Washington’s strategy of restricting China’s access to Nvidia’s most advanced artificial intelligence chips is facing a significant loophole: Chinese companies may be able to use the computing power of those chips without ever taking physical possession of them.

Several Chinese AI companies have reportedly accessed advanced Nvidia processors through data centers and cloud providers in Southeast Asia and other parts of Asia, exposing a gap in U.S. export controls that generally focus on where chips are shipped and who owns them rather than who can remotely use their computing capacity.

The issue is becoming crucial as Washington and Beijing compete for leadership in artificial intelligence. Nvidia’s most powerful processors are among the most critical pieces of infrastructure for training frontier AI models, making control over access to them a central element of U.S. efforts to slow China’s progress.

Yet the emergence of overseas compute markets means that restricting physical shipments to China may not be enough.

Chinese AI Firms Turn To Overseas Compute

The issue came into sharper focus after Moonshot AI released its Kimi K3 model in July.

Less than a week later, White House official Michael Kratsios accused Moonshot of using Nvidia GB300 chips through a facility in Thailand. Kimi K3 is among a new generation of Chinese AI models that have made significant gains in recent months. DeepSeek and Alibaba have also released models that have performed strongly on industry benchmarks.

Industry observers say access to large amounts of advanced computing capacity has been an important factor behind the rapid improvement of Chinese AI systems.

Cassia King, a senior researcher on the Compute Policy team at the Institute for AI Policy and Strategy, said Moonshot’s reported access to computing power in Thailand could be legal under current rules if the company did not actually purchase or own the physical chips.

“The U.S. export control regime controls physical AI chips. It does not cover remote access to those chips,” King said.

That creates a potentially important gap. A company in China may be prohibited from importing an advanced Nvidia processor, while a cloud provider outside China could potentially operate the same processor and sell computing time to Chinese customers.

The customer receives the computational output rather than the chip itself.

Southeast Asia Becomes A Strategic Computing Hub

Reports indicate that Chinese technology companies including ByteDance, Alibaba and Tencent have accessed Nvidia computing capacity remotely through facilities in countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Japan.

ByteDance was reportedly working with Singapore-headquartered cloud provider Aolani to obtain access to Nvidia-powered computing infrastructure in Malaysia, according to a source familiar with the arrangement. The Wall Street Journal previously reported the arrangement.

Aolani said it serves a “global and diversified customer base spanning customers from North America and Asia.”

“The companies we service do not have ownership, potential future claim or physical access to the chips that power our solutions,” an Aolani spokesperson said, adding that permitted access to its services and infrastructure complies with applicable regulations.

The growth of Southeast Asia’s data-center industry makes the issue harder for Washington to contain.

Companies are investing heavily in data centers across Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand as demand for AI computing increases. JLL estimates that global data-center capacity could roughly double to 200 gigawatts by 2030.

DC Byte data show 31 planned data centers of at least 100 megawatts across Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand, compared with only two currently operating facilities of that scale.

That expansion is creating an increasingly important pool of computing infrastructure close to China, potentially giving Chinese AI companies another route to advanced processing capacity even as direct shipments of restricted chips remain tightly controlled.

Why Remote Access Matters

The strategic importance goes beyond individual Chinese companies gaining access to particular Nvidia chips. Training advanced AI models requires enormous amounts of computing power. If Chinese developers can obtain sufficient access to high-end processors through overseas cloud infrastructure, U.S. restrictions on physical chip exports may have a weaker effect on their ability to develop competitive models.

Michelle Nie, a visiting fellow in technology and national security at the Center for a New American Security, described the loophole as a threat to U.S. national security.

“The point of chip export controls is to deny China the ability to train frontier AI using advanced U.S. chips,” Nie said.

The challenge for Washington is therefore shifting from controlling the movement of hardware to controlling access to computing capacity itself.

That is considerably more complicated.

A physical semiconductor can be tracked through export documentation, ownership and shipping records. Computing power delivered remotely through the cloud can potentially be accessed by customers in another country without the underlying hardware crossing a border.

