South Africa Gears Up for High-Speed Glory, And Xiaomi Is Already Leading the Race
Image: Supplied
As South Africa inches closer to reclaiming its place on the global motorsport stage, the national buzz around speed, precision engineering, and next-gen performance is impossible to ignore.
While the country awaits confirmation of a world-class motorsport event that could light up our circuits and global profile, Xiaomi South Africa will deliver the kind of engineering excellence and adrenaline-pumping innovation that fans are craving, not on the track, but on the road.
Enter the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra, a fully electric smart vehicle that has already begun turning heads globally. It has set the Fastest Electric Executive Vehicle record at the Nürburgring Nordschleife with a blistering lap time of 7:04.957 minutes.
Equipped with the optional track package, Xiaomi SU7 Ultra conquered the legendary circuit on its first attempt, establishing itself as the undisputed leader in high-performance electric vehicles.
A Smart Ecosystem in the Fast Lane
Globally known for disrupting the smartphone space, Xiaomi's journey in South Africa has evolved at remarkable speed. The brand has built a strong and growing base of tech-savvy consumers who value innovation without compromise, and that ethos now extends beyond the screen and into the driver's seat.
In Q2 of 2025, Xiaomi ranked as the number three smartphone vendor in South Africa, with a 12%-unit share and 3% annual growth, reflecting strong local demand and sustained consumer trust in the brand.
From powerful smartphones to smart home ecosystems, and now intelligent electric vehicles, Xiaomi is positioning itself as a lifestyle brand, not just a tech brand.
Performance That Matches the Moment
The Xiaomi SU7 Ultra was built for thrill-seekers and tech enthusiasts alike. With its high-performance electric powertrain, intelligent driving features, and refined design, it's the kind of vehicle that feels at home both in the city and on the open road.
And with 0–100 km/h acceleration in under 3 seconds, it certainly knows how to make an entrance. Just as South Africa eyes the return of international motorsport glory, Xiaomi is helping to shape a homegrown narrative of speed, innovation, and excellence. The SU7 Ultra isn't just an EV, it's a symbol of where technology and performance meet, right here on South African soil.
Innovation You Can Feel and Afford
In true Xiaomi fashion, the SU7 Ultra brings together premium quality, cutting-edge innovation, and affordability values that have defined the brand's meteoric rise in mobile technology and now drive its expansion into the auto world.
Join Xiaomi's Innovation Journey
At Xiaomi, 'Innovation for Everyone' is more than just a slogan; it's a guiding principle. It reflects the brand's promise to bring world-class technology to more people, without compromising on quality or sustainability.
Whether you're capturing life with a Xiaomi smartphone, controlling your smart home ecosystem, every product is designed with intuitive performance, responsible design, and long-term sustainability in mind. It's how Xiaomi is helping to build a smarter, more connected, and more sustainable future for all South Africans.
As South Africa looks ahead to a potential era of speed, engineering brilliance, and international attention, Xiaomi invites tech lovers to explore how the brand is already driving that future, one breakthrough at a time.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
The Finance Ghost: Capitec, Weaver Fintech show growth is possible in SA
Local companies such as Capitec and Weaver Fintech are delivering solid growth in earnings despite South Africa's tepid economy. Goodness knows we are used to hearing about how tough things are in South Africa and how difficult it is to find growth. We regularly have to suffer through announcements such as the latest one from Truworths, where things are so bad in the local business that it has more than offset the growth in the UK, leading to a drop in headline earnings per share (Heps) for the group. And even when we go in with low expectations, such as in the case of KAP, companies can still disappoint us with their local performance. Luckily, there are local companies that restore balance to the world by delivering solid growth in earnings despite the tepid economy. We need to be careful with the definition of 'local' though, as there are many companies listed on the JSE that are generating great results based on factors that are external to South Africa. The JSE isn't SA Inc A good example of the gap between JSE-listed company numbers and the on-the-ground situation in South Africa is Standard Bank, where double-digit growth in Heps and the dividend is thanks mainly to the performance of its African businesses. South Africa only contributes roughly half of Standard Bank's earnings, with lower growth in the local business than in Africa in the latest period. And it's not only about top-line growth, with the outperformance in Africa leading to a positive impact on Standard Bank's margins, as the pockets of growth in Africa offer higher margins than in South Africa. It's also not helpful to use the gold sector as an example of a feel-good story around South Africa, as the reason for growth in earnings is based on global gold prices rather than the state of the local economy. Nobody who holds a JSE Top 40 ETF is complaining about this, but it's an important nuance to keep in mind when considering the JSE vs the South African economy. Luckily, there are names on the JSE that are showing strong growth, thanks to their performance right here at home, illustrating exactly how much potential there is for stock pickers in the financial services sector. Capitec: still the apex predator when it comes to growth Capitec is a company that just