Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the dual nature of the electric vehicle (EV) industry, highlighting both the rapid growth in sales and the increasing concerns over safety related to intelligent driving technologies. It emphasizes a shift in marketing strategies from promoting "intelligent driving" to "assisted driving" as a response to safety incidents and regulatory pressures [4][11][22]. Group 1: Market Growth and Trends - Global EV sales reached 4.46 million units in Q1 2025, with a market share of 19.7%, and China accounted for 67.7% of global sales, contributing 84% to the growth [4]. - The transition from electric to intelligent driving is recognized as the next phase in the industry, but it requires a gradual adaptation process [9][10]. Group 2: Shift in Marketing and Terminology - Companies like Xiaomi have changed the terminology from "intelligent driving" to "assisted driving" to reduce consumer misconceptions and manage risks [5][13]. - During the May Day holiday, several EV manufacturers downplayed their previous enthusiastic marketing of intelligent driving features, focusing instead on comfort and entertainment aspects of vehicles [15][16]. Group 3: Regulatory and Safety Considerations - The shift in marketing strategies is linked to accidents caused by misunderstandings of intelligent driving capabilities, prompting a need for clearer communication [11][22]. - Regulatory bodies have emphasized the importance of accurate advertising for driving assistance technologies, warning against false claims that could lead to severe consequences [19][21]. Group 4: Industry Evolution and Competition - The transition from "intelligent driving" to "assisted driving" signifies a maturation phase for the industry, moving from aggressive growth to a more responsible approach [22][24]. - Traditional automakers are beginning to re-enter the market with new high-end EV brands and products, increasing competition for new players [36][38]. Group 5: Consumer Implications and Future Outlook - The change in terminology may lead to reduced consumer expectations regarding intelligent driving, promoting a more rational understanding and potentially lowering accident risks [31][34]. - The industry faces challenges in differentiating products under a unified terminology while ensuring safety and transparency in marketing [29][30].

Core Viewpoint - Xiaomi's decision to limit the maximum horsepower of the SU7 Ultra to 900 HP unless drivers complete a timed lap on a designated track has sparked significant discussion and criticism among car owners, who feel this restricts the vehicle's performance without prior consultation [2][5][6] Group 1: Product Features and Updates - The recent update to Xiaomi HyperOS introduced a "ranking mode" that requires drivers to achieve a specific lap time on a designated track to unlock the full 1548 HP of the SU7 Ultra [2][3] - Previously, drivers could unlock all performance modes by passing a safety test, but now they must complete a track test to access the full power [2][3] Group 2: Market Reception and Customer Sentiment - Many users support the new limitation, arguing that the 1500 HP is too powerful for average drivers and could lead to accidents if not handled by experienced drivers [5] - The SU7 Ultra, launched on February 27, is priced at 529,900 yuan and aims for a sales target of 10,000 units, with performance being a key selling point [6]

小米集团创始人、董事长兼CEO雷军5月1日在其社交媒体平台发文公布小米汽车4月交付 数量并透露了5月新增门店计划。 东方财经询问了小米汽车官方客服，对方表示，" 为了确保我们赛道新手的安全，所以他 在这个赛道进行圈速考核，达到我们官方的建议的成绩，之后最大马力才会进行解锁。 "他还表示，"1,500匹这个马力，在日常生活中，其实他是用不到的，一般都是在赛道上， 而且还是需要特殊的热熔胎，还有特殊的配件才可以。" 在业内人士看来，小米汽车官方宣布当月交付量超过28000台，延续了其上市以来的强劲 市场表现。这一数据反映出小米汽车在产能爬坡和用户需求匹配上的持续优化。 小米汽车回应SU7 Ultra限制最大马力 5月1日，多名网友表示小米SU7Ultra更新Xiaomi HyperOS时，更新内容中有一条" 新增排 位模式圈速考核，在指定赛道圈速达到官方建议成绩可解锁排位模式。 " 对此有网友表示支持，小米对SU7Ultra的马力出手了，开始限制了。现在只有车主在官方 赛道上，达到系统中的标准圈速，证明自己会开车，懂开车，也有安全意识，才能解锁最 大马力。也有网友表示了不满，认为没有征询过意见和车主调研。 东方财 ...

