Chinese researchers have built the world’s first “all-frequency” 6G chip, capable of mobile internet speeds above 100 gigabits per second, according to the South China Morning Post.

The team, led by scientists from Peking University and City University of Hong Kong, integrated the entire spectrum from 0.5 GHz to 115 GHz into a thumbnail-sized device—work that traditionally required nine separate radio systems.

The 11mm by 1.7mm chip consolidates millimetre-wave and terahertz communications with low-frequency microwave bands, enabling seamless switching between ranges suited to both remote coverage and ultra-high-speed use cases.

“There is an urgent need to tackle 6G development challenges,” said Professor Wang Xingjun of Peking University, citing surging device demand and the need to combine strengths across bands.

Higher frequencies bring huge bandwidth and very low latency for things like VR or robotic surgery; lower bands enable wide-area reach into mountains, subsea links, and even space.

At the core is photonic-electronic fusion. A broadband electro-optic modulator converts wireless signals to optical, which are processed through photonic components and transmitted via mixing between tunable lasers. All functional units sit on a single chip.

In testing, communication quality remained stable across the spectrum, the system tuned 6 GHz of frequency in 180 microseconds, and a single channel exceeded 100 Gbps. Guangming Daily reported the system can “rapidly, accurately and noiselessly” generate signals anywhere in the 0.5–115 GHz range. It also features “frequency-navigation” to hop instantly to a clear channel under interference.

The device supports multipurpose programmability and dynamic frequency adjustment, making it suitable for dense venues. The researchers say it establishes a hardware base for AI-native networks that adjust parameters on the fly and perform real-time environmental sensing. Next, they aim to build plug-and-play modules no larger than a USB stick for phones, base stations, drones, and IoT devices.

The geopolitical positioning in the 6G race

This breakthrough lands in the middle of a strategic contest over who sets the standards and supplies the base hardware for 6G. It underlines Beijing’s argument that China remains ahead in end-to-end “G-network” industrial capacity—from chip R&D and base-station radios to massive-scale deployments—while Washington, Seoul, and European capitals push their own roadmaps.

United States. The U.S. approach centers on a coalition model that marries big-tech platforms, cloud and semiconductor leaders, and telecom vendors to steer standards, spectrum policy, and interoperable architectures. Washington has prioritized open and virtualized RAN, export controls on advanced chips, and funding for domestic semiconductor capacity to keep U.S. firms central to AI-wireless convergence. American labs and companies lead in AI accelerators and cloud, which will be pivotal in 6G’s “AI-native” control plane.

The Chinese chip’s photonic-electronics fusion directly touches that frontier, raising the stakes for U.S. efforts to channel 6G toward open interfaces and domestic compute.

South Korea. Seoul has paired national strategy with industrial execution through Samsung and the big carriers, emphasizing early field trials, device-network co-design, and terahertz experimentation. Korea’s edge is speed from lab to street-level pilots and tight device-network integration. China’s all-frequency chip targets the same advantage by collapsing multi-band complexity into one module that can roam from low bands to terahertz without radio swaps.

Europe. The EU’s strengths lie in standards diplomacy and network equipment via Nokia and Ericsson. Brussels has leaned on coordinated spectrum policy, security vetting, and large research programs, aiming to codify energy efficiency, resilience, and interoperability into 6G blueprints.

A Chinese, photonics-driven “any-band” chip presses Europe to decide whether to double down on indigenous components or rely on third-country silicon while preserving vendor diversity in RAN.

Why Beijing can claim momentum in “G-network” leadership

China’s communications push is long-running. The country scaled 4G rapidly and then built the largest 5G footprint by sites and subscribers. Huawei, in particular, led the 5G rollout with broad portfolios in radios, core, transport, and devices, becoming the top global RAN supplier by share during much of the deployment window. That rise was checked when the United States moved to curb Huawei’s global reach through entity-list restrictions, export controls on advanced chips and design tools, and diplomacy urging allies to limit or exclude Huawei from 5G networks.

Several European countries tightened rules, and some operators ripped and replaced Huawei gear. The curbs dented Huawei’s global expansion, but inside China—and in parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America—the vendor continued to ship at scale and iterate its technology stack.

The new all-frequency 6G chip underscores that China’s research pipeline remains deep and coordinated across universities, labs, and industry. Analysts believe that integrating 0.5–115 GHz on a single photonic-electronic platform is a strong signal that Chinese teams are aiming to collapse hardware complexity and push multi-band, AI-steered networks into practical modules. If these parts reach mass production and plug cleanly into base stations and devices, Beijing will have a tangible lever in standards talks and early trials.