doesn't seem to ever stop growing. Come rain or shine in South Africa (and usually the former), it keeps posting great numbers. Capitec is easily the best-performing banking stock on the JSE this year (and over almost any time period you can think of) and it provides a case study of how a focused strategy can win market share and grow earnings even when the broader sector isn't exciting. Sure, that means that this growth comes at the expense of competitors, but Capitec investors are more than fine with that. A recent trading statement noted that Capitec's Heps for the six months to August 2025 will be up by 22% to 27%. The performance has been driven by both net interest income and non-interest revenue, accompanied by a stable credit loss ratio in an environment where all the banks are singing a positive tune around credit quality. Capitec is therefore achieving growth in the loan book without sacrificing quality, helping it win market share from the traditional banking names. It's just more of the stuff that Capitec investors are used to, really. And if there's one thing that investors love, it's dependable growth. Weaver Fintech: the new kid on the block Nobody is surprised anymore by great numbers at Capitec, as the bank is famous for the disruption it has caused to local banking. But there's another name coming through the ranks in financial services that is also causing disruption in the sector, albeit in terms of payments rather than banking. That name is Weaver Fintech, a company that I invested in earlier this year. Weaver used to be called HomeChoice, which for the longest time was a retail-led business that few people paid any attention to. But behind the retail branding, there was a strong lending business being developed. Then, with an acquisition in the buy-now, pay-later (BNPL) space, Weaver suddenly found itself at the forefront of one of the most exciting fintech verticals in South Africa. BNPL is disrupting the way that people pay for retail products. The product does exactly what it says on the tin: customers buy a product (and receive it) and only have to pay later. But unlike a credit card, it's possible to achieve this at absolutely no cost to the consumer – provided that the full amount is paid back in a matter of weeks. Where customers need a longer repayment period, the BNPL service providers offer competitive interest rates. But how can even the short-term deal be free, you ask? The secret sauce is that the merchant is footing the bill. Before you panic about how sustainable that is, it's hardly any different to the credit card commissions that would typically be paid by the merchant when customers pay by card. BNPL therefore gives the merchants a way to sell to a wider base of customers on similar economics to credit card sales. In a country like South Africa where so many consumers are literally living from one payday to the next, this can make the difference between an abandoned cart and a confirmed sale. BNPL is just one part of the Weaver story, with a broader financial services offering that is also performing well. In the six months to June 2025, Weaver grew revenue by 29% and Heps by 45%. Cash quality of earnings is evident, with the interim dividend up 47%. These excellent results have given the company confidence to expand not just the retail footprint (an important distribution channel for financial products), but also the size of the credit book. With such strong growth, the main risk is any deterioration in the credit quality of the book and whether Weaver will grow too quickly to keep things under control, an issue that has claimed many start-up scalps over the years. I'm very happy with my Weaver position in my portfolio, but I've sized it appropriately for a more speculative play that still has a long way to go. Having said that, Capitec also had to start somewhere. I'm happy to have gotten in at what feels like an early stage in the BNPL journey. DM
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
SA feels the squeeze in dispute with WTO over citrus regulatory measures
Since 2023, South African citrus growers have had to spend almost R4bn per year to comply with the additional European Union import restrictions. South Africa's citrus industry is its largest agricultural export industry, and the country is the world's second-largest exporter of citrus fruit. The European Union (EU) has consistently accounted for approximately 40% of South Africa's exports, amounting to around 64-68 million 15kg cartons annually, primarily during Europe's off-season. Since 2023, citrus growers have had to spend almost R4-billion per year to comply with the additional EU import restrictions. Required cold storage upgrades and intensified inspection and certification requirements have especially affected smaller farmers, who account for more than one-third of South Africa's citrus exports. The reason for the new restrictions? Plant health rules targeting two threats — the false codling moth (FCM) and citrus black spot (CBS), a fungal disease — which the EU claims pose a risk of introduction and spread to European citrus. South Africa sees something else: regulatory measures that appear to lack sufficient scientific justification, impose disproportionate compliance requirements and place strain on a key export sector. What sparked the citrus challenge, and where are we now? In April 2022, the EU intensified CBS-related import conditions, and in June 2022 introduced temporary emergency measures for FCM, followed by permanent measures, replacing the previously accepted systems approach with rigid cold treatment protocols. The temporary FCM rules applied even to shipments already in transit, resulting in dozens of South African citrus containers being stopped at EU ports. For exporters already facing rising costs, inspection delays, and regulatory uncertainty, this