Open main menu



Given that Xiaomi's mascot is a Tu (rabbit that is commonly used to denote a youth rabbit) and dressed up as a Communist Party Youth, the Millet and Rifle slogan is boosted not only by the Millet name but Xiaomi's new processor is called Rifle, isn't it clear that Xiaomi's name is from the Millet and Rifle revolutionary slogan during the anti-Japanese war? -- (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Market positioning selection deletedEdit

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations for how to request investigation of possible sockpuppetry, including requests for CheckUser intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergalt1980 (talkcontribs) 07:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by sockpuppetry in this context? Your comment is rather unclear. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"The company currently hires over 3000 employees and is mainly set up in mainland China, Malaysia" Is that supposed to be "employs" 3000 or hires 3000 annually? If it can't be explained it should be removed as hearsay. Looking at the reference listed, nothing in that article says anything about how many employees they have, hire, or hire annually.

Changes implementedEdit

I have made the changes proposed by Tobus2 and agreed upon by the editors involved. The only outstanding issue as far as I can see is the removal of the excessive maintenance tags at the top of the article. I propose those are removed unless any other issues are surfaced? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to first:
remove the sites claiming "Has Xiaomi redacted the Communist red star from its mascot" and so on...
And add WeijiBaikeBianji's translation...we see how it'll look--B3430715 (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the articles you have referred to. It is unclear what portion of WeijiBaikeBianji's translation you are proposing to add to the article and where. Can you be more specific and propose the language you hope to use for it here so we can reach consensus? P.S. Are you referring to Penwhale's translation perhaps? Please clarify with the proposed language. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
i suggested to do the way how Tobus2 proposed...expect to replace the chinese translation part with Penwhale's, something like:
The name Xiaomi means millet (literally Xiao - "little", Mi - "rice"),[1] which several Western sources have linked to the CCP's revolutionary idiom (What we have now is millet plus rifles, what you have is bread plus cannon.[2][3]) [4][5][6][7]. In a 2011 interview, CEO Lei Jun said "Many people have asked how I came up with the name Xiaomi. Many people thought it was based on millet plus rifles. But there are more stories than that."
The Xiao part of it, which means little in Chinese, refers to the Buddhist concept 'One grain of rice of a Buddhist is as great as a mountain', suggesting Xiaomi wants to work from the little things, instead of starting by striving to be tall, big, and perfect...
The Mi part of the name, which means rice in Chinese, is an acronym for for Mobile Internet and also Mission Impossible, referring to the obstacles encountered in starting the company.

something like that, you can work it out....and then add the 2 sources , ...--B3430715 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit unclear from what you have written here how you are actually hoping to phrase it as you have several disjointed thoughts added at the end, which do not sound encyclopedic and do not have sources. It would be helpful if you put together exactly what you are proposing as a clear single paragraph with appropriate sourcing so we can reach consensus. I'm not clear from your writing here what exactly will make you happy with the translation and what won't, so I would prefer to see it clearly written by you with something you feel works and then we can see if we can reach consensus from that. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Me neither. ConcernedVancouverite, why don't you just edit the name part with the translation first...--B3430715 (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The only aspect that I was clear about from what you have written is providing a wikilink to the Communist Party of China. I've added that. I have also added the millet and rifle citation and an additional reference regarding where the CEO acknowledged the linkage as well. I really am not clear what else you are asking for as you haven't given specific language that you have an issue with or a proposed change written in encyclopedic tone and citing sources. So for now I guess it will just stay as it is until you can better explain what your concern is and what solution you propose to that concern. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
ha, my brain cell wan't free in the last couple days... anyway, I think that you had misinterpreted researchinchina...again the source "linked" the name to "millet and rifle" which ain't linbin's words...anyway again, now, you may take a look and suggest here first if you think there is any logical error or WP:OR or whatsoever. If there is a grammar error...
--B3430715 (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The article seems to have now been fixed to address all pending concerns, and you have not raised any concerns on the talk page here, so I'll take it that it is now finally ok to remove the multiple tags you added to the top of the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. I did things like [[Communist Party of China|CPC]], [[Second Sino-Japanese War|war time]] because I was trying to shorten the whole name thing, but since you created a place for the name, it is ok now
  2. I reversed the order of the things because of...well because of the date
  3. I added referring to the obstacles encountered in starting the company which i believe was written by you.
  4. I removed this Later in 2012 he said that the name is about revolution and being able to bring innovation into a new area.[8] because the source is addressing to Lin Bin, not Lei Jun. Further, I hadn't find it helpful, but rephrase the thing<--you may restore this one if you get the name right
  5. I found this War.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] to be over done, can you remove some? my top choice would be chicagotribune, which just copied for Reuters.
  6. I also found its neck.[41][42][43][44] to be over done, can you reduced to 2 souces?--B3430715 (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I have re-added the research in china source and attributed it to the President Bin Lin. I am opposed to removing the Chicago Tribune as a major paper reporting on it is significant regardless of where it originally sourced it from. On both that point and the other point, you originally stated that you felt there were not enough reliable sources reporting it, and now are requesting the removal of reliable sources. Clearly it won't work both ways. Either you are satisfied that it is reliably sourced with fewer sources, or the additional sources are required. Since you have left the tags at the top of the article, removing additional sources does not seem to address the concern you raised with the tag. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
It all has something to do with the Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight, Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Balancing_different_views. Adding tons of sources claiming the something doesnot prove it is reliable. Trust me, and take it as an advice, an authoritative media source≠reliable sources, be extra careful if no direct quotation is provided.
I'm now done with the article, and I strongly felt that xiaomi ought to send me one of their latest phone as a gift. --B3430715 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ WONG, SUE-LIN. "Challenging Apple by Imitation". Retrieved 2 October 2013.
  2. ^ "Writing in the Devil's Tongue: A History of English Composition in China - Xiaoye You - Google Books". 2010-01-29. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  3. ^ "Chien - Google Books". Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  4. ^ Kelleher, Kevin. "China's Xiaomi Poses Threat to Smartphone Giants Apple and Samsung |". Retrieved 2013-10-15.
  5. ^ Fan, Jiayang. "Xiaomi and Hugo Barra: A Homegrown Apple in China?". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2013-10-04.
  6. ^ "UPDATE 1-China's Xiaomi to get $4 bln valuation after funding-source - Chicago Tribune". 2012-06-05. Retrieved 2013-10-02.
  7. ^ "Interview: China's Xiaomi hopes for revolution in | Technology | Reuters". 2012-02-27. Retrieved 2013-10-04.
  8. ^ "Interview: China's Xiaomi hopes for revolution in". ResearchInChina. 2012-02-28. Retrieved 2013-10-18.

Comparison with Apple's marketingEdit

The last paragraph of this section is terrible, it really feels as if it was written by someone that doesn't speak english. It should be deleted or fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hugo Barra personal mattersEdit

I also think the sentence "In August 2013 the company announced that it was hiring Hugo Barra from Google where he served as vice president of product management for the Android platform, after the revelation that Google co-founder Sergey Brin was in a relationship with Barra's ex-girlfriend", while factually correct and properly referenced, is rather unfair since there is no actual evidence that Barra's move from Google is linked to Brin's relationship with Barra's former partner. While that issue may be mentioned, I think it is being given too much prominence. Eduard Grebe (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This was taken from multiple reliable sources that made the link - it is not WP:SYNTH. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't dispute the accuracy or the inclusion of this fact, but I think six references for one detail is kind of overkill/redundant. Can we just decide on one or two that are reliable? --Petergalt1980 (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Which do you propose? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I propose we use "Lee, Dave. "BBC News - Google executive Hugo Barra poached by China's Xiaomi". Retrieved 2013-08-30." as a source and delete the rest. --Petergalt1980 (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
That one is a good one to use for the side of the discussion saying that the departure had nothing to due with the girlfriend issues. Both sides need to be represented of course though since both were reported and we need to maintain neutrality. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
To me, it is unfair. But can not be improved...It will be ok, if the reader is rational and understood "there is no actual evidence that Barra's move from Google is linked to Brin's relationship with Barra's former partner"...but gossip type...oh, no!--B3430715 (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I brought this back, because there is a what so ever wiki rule says something like wiki is not a future I suggested something like:
In August 2013 the company announced that it was hiring Hugo Barra from Google where he served as vice president of product management for the Android platform.[28][29][30][31][32][33] He will be employed as vice president of Xiaomi Global.[34] (and then add things like reasons he left according to this [1])
also, platform.[28][29][30][31][32][33] is over done and unnecessary.--B3430715 (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The controversy is the subject of wide coverage in multiple international sources, and as such needs to be covered. I've added content based upon the additional source you have provided to balance the coverage and give more of his explanation for the move.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
make sense only after you moved to the controversies section. fine then--B3430715 (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Revised this section, removing phrases such as "after the revelation that" and "the unfortunate timing of the thorny situation", both in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The innumerable sources - mostly blogs repeating the same story - are redundant and make the section difficult to read; added Vanity Fair source which examines the subject comprehensively. There is a bigger issue, however: while the hiring of Hugo Barra should be included under 'Criticisms and controversies'(because it was most certainly newsworthy), Hugo Barra himself is already in innumerable and more recent newsworthy articles that relate very directly to Xiaomi but have nothing to do with either his hiring or any controversy. For this reason, the focus in this section has to be isolated to the specific aspect of Barra's hiring that was considered controversial: the fact that another Google exec was in a relationship with his ex-girlfriend. The controversy wasn't the only newsworthy component of the hiring, either; from a business perspective it was widely considered a major coup in the industry, and that is the story proving to have lasting merit: Xiaomi was the first Chinese smartphone maker to hire a top executive from Google; Hugo Barra's role in Xiaomi's expansion internationally is very significant; Xiaomi is growing at an exponential rate with a business model that disrupts industry stalwarts like Google and Apple. We need to make sure all of these things are included in a balanced narrative. I don't think this portion should be titled 'Hugo Barra', perhaps 'Hiring of Hugo Barra'? Respectfully, Wintertanager (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC) (Tweaked thoughts a touch) Wintertanager (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to revert my edit, but this quotation without contextualization reads as if the move was a consequence of the love triangle. Looking at the sources and then thinking about them does not support this causality, and I gently reworded to avoid the implication, but keep all the sourced facts. Change it back if you want, but it's verging on the ridiculous. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji: Please explain the background to the editing here.Edit

I was asked, apparently because I've listed my proficiency in Chinese on my user profile, to look at a Chinese-language source for this article. I'm happy to help with editing here. But may I ask, what is at issue now among editors who disagree with one another about recent edits? I can check the sources, but before I step in, I'd like to know where the editing disagreements are. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC) can first read this Chinese news posted in 2011: regarding the meaning behind xiaomi's name. And then read
see if the English "definition" given by the above 3 sources are correct/incomplete/wrong. I encourage you not to read the existing discussion, cause I don't want to alter your first impression. --B3430715 (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Penwhale has kindly provided a translation here [2]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


I don't have the time at the moment to investigate but from an article that I read [3], it seems that they don's use Android, they use a "fork" of Android which is not the same, probably they don't use Google Play, etc. - Fernando

you can check this: MIUI--B3430715 (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The article mentions that MIUI is based on Android, which includes it being a fork of Android. CodyLogs (talk) 17:15, 05 June 2014 (UTC)
The company does use a "fork" or an AOSP ROM of stock Android called MIUI. They have 2 versions. Since Google is banned in China since their anti-CPC controversy and that the problems compromising between Google and China's media censorship Xiaomi has a China Rom that doesn't have Google apps at all. They have a Global Rom that does come preinstalled with all google apps. The confusion doesn't come from that. It is because MIUI is different from most roms. They changed android to where it really doesn't look like it except for having widgets available and a few basic menus. Some people think it is more iOS because they think the icons look familiar and there isn't a app drawer. MIUI is really something different to look at and use but it is still on base android. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


Why is it not listed? That's why I came to the page in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The pronunciation was once listed as "Sheow Me", but was removed as "wrong" by an anonomous IP back in 2013. I've added a phonetic of "show me" but I'm not a native speaker so I'm sure it can be improved - from what I understand the "show" should pronounced as in "shower", not as in "TV show". Tobus (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Just use wiktionary. Xiaomi is broken up into 2 Chinese words xiao and mi. xiao is pronounced like "sh-ow" and mi is prounounced "mee" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Rfc: Is Ratan Tata the owner of Xiaomi?Edit

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is clear that until we have more details about the size of the stake, he is merely a shareholder. --GRuban (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday, the news from [4], [5] said that Ratan Tata had purchased stake in Xiaomi.

Now, the actual percentage and the value of stake is not known till now, but as he buys stake, he's now the owner of Xiaomi.

So, does anyone think that it should be mentioned in the page that Ratan Tata is the owner of Xiaomi? (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Buying a stake in a company does not make you 'the owner' of a company. He is only the owner of the company if he buys 100% of the shares. If he buys 51%, we can say he has control of the company. Anything less than 51% is probably not worth mentioning. Darx9url (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Darx9url: Hi! I think we should mention some information that he brought stake in the company on 26 April 2015, shouldn't we? Daimler AG owns only 5% stake in Aston Martin but the information is clearly mentioned. (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It would likely be original research to call Ratan Tata the owner, because the sources only state that he bought a part ownership of the company, not a controlling interest in it. As for the information, the stake is unknown. He may have only bought a small percentage (i.e. less than a few percent) and there is just reliable source coverage because of the buyer himself, not the deal; I'm sure that many hold more; if that is the case, I believe that it should not be mentioned until the exact stake is known. Esquivalience t 01:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Although I'd also say it doesn't need to be 51% to count as control. For example, under UK company law once a stake reaches 30% then an offer must be made for the remaining shares as a 30% shareholder is considered to be in effective control. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Part Owner I was invited here randomly by a bot. The amount of Tata's stake is unknown so all we can say is "part owner". I think the sources are reliable and the factoid is pertinent and deserves mention. Jojalozzo (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Shareholder plainly and simply. Until the amount of shares Tata has bought is revealed it can be anything. Therefore, Tata is necessarily placed, until enough information is publicly and reliably available, within the group of other shareholders in the company. This applies to all similar developments in share buying. -The Gnome (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Shareholder or owns a stake would be fine. Ratan Tata is an owner, not the owner. Perhaps the exact size of Tata's stake will be disclosed in future filings. Many sources are simply talking about an "investment", which could be something other than (or in addition to) a simple purchase of shares. bobrayner (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I can only agree with the suggestions above: no conclusive proof has been shown that he is even the majority shareholder, which disqualifies suggesting him to be "the owner", correcter would be to call him a shareholder or as him owning part of. Mathijsvs (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
you guys know xiaomi is a private company right? Owning a stake in it doesn't give you anything unless the IPO becomes public. It doesn't have "stock" so Lei Jun the founder is still the owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Mi Power BankEdit