What this means for the race ahead

It is believed that if China can translate this lab-proven chip into robust field hardware, it gains negotiating power in spectrum and standards forums and a head start on modules that roam seamlessly across low, mid, mmWave, and terahertz. The U.S. will lean on AI compute leadership, cloud-RAN, and open interfaces to keep networks flexible and vendor-diverse. South Korea will sprint on early commercialization and device-network polish. Europe will work to anchor security, energy efficiency, and supply-chain resilience into the rulebook.

The chip’s AI-native design is the battleground: whoever marries radios, photonics, and edge/cloud AI orchestration most effectively will shape not only 6G performance but also the economics of deployment in rural areas—the very gap this device is built to narrow.

The pursuit of corporate endurance is not merely a game of market capitalization but a deep exercise in engineering a company’s very DNA. The world’s greatest enduring firms, from technology giants to industrial leaders, are defined not by their fleeting profits but by their ability to navigate and shape market systems. They understand that winning is not about simply competing within an existing ecosystem; it is about establishing a new architecture of commerce that others must follow. This foundation of systemic control creates an unassailable moat against competitors and provides the bedrock for long-term survival.

This longevity is powered by a relentless, dual-pronged focus on innovation and execution. Enduring companies are perceptively innovative, constantly pushing for new solutions to unmet needs, yet they are also ruthlessly pragmatic in their application. Their business model is a simple playbook: they solve market frictions by building platforms and services that their customers cannot imagine living without. This customer obsession is not a slogan but an operational truth, driving every strategic decision and ensuring that the company’s value proposition remains fresh and indispensable.

Ultimately, the blueprint for an enduring company is built on a simple premise: a great company is the sum of its awesome products and superior execution. Vision is translated into a clear mission, and that mission is executed with discipline and tenacity. It is this combination of forward-looking vision and flawless, on-the-ground delivery that transforms a mere business into a category-king, securing not just a place in the market but also a place in the annals of business history.

Today, at Tekedia Institute Mini-MBA, I will explain four things which define greatness in companies and how those firms become category-kings in markets. Register for the next edition of Tekedia Mini-MBA which begins next month here.

Sat, Aug 30 | 7pm-8.30pm WAT | Characteristics of the World’s Greatest Enduring Companies – Ndubuisi Ekekwe

China is set to introduce its new K Visa on October 1, 2025, in a move widely seen as part of its strategy to open its economy further and compete for global talent.

The visa is designed to attract young professionals in science, technology, and entrepreneurship, marking a shift towards policies similar to talent visa schemes in the U.S., Europe, and Singapore, which have long been magnets for skilled migrants.

Unlike traditional Chinese work visas, the K Visa removes the hurdle of employer sponsorship. Applicants will not need a job offer or invitation from a local employer before applying, making it easier for independent researchers, entrepreneurs, and innovators to gain entry. Holders will also enjoy multiple entries, longer validity, and extended stays, enabling participation in research collaborations, academic exchanges, cultural projects, and business ventures.

The eligibility criteria highlight China’s focus on the next generation of innovators. The scheme primarily targets individuals under 45 years old, with advanced degrees from top global universities or work experience in high-level research labs and leadership roles in science or technology sectors.

This mirrors international practices, where countries like the U.S. offer O-1 visas for individuals with extraordinary ability, the EU promotes Blue Cards for skilled professionals, and Singapore markets its Tech.Pass to attract top global tech talent.

China’s approach reflects a growing recognition that access to global knowledge and human capital is as critical as domestic investment in innovation. Beijing aims to position itself as a global hub for science, technology, and entrepreneurship, in line with its ambition to rival Western economies in critical sectors such as artificial intelligence, renewable energy, biotech, and advanced manufacturing.

The visa’s introduction is also part of a broader liberalization effort. By July 2025, China will have signed visa-free or mutual exemption agreements with 75 countries, complementing the new program. At the same time, inbound travel is surging: 38.05 million international trips were recorded in the first half of 2025, up 30.2% year-on-year, signaling revived foreign interest in China’s economy and opportunities.

For young professionals worldwide, the K Visa opens a new frontier. Just as the U.S., Europe, and Singapore have used talent visas to draw some of the brightest minds into their economies, China is now competing on the same playing field, offering international innovators a pathway into its expanding technology and research ecosystem.

Key Features of the K Visa

Multiple Entries: One of the standout aspects of the new program is its flexibility. Visa holders will be able to enter and exit China multiple times over the visa’s validity period, encouraging ongoing international collaboration and cross-border innovation.

Longer Validity and Extended Stays: The K Visa grants extended validity periods, allowing foreign professionals to remain in China for longer durations without frequent renewals. This makes it ideal for long-term projects, joint research initiatives, and entrepreneurial ventures.

Ease of Access: Unlike other visa types, the K Visa does not require applicants to secure a job offer or invitation from a Chinese employer. This opens the door for independent talent, recent graduates from top universities, and early-career innovators seeking opportunities in China’s growing technology ecosystem.