escalation marked a turning point, prompting South Africa, on 27 July 2022, to initiate its first-ever World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute over the FCM rules. A second challenge followed in April 2024 over CBS. Consultations have failed to resolve either dispute. At South Africa's request, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body agreed to establish panels to hear both cases, though panellists have yet to be appointed. South Africa does not challenge the goal of plant health, but questions whether the EU's specific measures comply with its obligations under the WTO's Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), particularly on scientific justification, transparency and non-discrimination. Are these measures really about plant health? Under the SPS Agreement, import restrictions must be science-based, proportionate and non-discriminatory. South Africa argues that the EU's measures fail this test, while the EU maintains they are justified by risk assessments carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Much of the underlying scientific data come from South African researchers, and parties recognise the existence of FCM and CBS. However, South Africa contends that the regulatory response was disproportionate to the established risk, raising legal concerns under WTO law First, while there have been documented FCM larvae interceptions, the EU's measures appear more trade-restrictive than necessary. South Africa's enhanced systems approach achieves high pest freedom, yet the EU imposed additional rigid cold treatment requirements. Less trade-restrictive options, like recognising pest-free zones or tailoring measures to seasonal conditions, were not adopted, and the lack of specific recommendations for stricter measures in the EU's risk assessment further weakens the case for escalation. In the CBS case, the scientific debate over whether fruit without leaves poses a viable pathway for fungal spread remains unresolved. Second, the EU has not applied its protection levels consistently. In the FCM case, Israel was removed from the regulation's scope without explanation. In the CBS case, Brazil, Uruguay and Zimbabwe received temporary exemptions from certain conditions that continued to apply to South Africa, despite comparable risk profiles. Third, the structure and timing of the measures raise concern that they may function as disguised trade restrictions, prohibited under Articles 2.3 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement. Three indicators support this view. First, in the CBS case, South African citrus imports face stricter controls than domestic produce, despite reported trace detections of Phyllosticta citricarpa (the CBS pathogen) in southern Europe, including Italy and Portugal, which the EFSA has not confirmed as evidence of establishment. Second, in the FCM case, mandatory cold treatment was imposed despite very low interception rates and no direct recommendation from EFSA for such measures. Third, both sets of restrictions took effect during the European off-season, when South African citrus enters the EU market. Spain, the EU's dominant citrus producer, has a clear interest in limiting counter-seasonal competition. These patterns suggest that the measures, though formally justified on phytosanitary grounds, may in substance serve to protect EU producers from external competition. A bigger picture: Global trade rules and reciprocal risks The citrus disputes raise broader questions about the credibility and functionality of global trade rules. When precautionary plant health measures are not regularly reviewed, grounded in updated evidence and consistently applied, they risk becoming persistent barriers to trade, especially for developing countries. The WTO's SPS Agreement was designed to strike a balance between biosecurity and trade facilitation. But in practice, powerful economies may impose and export contested rules with limited scrutiny. Moldova, for example, recently adopted citrus import rules aligned with EU standards, illustrating how contested regulatory approaches can extend their influence beyond the EU itself. Meanwhile, the United States has introduced new citrus tariffs, placing further pressure on South Africa's exporters and its regional neighbours, including Zimbabwe and Eswatini. In this context, securing stable and rules-based market access to the EU is not merely a legal concern; it is a strategic priority. Yet, legal assertiveness comes with risks. As South Africa challenges the EU citrus measures, it must also maintain credibility across other sectors, including in poultry, where its import restrictions and disease control measures have drawn criticism from trading partners. What needs to change and why it matters beyond citrus Resolving disputes like these does not require weakening plant health standards, but rather clarifying legal obligations: What constitutes sufficient evidence? When do precautionary measures require review? How should consistency be assessed across comparable risk scenarios? Ensuring that SPS measures do not become disguised trade barriers demands transparency in risk assessment, the consistent application of WTO obligations, and equal treatment of similarly situated exporters. For African exporters, the citrus disputes test whether global trade rules can meaningfully constrain discriminatory or opaque measures, and whether legal tools can support more inclusive market access. If international trade rules are to retain their legitimacy, they must protect plant health, without becoming barriers dressed in scientific clothing. DM Franziska Sucker is an associate professor at the School of Law and co-assistant dean (Postgraduate Affairs) at the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand. Biandri Joubert is a lecturer at the Wits School of Law.
