Europe refers to the ability of the EU to control its digital infrastructure, data flows, and technologies without undue external influence—particularly from U.S. or Chinese tech giants—while upholding fundamental rights like privacy and fair competition.
Data control laws, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, 2018), Data Act (effective September 2025), Digital Markets Act (DMA, 2023), and Digital Services Act (DSA, 2023), form the core of this strategy. These regulations aim to create a "European stack" of interoperable, rights-based digital tools, fostering self-reliance in cloud computing, AI, and data sharing.
As of late 2025, these laws are demonstrably advancing digital sovereignty by setting global standards (the "Brussels Effect"), reducing foreign dependencies, and empowering users and businesses. However, they face critiques for stifling innovation, escalating compliance costs, and risking geopolitical backlash. Recent proposals like the Digital Omnibus package signal a pivot toward simplification, potentially diluting protections to boost competitiveness. Below, I outline the evidence for their role in establishing sovereignty, key impacts, and ongoing challenges.
How Data Control Laws Foster Digital Sovereignty
These regulations address three layers of sovereignty: data (control over flows and usage), code (standards and rules), and physical infrastructure (e.g., cloud and hardware). They promote a federated ecosystem like Gaia-X, reducing reliance on non-EU providers (e.g., AWS, Azure), which dominate 92% of Western data storage.
GDPR's Foundational Role: By mandating consent, data minimization, and extraterritorial applicability, GDPR ensures EU data remains under European jurisdiction. It prohibits transfers to "inadequate" regimes (e.g., post-Schrems II, U.S. surveillance laws like CLOUD Act conflict with it). This has inspired global laws (e.g., Brazil's LGPD) and forced Big Tech compliance, enhancing Europe's normative power. In 2025, GDPR's "right to be forgotten" and portability rights underpin individual autonomy, a key sovereignty pillar.
Data Act's Data-Sharing Mandate: Effective September 2025, it requires connected devices (e.g., IoT in agriculture) to share data fairly, unlocking €270 billion in economic value by 2028. It incentivizes EU-based clouds and limits gatekeeper access (linked to DMA), promoting "data spaces" for sectors like health and energy. This counters U.S./Chinese dominance by enabling European firms to monetize data locally.
DMA and DSA's Market Leveling: DMA targets "gatekeepers" (e.g., Apple, Google) with interoperability rules, fining non-compliance (e.g., €1.8B to Google in 2024). DSA mandates transparency for online platforms, curbing disinformation and illegal content. Together, they foster competition, with DMA enabling data portability to shift power from incumbents. In 2025, DMA probes into cloud (Amazon, Microsoft) aim to build sovereign alternatives.
These laws align with initiatives like the €1B+ annual AI investment and EuroStack (2025), targeting 20% global semiconductor share by 2030. A 2025 Wire survey shows 69% of EU firms view them as trust-builders, with 47% saying they "somewhat help" sovereignty.
Evidence of Progress in 2025
Economic and Geopolitical Gains: France-Germany's November 2025 Berlin Summit on Digital Sovereignty called for a "unified EU data-governance architecture," reviewing rules to shield sensitive data. Initiatives like the Cloud and AI Development Act (proposed 2025) aim to counter CLOUD Act risks, with SAP expanding sovereign clouds in France for GDPR-compliant AI. EU data spaces now cover 13 sectors, creating 900K jobs by 2025.
AI and Innovation Boost: The AI Act (phased rollout 2025–2026) classifies systems by risk, banning manipulative AI while funding €1B in ethical models. It embeds GDPR principles, ensuring sovereign AI (e.g., no U.S.-style deregulation). A 2025 McKinsey report projects these laws could add €150B to EU GDP by enabling trust-based data economies.
Public and Business Support: 83% of French/German leaders prioritize sovereignty (2025 TechClass survey). X discussions (e.g., #DigitalSovereignty) highlight enthusiasm for open-source alternatives, with calls to enforce DSA/DMA against U.S. threats.
Critiques and Limitations: Are They Hindering as Much as Helping?
While effective in norm-setting, these laws aren't a panacea. A 2025 Wire survey found 26% believe they "hinder" sovereignty due to over-regulation.
Innovation Drag: Compliance costs €10B+ annually, delaying AI training (e.g., GDPR's consent barriers). Draghi's 2024 report warned Europe lags U.S./China by 5–10 years in AI. Forrester notes 50% of cloud adopters see rules as barriers.
Geopolitical Tensions: U.S. labels DMA/DSA "trade barriers" (2025 NTE Report), with Trump-era threats of tariffs. X posts decry "protectionism" favoring China. Enforcement feels uneven—U.S. firms face 90% of fines.
Implementation Gaps: Only 16% of leaders are optimistic about full sovereignty by 2030 (Wire 2025). SMEs struggle with bureaucracy, and "compliance theatre" persists (e.g., U.S. clouds with EU data centers still vulnerable to CLOUD Act).
The November 2025 Digital Omnibus proposal addresses some critiques: delaying high-risk AI rules by 12–18 months, easing cookie consents, and allowing "legitimate interest" for AI training (opt-out vs. opt-in). It aims to save €5B in costs but draws fire from NOYB/EDRi as a "rollback," narrowing "personal data" definitions and weakening rights.
Conclusion: Yes, But with Guardrails Needed
Data control laws are unequivocally helping establish digital sovereignty by prioritizing rights-based autonomy over unchecked corporate power, creating a resilient EU digital ecosystem. They've exported EU values globally, diversified infrastructure (e.g., Gaia-X adoption up 30% in 2025), and positioned Europe as an ethical AI leader. Yet, to avoid a "policy bubble," refinements like the Omnibus are essential—balancing innovation without eroding protections. As von der Leyen stated in her 2025 State of the Union, "Europe will always decide for itself." Full realization requires €750B+ investments (NextGenEU) and enforcement against external pressures. In a fragmented world, these laws aren't just regulations—they're Europe's digital Magna Carta.
A. Strategische Kontrolle und digitale Souveränität in Europa. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung; Frankfurt. 01 Oct 2025: 22. Von Anke Hassel und Frieder Mitsch
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą