如何知道双十一活动从哪一天开始？很简单，把手机握在手里，打开微博 App——如果你跳转到了电商平台，那双十一活动就开始了。 每逢 618、双十一，关于「摇一摇」广告的讨论就要上一次热搜。但今年的情况有些不同——广州地铁 App 的出现，把手机「摇一摇」广告的扰民程度提 升，到了一个全新的水平。 尽管「摇一摇」广告让大家深恶痛绝，但事实上，对于这种现象，有关部门也多次出手整治：在 2022 年 12 月，中国信通院、电信终端产业协会就联合推动 制定 APP「摇一摇」开屏信息弹窗跳转相关标准，试图规范化 App 的开屏「摇一摇」广告，从而杜绝「自动跳转」现象，维护用户合法权益。 2025 年 7 月，全国网络安全标准化技术委员会秘书处也发布了《网络安全标准实践指南——摇一摇广告触发行为安全要求》（下文简称《要求》），明 确： 第三方广告 SDK 运营者确保设置的摇一摇广告跳转灵敏度阈值，不会在用户走路、乘车、拿起、放下移动智能终端等用户非自主意愿触发的情 况下出现误导、强迫跳转。 关于「摇一摇」的触发下限，《要求》也有明确的规范： 图片来源：微博 这里小雷给不在广州的朋友们简单解释一下：最近广州地铁 App「突发 ...

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].