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Competition Commission and international banks to square off in ConCourt over rand price-fixing accusations
The case stems from allegations that the banks were manipulating the foreign exchange rate between the US dollar and the rand over several years by sharing information on messaging platforms. The Constitutional Court is due to hear four days of legal argument in a matter involving the Competition Commission and more than two dozen banks from across the world, which the commission has accused of 'the most egregious form of anti-competitive conduct'. The case stems from allegations that the banks were manipulating the foreign exchange rate between the US dollar and the rand over several years by sharing information on messaging platforms. Three cases, one brought by the commission and the other two brought by the French bank BNP Paribas and US-based Credit Suisse Securities, have been combined into a single massive hearing at which the court will determine whether all or some of the banks should be held liable for colluding. Years of legal battles The case has its origin in a 2017 referral by the Competition Commission to the Competition Tribunal, in which the commission alleged that international traders were using the Bloomberg instant messaging service to discuss the pricing of the US dollar to rand exchange rate. The commission eventually included 28 banks in its case referral. 'The traders shared competitively sensitive information and made arrangements to assist each other by coordinating their trading activities. The traders would regularly agree on the bid-offer spread or spot rate for buying and selling of the USD/ZAR currency paid,' said the commission. The traders would also make arrangements to manipulate the bid-offer prices on the Reuters trading platform by agreeing on the order of transacting, withholding their trades, or posting 'fake bids and offers', said Makgale Mohlala, the manager of the cartels division of the Competition Commission, in an affidavit before the ConCourt. Various banks filed appeals and exceptions to the case, alleging that the commission did not have the jurisdiction to refer the case. The Competition Appeal Court heard the matters and found that the commission had no jurisdiction with regard to 17 of the international banks. Just four international banks were retained in the case: BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse Securities, JPMorgan Chase and Co, and HSBC Bank PLC. South African banks Standard Bank, Nedbank Limited and FirstRand Bank Limited had also appealed against the initial referral, but the court dismissed their cases. 'Single overarching conspiracy' Mohlala said the commission 'cannot accept this outcome in a case involving the most egregious form of anti-competitive conduct'. The commission had said that there was a 'single overarching conspiracy' among the banks. 'The manipulation impacted on the exchange rate of the South African rand, which in turn affected various parts of the South African economy — including imports and exports, foreign direct investment, public and private debt, companies' balance sheets, with the attendant implications for the prices of goods and services and financial assets,' said Mohlala. The commission also alleges that the Competition Appeal Court (CAC) erred in several conclusions of its judgment, saying it created new requirements for jurisdiction and contradicted itself. No constitutional issue Some of the banks that were listed in the initial complaint have opposed the commission's application, criticising the way the commission handled the initial complaint and subsequent litigation. Standard Bank of South Africa is among these, saying the commission ignored important information when formulating its complaint. In an affidavit, Ian Sinton, the former general counsel and current consultant for Standard Bank, said the bank was opposing the commission because 'there is no constitutional issue implicated' and 'it is not in the interests of justice' that leave to appeal be granted. He claimed that the bank had raised several factual issues during the Competition Tribunal phase that were ignored. 'Numerous opportunities have been afforded to the commission to plead a sustainable case against [Standard Bank], and it has failed to do so. Contrary to its obligation of impartiality imposed by section 20 of the Competition Act, the commission has shut its mind to relevant information furnished to it by Standard Bank, including easily verifiable facts which dispose of the case,' said Stinton in court papers. The bank also argues that the commission didn't have jurisdiction to prosecute it because the alleged misconduct did not take place in its local office. 'The commission made out no case at all linking the activities of the Johannesburg branch to any cause of action, and so the deficiencies in alleging subject matter jurisdiction remain exactly as before,' said the bank through its lawyer Martin Versfeld. The lawyer for Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Shawn van der Meulen, has criticised the commission for raising new legal issues that were not brought up during the initial appeal. JPMorgan Chase has also criticised the commission's decision to approach the ConCourt, saying the case 'does not legitimately raise a constitutional issue'. Banks appeal Two of the banks whose tribunal referral was ruled as valid, BNP Paribas and Credit Suisse Securities, have launched their own cases. BNP alleges that the commission has not properly pleaded its revised case. 'By failing to properly plead its case, the commission has fallen short of the requirements imposed on it by the CAC. This raises a constitutional issue in that this court is called on to decide whether the rule of law, enshrined in section 1 of the Constitution, can accommodate a situation in which the commission can exercise its prosecutorial powers in contravention of an order of the CAC, which binds the commission,' said Rudolph Labuschagne, BNP's attorney. Credit Suisse Securities has also taken issue with how the commission initiated its investigation. The commission 'exceeded [its] statutory power and thereby violated the principles of legality and the rule of law. These are quintessential constitutional matters,' said Paul Cleland, the attorney for Credit Suisse Securities. Credit Suisse also takes issue with the appeal decision, saying the CAC failed 'to treat like parties alike in the same proceedings — for no good reason whatsoever'. It believes it should have got an exception, like several other international banks. The bank says this action is 'patently arbitrary and irrational'. 'The CAC order violates the right to equal treatment before the law under section 9 (1) of the Constitution, which 'entitles everybody, at the very least, to equal treatment by our courts of law'.' Due to the similarity of issues being dealt with, the ConCourt has combined all three cases into one hearing. Argument will be heard from 19-22 August. DM
