Core Viewpoint - The introduction of the "shake to shake" advertising feature in the Guangzhou Metro app has sparked significant criticism from users due to its intrusive nature, leading to the eventual removal of this feature after public backlash [4][5][6]. Group 1: Advertising Mechanism - The "shake to shake" advertising mechanism is designed to trigger ads when users interact with their phones in specific ways, such as scanning QR codes at metro gates, which has led to user frustration and complaints [4][16]. - Despite the negative reception, this advertising method has proven effective in increasing ad exposure rates, particularly in high-traffic environments like the Guangzhou Metro, which sees around 10 million rides daily [16]. Group 2: Regulatory Response - Regulatory bodies have attempted to address the issues surrounding "shake to shake" ads by establishing standards to prevent automatic ad triggers that do not align with user intent, aiming to protect user rights [5][6]. - The National Cybersecurity Standardization Technical Committee has issued guidelines that specify the conditions under which "shake to shake" ads can be triggered, emphasizing user control and consent [6][12]. Group 3: User Experience and Alternatives - Users have expressed a strong desire for more control over advertising features, with some apps like Bilibili adhering to guidelines by providing options to disable "shake to shake" ads [28]. - For users seeking to avoid intrusive ads, alternatives such as using NFC metro cards or other apps that do not employ such advertising methods are recommended [29][31].

Core Viewpoint - Apple's iOS 26 has introduced significant UI changes, but it has failed to attract interest from Android manufacturers, indicating a shift in the competitive landscape where Android brands no longer feel the need to emulate Apple [1][3][4]. Group 1: iOS 26 Reception - iOS 26's new design, described as "liquid glass," has faced criticism on social media, with the hashtag iOS26Ugly trending and reaching over 79 million views [4]. - Users have expressed dissatisfaction with iOS 26, claiming it prioritizes aesthetics over practicality, comparing it unfavorably to previous designs like Windows Vista [6][10]. - The design has been criticized for lacking depth and clarity, with some suggesting it resembles third-party themes rather than a polished product [10][11]. Group 2: Competitive Response from Android Manufacturers - Android manufacturers, including OPPO and Samsung, have shown reluctance to adopt iOS 26's design, with OPPO's ColorOS designer explicitly stating they will not follow Apple's lead [3][11]. - Samsung has mocked Apple's new design, highlighting similarities with its own OneUI 7, suggesting that it has more experience in UI design [11]. - Google has pointed out that many features introduced in iOS 26 were already present in its Pixel devices, indicating that Apple is lagging in innovation [15]. Group 3: Industry Trends and Future Directions - The shift away from blindly following Apple's design choices reflects a broader trend among Android manufacturers to develop unique identities and cater to user preferences [19][20]. - As competition intensifies, differentiation through UI design and functionality is becoming crucial, with a focus on integrating AI and enhancing user experience [28]. - The industry is moving towards a more personalized approach, with manufacturers like Xiaomi and OPPO exploring their own design philosophies rather than conforming to Apple's standards [27][31].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing debate in the tech industry revolves around whether Android will become open-source or closed-source, with recent reports suggesting a shift towards a more closed development process by Google, despite the continued public release of source code [2][4][9]. Group 1: Current State of Android - Google will continue to publish the source code for Android, with the upcoming Android 16 source code set to be released [5][6]. - The Android ecosystem is currently divided into two branches: the publicly accessible AOSP and the internally developed version that requires a GMS license for use [6][7]. - The shift towards internal development of AOSP means that developers will no longer have real-time access to code changes, which could increase barriers for smaller developers [8][9]. Group 2: Reasons Behind Google's Decision - Google aims to simplify its development process and reduce maintenance costs by consolidating the development of Android into its internal branch [11]. - The decision to close off parts of the development process is seen as a way to manage the complexity and conflicts that arise from maintaining two different branches of Android [11][12]. - This strategic move may also lead to increased revenue for Google, as developers may seek to sign GMS agreements to access the latest developments [11][12]. Group 3: Implications for the Industry - While the immediate impact of a more closed Android development process may be limited, it raises concerns about the future of open-source initiatives and the potential for increased monopolistic behavior by Google [12][13]. - The historical context shows that Google's dominance in the Android ecosystem has been built on a foundation of open-source principles, but the current trend suggests a tightening of control [13][14]. - The evolution of operating systems is ongoing, with emerging competitors like Huawei's HarmonyOS and other tech giants exploring new operating systems, indicating a potential shift in the competitive landscape [14].

Core Viewpoint - Google is shifting its Android development strategy from an open-source model to a more closed internal development process, although the source code will still be made available upon new version releases [4][5][16]. Group 1: Development Strategy Changes - Google has confirmed that all core Android development will transition to an internal environment, marking the end of the dual-branch development model that included both AOSP and internal versions [5][13]. - The AOSP (Android Open Source Project) remains open-source, allowing for free use, distribution, and modification, but Google will now control the development process more strictly [8][10]. - The shift aims to simplify the development process and reduce the workload for Google's teams, although it may lead to a more fragmented understanding of Android's future developments for external developers [11][14][19]. Group 2: Impact on Developers and Users - For ordinary Android users, the changes are unlikely to be noticeable, while most developers will also see limited impact, as the adjustments primarily affect the Android platform itself [20]. - External developers wishing to contribute to AOSP may face challenges, as the internal development versions will be ahead of the publicly available AOSP code by weeks or months [21]. - The transition may complicate the development of open-source Android versions, such as LineageOS, as developers will have to adapt to significant changes all at once [22]. Group 3: Industry Reactions - The decision has raised concerns among developers, with many perceiving it as a step towards a more closed ecosystem, despite Google's assurances of maintaining an open-source nature [25][26]. - Experts have expressed worries about the implications of this shift, highlighting the need for independent operating systems to mitigate risks associated with a potentially closed Android ecosystem [28].