On a humid night in 2019, a Tesla Model S sedan sped through a Key Largo intersection at over 60 miles per hour. Behind the wheel was George McGee, who admitted he had dropped his phone while driving and thought Tesla’s Enhanced Autopilot system would stop the car if an obstacle appeared. It didn’t. The vehicle slammed into a parked car and the couple standing beside it, killing 22-year-old Naibel Benavides and gravely injuring her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo.

Earlier this month, a Miami federal jury ruled that Tesla bore partial responsibility for the crash and ordered the company to pay $242.5 million in damages. For Elon Musk’s automaker, the verdict is more than a financial blow—it strikes at the heart of Tesla’s boldest bet: convincing the world that its self-driving technology, branded “Full Self-Driving” (FSD), is both safe and revolutionary.

Tesla has now filed a motion to appeal, asking a Florida federal court to toss out the jury’s decision or order a new trial. In filings, its legal team from Gibson Dunn argues the Model S was not defective, that driver error caused the crash, and that damages should be slashed. Compensatory damages, they argue, should not exceed $69 million, which would lower Tesla’s liability to $23 million. Punitive damages, they say, should also be capped under Florida law.

For the plaintiffs, the verdict represented accountability. “This was not an indictment of autonomous vehicles, but of Tesla’s reckless and unsafe development and deployment of its Autopilot system,” said Brett Schreiber, lead trial counsel for the family.

The case is one of several courtroom battles casting a shadow over Tesla’s claims that FSD will one day eliminate road fatalities. And it arrives at a moment when consumer confidence in the brand—and its technology—is in decline.

The consumer backlash

Tesla has long marketed FSD as a breakthrough that would give drivers something close to a “personal chauffeur.” Owners can buy the system outright or subscribe for $99 a month, gaining access to automated lane changes, traffic-aware cruise control, and navigation on city streets. Yet manuals warn users to keep their hands on the wheel and eyes on the road, a contradiction that critics say shows Tesla overselling its system.

A new survey from Slingshot Strategies suggests that the marketing gap is catching up with the company. Out of 8,000 Americans polled, 35 percent said FSD makes them less likely to buy a Tesla, compared to just 14 percent who said it would increase their interest. Nearly half of the respondents said they believe such technology should be outright illegal. Among active EV shoppers, the numbers were scarcely better: only 20 percent said FSD made them more likely to buy a Tesla.

Evan Roth Smith, who led the research, said the findings point to a disconnect between Tesla’s bold claims and consumer perceptions.

“The company has the worst reputation of any EV maker in the U.S.,” he said.

That reputational slide comes at a vulnerable time. Tesla’s European sales plunged 40 percent in July, marking a seventh consecutive monthly decline, while competition from BYD in China and Hyundai-Kia in the U.S. is intensifying. Musk’s controversial political statements and open support for far-right groups in Germany have only deepened the brand’s headwinds in key markets.

The “self-driving” laggard

While Musk routinely calls FSD a “life-changing product” that can operate “in all conditions,” industry peers have steadily pulled ahead. Alphabet-owned Waymo, often treated as an underdog to Tesla, has quietly built a more reliable autonomous service. In Phoenix and San Francisco, Waymo operates fully driverless ride-hailing cars that carry paying passengers—without safety drivers in the front seat.

Baidu’s Apollo Go has launched robotaxis across several Chinese cities, likewise advancing to real-world deployments. Tesla, by contrast, is still testing supervised ride-hailing in Austin, Texas, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Vehicles there still require human operators, either as supervisors or behind the wheel.

For Musk, the stakes are existential. He has said Tesla’s future depends on delivering autonomous driving at scale. The automaker still relies almost entirely on EV sales for revenue, and its product lineup is aging. A new Model Y variant was recently launched in China, but Musk admitted it may “never” reach U.S. production given the company’s push toward self-driving.

Yet convincing consumers is proving harder than engineering software. Tesla executives have acknowledged that even among its own customer base, adoption of FSD is weak.

Musk said on a recent earnings call that the vast majority of people don’t know it exists. CFO Vaibhav Taneja added that many owners who could subscribe simply haven’t.

Tesla is now pushing harder. The company is promoting FSD through service appointments, targeted outreach, and financing offers that bundle the system into new purchases. Last week, Tesla advertised 0% APR on the Model 3—if buyers added FSD or transferred it from a previous car.

Still, regulators, juries, and consumers remain wary.

A fragile future

The Florida wrongful death verdict is not the first courtroom test Tesla has faced over Autopilot, and it won’t be the last. U.S. safety agencies continue to probe Tesla crashes, while lawmakers debate stricter advertising and safety rules for partially automated systems.

The irony is that the trial’s outcome was not framed as an attack on autonomy itself—plaintiffs emphasized that companies like Waymo show it can be done responsibly—but on Tesla’s approach. As Schreiber put it: “The jury heard the facts and decided this was a case of shared responsibility… That doesn’t erase the role Autopilot… played.”