5月1日，多名网友表示小米SU7Ultra更新Xiaomi HyperOS时，更新内容中有一条" 新增排位模式圈速考核，在指定赛道圈速达到官方建议成绩可 解锁排位模式。 " 对此有网友表示支持，小米对SU7Ultra的马力出手了，开始限制了。现在只有车主在官方赛道上，达到系统中的标准圈速，证明自己会开车，懂开 车，也有安全意识，才能解锁最大马力。也有网友表示了不满，认为没有征询过意见和车主调研。 东方财经搜索发现， 排位模式是小米SU7Ultra提供的赛道驾驶模式之一，此前只需要完成《驾驶安全注意事项》的学习并通过驾驶安全测试就可以 开启。 在3月5日的《小米汽车答网友问（第116集）》中提到，"通过"车辆设置-驾驶偏好"完成《驾驶安全注意事项》的学习并通过驾驶安全测试，该账 号将解锁「直线竞速模式」和「赛道模式」。在「直线竞速模式」下，同时踩下加速和制动踏板将启动弹射起步，即可实现1548PS最大马力；在 「赛道模式」中切换至「排位模式」，并按下"一键Boost"按钮，也可实现1548PS最大马力。" 东方财经询问了小米汽车官方客服，对方表示，" 为了确保我们赛道新手的安全，所以他在这个赛道进行圈速考核，达 ...

Core Viewpoint - Google has decided to stop maintaining the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), which will lead to a gradual closure of its public branch and related support resources, ultimately resulting in a non-transparent development process for Android [1][2][3]. Group 1: AOSP Closure Details - Google will no longer maintain the public branch of AOSP, and all Android development will shift to an internal branch accessible only to Google employees [2][3]. - The decision to close AOSP is believed to be made by Google's senior management, with execution expected to take several years until AOSP loses its significance [4][5]. - The closure of AOSP is seen as a move to reduce costs and increase revenue, as maintaining multiple code branches and collaborations is resource-intensive [5]. Group 2: Impact on the Industry - The immediate impact of AOSP's closure on major smartphone brands and users is minimal, as most manufacturers have existing agreements with Google that allow them to continue using the latest Android source code [6][19]. - Non-certified Android device manufacturers may be compelled to sign agreements with Google to access the latest code, potentially leading to increased costs for consumers [21][22]. - The closure may also affect third-party ROM developers, limiting their ability to innovate and maintain custom Android versions, which could lead to further fragmentation in the Android ecosystem [24][23]. Group 3: Historical Context and Future Implications - Historically, AOSP has not been a true open-source project, as Google has maintained significant control over its development and licensing [10][11]. - The mixed licensing structure of AOSP has allowed manufacturers to customize Android without fully open-sourcing their modifications, which has been a point of contention within the open-source community [12][13]. - The long-term implications of AOSP's closure may include a shift in the Android ecosystem, where Google could regain control over non-certified devices and increase its revenue from advertising and services [28][29].

Core Viewpoint - Google has decided to stop maintaining the public branch of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), leading to a more closed development process that may eventually eliminate the open-source aspect of AOSP altogether [1][12][13]. Group 1: What Happened? - Google will no longer maintain the public branch of AOSP, and all Android development will occur solely within Google's internal branch starting next week [1][12]. - Only Google employees will have access to the internal branch or be able to submit code, resulting in a lack of transparency in the Android development process [2][12]. Group 2: Impacts - Mainstream smartphone brands and their users, such as Xiaomi, vivo, OPPO, and Samsung, are not expected to be affected as they have existing agreements with Google to access the latest Android source code and Google Mobile Services (GMS) [3][14]. - Consumers of non-certified Android devices may face impacts, as Google may compel these manufacturers to sign agreements to access the latest code, potentially increasing costs for consumers [4][28]. - Some manufacturers may resist Google's demands, leading to a reduction in market options for consumers [5][28]. - Third-party ROM developers will experience significant challenges, as they may only be able to modify and maintain the last available version of AOSP until it becomes obsolete [6][29]. - Android application developers may not see immediate effects, but the existing fragmentation in the Android ecosystem could worsen, increasing costs for smaller developers [8][29]. Group 3: Future Considerations - The decision to close AOSP may be driven by Google's desire to reduce costs and increase revenue, as maintaining multiple code branches and collaborations is resource-intensive [13][32]. - Google aims to regain control over the non-certified device market, which could lead to higher prices for consumers and reduced choices [27][28]. - The closure of AOSP may also hinder innovation and competition among developers, particularly affecting smaller players in the market [29][32].