Lawmakers are considering legislation aimed at closing the gap.

The proposed Remote Access Security Act, or RASA, would expand U.S. export controls to cover remote, cloud-based access to certain critical hardware and software. The legislation passed the House of Representatives in January but has yet to clear the Senate.

If enacted, the measure could give U.S. authorities a legal framework for regulating who can remotely access advanced computing infrastructure. But passing the legislation would not immediately resolve the problem.

Nie said the bill would give the government authority to regulate remote access, but the administration would still need to establish specific rules governing which computing resources are restricted and which customers should be prohibited from using them.

King said the Bureau of Industry and Security could potentially move quickly once it had the necessary authority, but designing an effective system would be more difficult.

“The challenge will be in making a rule that’s effective and enforceable,” she said.

Policymakers would need to determine which levels of computing capacity should be covered, which customers should be restricted, and how cloud providers could implement reliable know-your-customer and customer-verification systems.

But the compliance burden could fall on cloud providers.

Under a remote-access regime, cloud providers operating advanced Nvidia hardware could potentially become responsible for screening customers and monitoring how their computing resources are being used. That could increase compliance costs and complicate the business of serving international customers.

Nvidia’s Chips Remain At The Center Of The AI Contest

The dispute reveals that Nvidia has become so important to the geopolitical competition over AI. The company’s advanced accelerators provide much of the computing power required to train and operate the world’s most capable AI models. Washington has therefore treated access to Nvidia’s most advanced processors as a strategic issue rather than simply a commercial trade matter.

But the emergence of overseas data centers shows that controlling the hardware supply chain and controlling access to computing power are two different challenges.

China does not necessarily need to import every restricted chip if companies can obtain access to the same processors through cloud infrastructure elsewhere.

Apple is overhauling the commercial rules governing its App Store in the European Union, replacing its contentious fee structure with a simpler system that will charge a 5% commission on digital transactions made through apps distributed outside the App Store.

The changes, announced Tuesday and due to take effect on October 1, mark Apple’s latest effort to settle a prolonged regulatory dispute with the European Commission over how developers distribute apps and collect payments on the iPhone and iPad. Apple said it developed the new terms in close collaboration with the Commission and that the changes resolve its disagreements with the EU over alternative distribution and payment systems.

Under the new framework, developers distributing apps through alternative marketplaces or directly from their websites will pay Apple a 5% “Core Technology Commission” on digital goods and services. The charge applies to purchases including one-time transactions and subscriptions. Apple is eliminating the previous Core Technology Fee, as well as its initial acquisition and store services fees.

For apps that remain in Apple’s App Store but use alternative payment processors, the commission will be 20%, falling to 10% for developers eligible for Apple’s small-business programme. Apple will also establish a single set of business terms for developers operating in the EU, replacing the more complicated system created after the bloc’s Digital Markets Act came into force.

The significance of the change goes beyond a reduction in fees. The DMA’s move was designed to weaken Apple’s position as the dominant gateway between developers and iPhone users by allowing alternative app stores, direct web distribution and external payment systems. The European Commission says the rules are intended to reduce developers’ dependence on Apple’s App Store and give consumers access to alternative offers.

Apple’s previous response to the DMA became a major point of contention because the Core Technology Fee could make alternative distribution economically unattractive for large developers. By replacing an installation-based charge with a commission tied to digital transactions, Apple is shifting the economics of alternative distribution toward a model where its financial return is more closely linked to developers’ actual sales.

That could make alternative app stores and web distribution more commercially viable, particularly for large subscription-based businesses. At the same time, Apple’s continued ability to collect commissions means it is not surrendering monetization of the iOS ecosystem altogether.

The company is also retaining a substantial financial stake in transactions that remain within the App Store. That distinction is necessary because the new 5% rate applies to apps distributed outside Apple’s store, while developers using Apple’s App Store with alternative payment processing will face a substantially higher 20% rate.

The European Commission welcomed Apple’s revisions but said it would monitor their implementation. That leaves open an important question: will regulators ultimately consider the new structure sufficient to deliver the level of competition envisioned by the DMA?