Tesla’s bet on self-driving is a wager on timing: that consumers will embrace FSD before rivals like Waymo or Baidu lock in market dominance. But as lawsuits mount, sales soften, and surveys show distrust growing, Tesla faces a sobering reality. Its fiercest competition may not be the regulators in Washington or Brussels—but the perception, now hardening among buyers, that Elon Musk’s vision of autonomy is less about safety and more about selling hope.

A federal appeals court has delivered a major blow to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda, ruling that the sweeping tariffs he imposed on imports under emergency powers were unconstitutional.

The decision not only challenges the foundation of his “reciprocal” tariff regime but also casts doubt on the scope of presidential authority in setting U.S. trade policy.

In a 7-4 decision on Friday, as reported by CNBC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law he used to justify imposing wide-ranging tariffs on countries including Canada, Mexico, and China.

“The core Congressional power to impose taxes such as tariffs is vested exclusively in the legislative branch by the Constitution,” the court said in its majority opinion. “Tariffs are a core Congressional power.”

The ruling temporarily pauses enforcement until October 14, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the case could become a defining showdown over the limits of executive power in trade.

Trump responded swiftly, denouncing the Federal Circuit as “Highly Partisan” and vowing that the Supreme Court would vindicate him.

“If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country,” he wrote on Truth Social. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”

White House spokesman Kush Desai reinforced that the tariffs remain in place for now, saying: “The President’s tariffs remain in effect, and we look forward to ultimate victory on this matter.”

The case against the tariffs

The ruling came in the consolidated case V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, which stemmed from lawsuits filed by more than a dozen states and several small businesses. The plaintiffs challenged Trump’s claim that IEEPA gave him virtually unlimited authority to impose tariffs on national security grounds.

“This decision protects American businesses and consumers from the uncertainty and harm caused by these unlawful tariffs,” said Jeffrey Schwab of the Liberty Justice Center, which represented small business plaintiffs.

His co-counsel, Neal Katyal, called the ruling a “powerful reaffirmation” of the Founders’ constitutional design. “Presidents must act within the rule of law,” Katyal said.

The Federal Circuit’s ruling followed an earlier decision in May by the U.S. Court of International Trade, which also struck down Trump’s tariffs as unlawful.

The appellate judges were highly critical of the breadth of Trump’s tariffs, which they said lacked any meaningful limits.

“Both the Trafficking Tariffs and the Reciprocal Tariffs are unbounded in scope, amount, and duration,” the court ruled. “These tariffs apply to nearly all articles imported into the United States, impose high rates which are ever-changing, and are not limited in duration.”

Trump’s administration had argued that IEEPA gave the president authority to impose tariffs to respond to emergencies such as fentanyl trafficking. That rationale was used to justify levies on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada.

But the judges rejected the administration’s claim, saying tariffs cannot be used as a blunt, unlimited tool under IEEPA.

A divided bench

Four judges dissented, arguing that the majority misinterpreted the law and that the plaintiffs failed to justify their request for summary judgment.

The case was heard by 11 of the Federal Circuit’s 12 judges. Judge Pauline Newman, 98, was absent, as she remains suspended amid a dispute over cognitive evaluations required by the court.

Political and economic stakes

The decision comes as the Trump administration continues to defend its tariffs as vital to U.S. economic and national security interests. Earlier Friday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick filed a declaration warning that striking down the tariffs could cause “massive and irreparable harm” to U.S. strategic interests.

He argued the levies had reduced U.S. deficits and were critical to ongoing negotiations with foreign partners. “Such a ruling would threaten broader U.S. strategic interests at home and abroad, likely lead to retaliation, and derail critical ongoing negotiations with foreign-trading partners,” Lutnick said.

Trump has long pitched his tariffs as a cornerstone of his “America First” economic policy, arguing that they force trading partners to negotiate “fair” terms and protect U.S. manufacturers. But critics — including businesses, trade groups, and now federal courts — say the tariffs were sweeping, costly, and imposed without legal authority.

For now, Trump’s tariffs remain in effect while the administration readies its appeal to the Supreme Court. If the ruling stands, it would strip the president of a powerful trade tool he has relied on since his first term, and reassert congressional authority over tariff-setting.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide in the coming months whether it will take up the case. If it does, the decision could become a landmark ruling on presidential trade powers and reshape the balance between the White House and Congress in economic policymaking.

A U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday that most of the country’s sweeping new tariffs are illegal, setting up a potential Supreme Court showdown over the White House’s signature economic policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a May ruling from a lower court, which said the administration overstepped its authority when it invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on trading partners. The decision keeps current tariffs in place until mid-October, however, to allow the White House to appeal.