That's a generalisation - some have transmissions.

Can you quote those laws, or suggest how they're lacking?

And that works both ways, so it's all pointless, except from a marketing point of view.

I've never had WhatsApp not work in China, for some definition of "work".
Ie, I can always send/receive messages and calls, but sending/receiving videos and files requires some attention. By attention, I mean using a internet connection that doesn't have GFW applied - for me that means roaming data (over China Mobile, and metered, but doesn't cost any extra) or vpn (preferred due to not being metered).
It's often assumed that every internet connection has GFW, like China was some big company with a firewall on its perimeter, but that's never been true, in my experience anyway. It's actually much more like a deliberately broken internet, with the breaks specifically targeting a set of services, and the set targeted varies with connection. This makes them non-viable as a commercial service, but they do sometimes work.
Roaming cell data, in my experience, has always worked, almost completely, with nothing broken (or blocked, if you prefer). That is good for foreigners, but some Chinese take advantage of it too, notably down near Hong Kong and Macau, where they can easily get sim cards.
I wonder if there's a technical reason roaming cell data isn't affected, or is it just that the GFW has morphed into more of a "digital sovereignty tool" used to enforce local laws, rather than censorship or anything like that. It is noticeable that some other countries seem to be heading towards similar techniques (eg tiktok) for law enforcement, rather than just relying on legal action in the courts.

Win-win?
That's unusual for the USA. I guess the illusion of zero-sum is enough.

...and it shows that the other instances are wrong/bogus too, and the moral standing is totally manufactured.

At least they now separate national security and economic security. Previously, they were conflated. Really the USA is resisting its decline by squashing others, China in this case, down, rather than competing more fervently.

Also, I've heard that China is a significant contributor to risc-v, so everyone would lose out. Though, I guess the sinophobic USA would claim those contributions are attempts to spy or steal or something.

Anyway, the Chinese can just fork it if they want. The Chinese are clever and motivated people, so everyone else will lose out.

So, this confirms why Huawei was banned. Blame the uk since they worked with Huawei to secure their products...until the USA ordered the UK to stop doing so and instead ban Huawei.

I missed where it said anyone was spying. In fact, I'd be amazed if this wasn't being exploited by the CIA (et al) more than anyone else - after all, they're the masters of spying.

...don't tell everybody!

Limited protection. The actions don't seem to be having a huge effect, at least in the medium and longer term. Certainly not in China, and time will tell how effective the protectionism will be outside once Huawei start to expand its focus worldwide.
The sanctions have helped China focus its development on certain things that it previously didn't need to due to them being readily available for a fair price. They had other more things to focus on, but the sanctions changed the priorities.
The problem is that Americans seem to think that they are exceptional and that the Chinese are stupid people who can't work out how to do things themselves without American help. Americans seem to be especially hung up on copying, when it is clearly the most efficient way to make progress, and their IP system has so obviously become broken to the point where it is no longer fit for purpose and just serves to keep others down/subservient.

Clearly, you're joking. Western companies have made massive profits from China. China has played its hand well, for sure. As for {,m}any developing country, they trade market access for things that benefit them, including IP. They correctly recognised the eagerness of (eg) the USA for China to open up, and that the value is in their massive market, and rightly took advantage of it. Imo, they did so quite fairly, on the whole, while they developed their country, including wrt IP laws and enforcement. TRIPS ftw.

Imo, a lot of those super apps you referred to also base their "miniapp" ecosystems on web technologies and a webview.
As such, Apple only allows use of Webkit /safari which doesn't work too well, or at least it works "different". So, since Apple is smaller than "everyone else" developers target "full functionality" at everyone else (where chromium works) and reduce the offering in terms of functionality/features for Apple.

I don't know for sure that this is the wht, but it is absolutely noticeable that offerings on Apple is worse. Even my non-techie wife has noticed - actually, she pointed it out (since she was forced to use the iPhone because it was the best unused "test" phone I had lying around). Maybe there's some other reason...

Me too, kinda.

Some might be lucky if they choose the dominant tech, but there are so many smart arses around that think they know better that whole genres of tech get fragmented to hell, so picking one with longevity is a challenge/gamble.

I just got fed up with the churn - it's just not fun any more - and have enough savings. Maybe.

It isn't.
Next.

Iinm, there are several providers in the UK that don't charge extra for roaming in the USA. Three and O2 are ones too look into, and there are probably others.
I'm not sure how viable such options are for long term usage, but it's something.