Other Pressure Points for Apple

Apple’s concessions also come at a time when its highly profitable services business is facing growing regulatory pressure. The App Store has historically been an important component of Apple’s services ecosystem, with the company benefiting from commissions on digital purchases made through its platform. Opening distribution and payment channels could put pressure on that revenue stream as developers gain more opportunities to move transactions outside Apple’s billing system.

The change is therefore a regulatory concession with potentially broader financial implications. The more developers use alternative marketplaces and web distribution, the greater the portion of digital spending that could escape Apple’s traditional App Store economics. At the same time, the 5% commission gives Apple a continuing revenue stream from transactions occurring outside its store.

Epic Games, which has fought Apple for years over its App Store policies, rejected the changes. The “Fortnite” maker called the 5% commission “junk fees” and argued that Apple’s revised structure still fails to deliver the competition required by the DMA.

“If the Commission accepts the terms and drops their ongoing enforcement actions, the law will become meaningless and consumers and developers will not experience the benefits it was designed to provide,” Epic said in a post on X.

The criticism highlights the remaining tension between Apple and developers. Apple’s position is that it is providing developers with greater choice while continuing to charge for the technology and ecosystem that support iOS. Developers and regulators, meanwhile, have argued that Apple’s control over distribution gives it an advantage that cannot easily be neutralized by simply creating alternative channels.

The EU dispute is also part of a broader global challenge to Apple’s App Store model. Japan and Brazil have pursued measures to increase competition around Apple’s app ecosystem, while Apple continues to fight over App Store rules in the United States.

Samsung Electronics is raising prices for some advanced contract chipmaking services by as much as 15% as the global artificial intelligence boom tightens manufacturing capacity and gives the South Korean technology giant greater pricing power in a business long dominated by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.

The price increases mark an important shift for Samsung’s foundry operation, which has struggled with weak utilization, production yields and a persistent technology gap with TSMC. After years of losses, the business is now benefiting from the surge in demand for AI processors and high-performance computing chips.

Two people familiar with the matter told Reuters that Samsung increased prices in July for chips manufactured using its 4-nanometre SF4 process. Prices for SF4 customers in China and the United States rose by between 10% and 15% from the previous month, while increases for customers in Taiwan were between 5% and 10%.

Prices for wafers produced using Samsung’s 5-nanometre SF5 process increased by 10% to 15%, while prices for its older 8-nanometre technology rose by almost 10%, according to one of the sources.

Samsung declined to comment, citing its policy of not discussing operational matters.

The increases are notable because Samsung has historically been the challenger in contract chip manufacturing, competing against TSMC for customers that design chips but outsource production. TSMC accounted for more than 70% of global foundry revenue in the first quarter of 2026, compared with about 7% for Samsung, according to Counterpoint Research.

Yet the AI boom is beginning to change the balance of power.

Demand for advanced chips used in AI accelerators, inference processors and high-performance computing has absorbed much of TSMC’s leading-edge capacity. That has created an opportunity for Samsung to attract customers seeking additional manufacturing capacity, while allowing the company to charge more for scarce production slots.

“As TSMC faces tight capacity and raises prices, customers are shifting to rivals such as Samsung and Intel, prompting Samsung to raise its prices as well,” said Lee Min-hee, an analyst at BNK Investment & Securities.

Lee said the stronger pricing environment could allow Samsung’s foundry operation to become profitable as early as next year, earlier than previously expected.

The development is necessary for Samsung because its foundry business has been loss-making since 2022, even as the company’s overall earnings have surged on record demand and prices for memory chips used in AI systems.

Samsung’s memory business has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the AI infrastructure boom, particularly through high-bandwidth memory, or HBM, used alongside advanced processors. Its foundry operation, however, has faced a more difficult competitive environment.

The latest pricing power suggests that the economics of the business may finally be turning.

Samsung expects advanced manufacturing processes to account for more than half of its foundry revenue this year. AI and high-performance computing applications are expected to account for more than 30% of foundry revenue, up from an estimated 15% to 20% in late 2025.

