The year 2020 will be even more difficult for Huawei, with overseas markets falling sharply due to the US ban. Next, Huawei will have to face a more severe situation. Before that, the United States issued another ban against Huawei on May 15, which will take effect on September 15, when Huawei may not be able to produce its flagship Kirin chip. At the 100 people’s Conference on China’s informatization on July 7, Yu Chengdong also said that the upcoming Huawei mate 40 might be the flagship phone of the last generation of Kirin chips. < / P > < p > mobile phone has become one of the most important business in China, which can not be abandoned even in the face of great difficulties. Therefore, Huawei is actively looking for alternative solutions. However, there is very little choice for 5g chip suppliers who can undertake this responsibility. Only Samsung, Qualcomm and MediaTek have their own difficulties. < / P > < p > first of all, MediaTek is already cooperating. At present, the 5g flagship chip that MediaTek can supply is Tianji 1000 series. Compared with the other 5g flagship chips, its performance lags behind the competitors in terms of photo taking and game performance compatibility. If Huawei carries it on the flagship mobile phone, it is obviously not competitive enough in the market, which will drag down Huawei’s performance in the flagship market. There are many reasons why Samsung’s Orion 990 series has not become the main choice of domestic mobile phone manufacturers. The main reason is that Samsung was the world’s largest mobile phone manufacturer before, and had direct competition with other mobile phone manufacturers. When competitors are about to surpass Samsung, Samsung often adopts the means of actively cutting off the supply of components. For example, HTC has been hit by Samsung before. Huawei has just overtaken Samsung and won the first place in the world in terms of mobile phone shipment volume, which is a big blow to Samsung. Huawei’s adoption of Samsung Orion has great competition risk, so it is less likely that Huawei will use Orion as the main chip of its flagship. < / P > < p > then the only remaining Qualcomm snapdragon 8 series may be the best choice for Huawei’s flagship mobile phone. In fact, Huawei has always had the experience of adopting snapdragon series chips. In order to support Hisilicon, Huawei did not use the snapdragon chips in its flagship mobile phones. When Huawei is faced with the dilemma of being unable to produce Kirin, Xiaolong is obviously the best choice as a transitional alternative. Qualcomm snapdragon can keep Huawei’s share of the high-end flagship mobile phone market, and can also give Huawei some time to wait for policy changes after the U.S. transition, or wait for the progress of domestic chip manufacturing technology. However, there are still some difficulties to be overcome in the cooperation between Huawei and Qualcomm, that is, Qualcomm must obtain the export license from the Bureau of industry and security of the U.S. Department of Commerce before it can continue to supply chips to Huawei. For this matter, Qualcomm has been actively lobbying the U.S. government in the past few months. There is no definite information on whether it will succeed or not. Recently, Huawei and Qualcomm also signed a patent cross licensing agreement. Since Huawei has nearly 200 million mobile phone shipments each year, and Qualcomm does not directly produce terminal equipment, Huawei will pay $1.8 billion in licensing fees, which will remove a major obstacle for the cooperation between the two sides. < / P > < p > from the two things Huawei and Qualcomm have reached cooperation and actively lobbied the U.S. government, both Huawei and Qualcomm have shown a very positive attitude towards the cooperation between the two sides. It is still very possible for both sides to cooperate to build flagship mobile phones. In the absence of Kirin flagship chips, the adoption of Qualcomm snapdragon chips may be Huawei’s most secure solution to the current dilemma. American companies begin to give up R & D: who should pay for corporate research?