Power banks don't meet WP:GNG Mwenzangu (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Xiaomi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

wrong pictureEdit

the picture of the redmi 4 prime shows in fact a redmi 4. the devices don't look the same, and people could mistakenly buy wrong covers based on the wrong picture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1687:52DC:5513:6171:7CC4:5F7E:77A2 (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Move " Products " sections to a new pageEdit

Xiaomi pages are seems too prommotional possibly edited by the passionate Mi-fans but I think we need to move it to new page discussing on products only . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatonewikiguy (talkcontribs) 06:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progressEdit

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Redmi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The company nameEdit

I belive that the name of the company is MI and not Xiaomi . Prove me wrong. Stelios Giotas (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Stelios Giotas: I think the cited user agreement does that well: "Xiaomi Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliates (hereinafter referred to as “Xiaomi” or “we”) and our operational cooperators (hereinafter referred to as “Cooperator”), with respect to (hereinafter referred to as “Site”) and the products, programs and services (hereinafter referred to as “Services”, including but not limited to Mi Talk and MIUI) of Xiaomi."[emphasis added]C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I am confused! On the phone box / on the phone / on the official site of the company, I just read "MI" and nowhere Xiaomi as brand. Just in front of some models of the company. So that maks me think that the name of the company is "MI"! Like all the other company's (the biggest % of them) does. So. . I just try to understand!! Thank you for you concern in advance. Stelios Giotas (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a naming system just like apple's with their "i" "i" phone, "i" os ets and it's the same "MI" UI, "MI" one, "MI" 2.... Check your box again, on mine it's clearly written 小米手机5 (小米=Xiaomi) --Bololabich (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time. Stelios Giotas (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


The drone section is outdated, they released the drone already, if someone knows about drones can update the main article that would be great.YipC (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Should we split this article?Edit

I think this article is so long and mess that it need clean up, and some contents are out of date. I propose split it to two articles about product list and notable news list (or another).——Wizard leave a comment 16:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest to either move Mi cell phones to Redmi article and rename it or split them into their own article.--Bololabich (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The table of Mi cell phones should be split. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


"Xiaomi sells over 2,000 products under the Mi Ecosystem label"Edit

"Xiaomi sells over 2,000 products under the Mi Ecosystem label" [8] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


Xiaomi invested in many 'Notable' companies with all having their own products (Gadgets) on the market.

Yeelight - Bulbs, lightstrips, ceilinglamps etc Huami - Watches Viomi - Fridges, Washing machines etc Roborock - Robovacs Roidmi - car accessories, handheld vacuums Above mentioned companies are just a small selection of over 70 subsidiaries.

On the www there is a lot of confusion as many think all product are produced by Xiaomi.

Wouldn't it be a good contribution to create individual pages for some subsidiaries?


Izzo24 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletionEdit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with History of XiaomiEdit

No reason for history to be split out into separate poorly developed article MB 15:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  • neutral — The current History of Xiaomi article is indeed a mishmash of stuff. I suggest that the following sections be merged into the present article (Xiaomi): Etymology, Business model, Controversies. The other trivia for each year under the Timeline section (previously called History) can stay there, as it is too much detail for this article. —DIV ( (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Support - History of Xiaomi doesn't seem to make much sense as an article, and it would look much more standard merging all the info into Xiaomi, perhaps under the sections Etymology, History, Products, Business model and Controversies. Andysmith248 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support neither article is long enough to justify separating them. Citobun (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support sections in this article are currently just being linked to the history article. The timeline may need to be shortened. Laimingas (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"Start-up" labelEdit

Can this company still be called a "start-up" when it has been operating for around nine years already? Surely it's "established" now, not a "start-up"? —DIV ( (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC))


This might be a issue, for that I am going to merge the article to fix the problem!! NotTfue123 (Talk) 06:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Xiaomi" page.