That shift is strategically important because advanced-node manufacturing carries higher revenue potential and gives Samsung exposure to the fastest-growing segment of the semiconductor market.

Samsung is also benefiting from stronger utilization of its manufacturing facilities.

Its SF4 production line at its Pyeongtaek plant in South Korea has been operating at full capacity since late last year, according to a person familiar with the company’s operations. The line produces logic chips for customers including Qualcomm, and base dies used in Samsung’s own HBM products.

Higher utilization matters because foundries have enormous fixed costs. A factory running below capacity can generate substantial losses even when its technology remains competitive. Filling more production lines spreads those fixed costs over a larger volume of wafers and can materially improve margins.

Samsung has indicated that this is already happening.

The company said in July that it expected its foundry operation to return to profitability in the near future, supported by higher utilization, improved yields and stronger pricing. It also forecast that foundry revenue would rise by more than double-digit percentage points in the second half from a year earlier, helped by increased orders from major U.S. and Chinese customers and demand for HBM base dies.

Improved production yields are another critical factor.

One of Samsung’s biggest challenges in advanced foundry manufacturing has been producing chips at sufficiently high yields to compete economically with TSMC. Even if a process is technically capable of producing an advanced chip, poor yields can make the process too expensive for customers.

Better yields therefore improve both Samsung’s competitiveness and profitability, giving customers greater confidence in the company’s ability to deliver chips at scale. The company’s expanding customer pipeline suggests those improvements are beginning to translate into commercial opportunities.

Tesla and Apple unveiled chip manufacturing agreements with Samsung last year. Samsung also announced an AI chip production deal with Broadcom in July, while Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said in March that Samsung would manufacture Nvidia’s new AI inference processor.

Google is also in talks with Samsung to manufacture chips using the SF4 process, according to one of the sources.

Those relationships could prove strategically valuable because major technology companies want multiple manufacturing sources as demand for AI processors accelerates.

The geographic composition of Samsung’s latest orders also highlights another important dynamic.

Chinese customers have been aggressive in seeking Samsung’s advanced manufacturing capacity, according to the sources. Some are accepting the steepest price increases.

That demand is partly linked to U.S. restrictions on the export of advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment and technologies to China. Those controls have constrained China’s ability to develop some advanced chipmaking capabilities domestically, increasing the importance of overseas foundries that can manufacture sophisticated processors.

For Samsung, Chinese demand provides an additional source of growth. But it also places the company in a sensitive position between Washington and Beijing.

Samsung must balance demand from Chinese customers with orders from U.S. technology companies while reserving capacity for chips used in its own products. The company’s ability to raise prices across different customer groups indicates that capacity allocation is becoming an important competitive tool.

The broader implication is that the AI boom is changing the economics of semiconductor manufacturing. For much of the past decade, foundry competition centered on which company could develop the most advanced process technology and manufacture chips at the lowest cost. The explosion in AI spending has introduced another variable: access to capacity itself.

When customers are competing for limited leading-edge production slots, a foundry with credible technology can exercise considerably more pricing power.

That is particularly favorable for Samsung because it does not need to overtake TSMC immediately to improve its financial performance. Capturing a relatively small share of the additional demand generated by AI could be enough to raise factory utilization, improve margins and make the foundry business profitable.

The challenge is maintaining that momentum.

TSMC remains far ahead in market share, customer relationships and advanced manufacturing experience. Its scale also provides significant advantages in capital expenditure, research and development and production efficiency.

Samsung will therefore need more than temporary capacity shortages at TSMC to establish itself as a durable second source for advanced chips.

Winning and retaining customers such as Nvidia, Broadcom, Google, Qualcomm, Apple and Tesla could be more important than simply raising prices. Major chip designers typically require years of process development, testing and qualification before committing large volumes to a foundry.

If Samsung can demonstrate consistent yields and reliable delivery on those projects, analysts believe the current pricing gains could mark the beginning of a broader turnaround rather than a temporary benefit from tight capacity.