Reborn in 2010, the AI ​​in my mind is too powerful.

Apple's product launch caused a huge stir and dominated headlines worldwide.

Of course, while people were enjoying the drama, they also turned their attention to Google, knowing that Google would definitely respond.

And indeed, Google launched a multi-pronged attack just one day later.

This is certainly not because they are actually that efficient, but because they had anticipated Samsung's defection, but they always thought that Samsung had only abandoned the Google suite.

But they didn't expect Samsung to be so resolute, going so far as to develop its own operating system.

I never expected them to have such a deep collaboration with Apple.

So they moved up all their previous plans as quickly as possible and even increased the scale of them.

Their first priority was to stabilize the Android camp. Samsung had already left, and they couldn't allow more manufacturers to switch to Samsung's system.

The three major manufacturers, HTC, LG, and Sony Ericsson, received the latest Google suite agreement as soon as it was released.

The new agreement not only grants free access to the entire Google suite without any conditions, but also provides subsidies based on the device shipment volume of each manufacturer.

However, this did not work well, because LG, as Samsung's fellow South Korean, had already been drawn into Samsung's camp and immediately turned against them, announcing that it would join Samsung's camp and use Samsung's One UI.

There's no way around it; South Koreans have a kind of pathological pride. If LG didn't stand with Samsung when Samsung and Google were fighting, they might very well have lost their home market, which was their foundation.

Moreover, although the two companies have always been competitors, they have also cooperated quite a bit, and the relationship between the Li family and the Gu family is not bad.

These two companies already occupy more than half of the Android market share, and their market share continues to grow.

Google had no choice but to pin its hopes on other manufacturers, including the recently acquired Motorola, to provide some assistance.

On the same day, the Google Play Store team also began to take action, and some big-name Google Play Store developers began to receive official hints. They received a rather strange official email.

"We have noticed that your app may have compatibility issues on some non-native Android devices. To ensure that your users get the best experience, we recommend that you perform deep optimization for the native Android environment."

If you need testing equipment and technical support, the Google team will assist you. We will provide you with some operating funds and hardware support.

Although it wasn't explicitly stated, the clever developers immediately understood what it meant.

Samsung's One UI is also developed based on the Android open-source underlying layer, and existing Android applications can be used on it very easily.

Google is clearly trying to use money to get developers to grant them exclusive rights. They want developers to give up optimizing their software for Samsung One UI, or even pay them to make some negative upgrades.

Most developers chose to remain silent and waited for Google to make an offer.

However, some technical personnel, especially those in independent development teams, are inherently very rebellious.

Google's behavior disgusted them, so they posted screenshots of the emails on Twitter and started mocking Google.

Tech media immediately erupted in discussion, with The Verge publishing a lengthy article that day titled "Google is fighting an invisible war."

The article provides a detailed analysis of Google's email rhetoric, and then directly mocks Google, saying that it is indeed accustomed to doing evil.

An editor from the well-known American technology blog TechCrunch tweeted: Google is using its monopoly position in the Google Play Store to coerce developers into tampering with Samsung devices. It’s hard to believe, but it’s happening.

Google anticipated the frenzied criticism from the public, and they immediately launched their own media offensive.

They first published a long article on their official blog titled "Openness, Fairness, Innovation: Google's Commitment to the Future of the Tech Industry".

"We have heard the voices of the industry. We have seriously reflected on our own practices."

Google has removed all restrictions previously imposed on its suite of software licenses. We no longer require any vendor to set Google products as the default option. Users should have the right to choose freely, and we respect that.

We are also concerned about other forms of technological monopoly in the industry. When a company controls the core toolchain for chip design, and when its licensing agreements can determine which chips are manufactured and which are not, isn't that also a deprivation of freedom of choice?

We urge all technology companies, including ourselves, to remain open to core technologies. Google has already released the source code for Android and Chromium. We believe that truly great technologies should belong to all of humanity.

The DeepFlow framework is one of the most important breakthroughs in the field of AI in recent years, and we respect the talent of its creators.

However, we also believe that such a crucial foundational technology should not be monopolized by any single company. We urge the creators of DeepFlow to fully open-source this technology so that researchers and developers worldwide can benefit from it.

The core of the spirit of technology is openness and sharing, not blockade and control. We look forward to an industry environment where all participants can compete on a level playing field.

After this article was published, Google's public relations machine went into full swing.

Major tech media outlets have received articles and data from Google's PR team, which detail Aurora Group's market share in FlowEDA, Apple's closed strategy in its Duck ecosystem, and Samsung's market dominance in the hardware supply chain.

Google's meaning is clear: Apple, Samsung, and Aurora, together, control the chip design, operating system, software services, and hardware supply chain for smartphones.

They hope to incite public distrust of the alliance and create a natural distrust of large trusts.

In an interview, Google's Chief Business Officer, Nicosh Arora, said, "We've already made changes. Now we want to ask Mr. Chen Yiran a question: Are you willing to make the same commitment to chip licensing? And like us, remain open and open-source DeepFlow?"

The information war has officially begun, and the tech world has split into two factions.

One group believes that Google is putting on a show, and that the restrictions were lifted because Samsung left, not because of a change of heart.

Google's essence is still to use money to flood the market and coerce developers with traffic; it has nothing to do with openness and fairness.

Another group felt that Google's argument also made sense. The alliance of Apple, Samsung, and Aurora was indeed too powerful. Although they didn't seem to be doing anything monopolistic, their technological advantages would actually create a monopolistic effect in the market.

However, Chen Yiran didn't care much about what the tech industry said. After all, ordinary people who don't understand technology are the real users of the products.

Under his leadership, Aurora began investing in Twitter as well.

Twitter is very happy about Aurora's addition, after all, Chen Yiran is currently one of the top three people with the most followers on Twitter.

On Twitter, Chen Yiran responded directly, posting only a screenshot of a summary of the judgment issued by Federal Judge Chen Zhuoguang in March 2011 that rejected the settlement agreement for the Google Library project.

Below the screenshot, Chen Yiran wrote: "Google scanned 20 million books without asking a single author. Now they're telling me that technology should belong to all of humanity? It seems they've always assumed that anything not theirs should be stolen?"

Is Google no longer content with stealing books, and now they're even questioning the patent system? On the one hand, they say they respect users' right to choose, but on the other hand, they don't give engineers the right to choose?

I respect the spirit of open source, but the premise of open source is respecting the creator's right to choose. When has Google ever respected that? Here's a funny story: Motorola, which Google acquired, has more than 10,000 mobile phone-related patents and is now suing Samsung and Apple all over the world.

Google is truly a typical two-faced company. Sure enough, Google will never stop doing evil!

By the way, thank you all for your support. Many fans comforted me and told me not to care about Google's idiotic remarks and to stay in a good mood.

My fans are so adorable! Don't worry, I'm in a great mood. I'm on my way to watch the F1 season opener, and I'm going to witness my team dominate the new season!

Chen Yiran wasn't too concerned about Google's counterattack; it was all within his expectations. He wasn't particularly skilled in marketing, but Apple was a top expert in the field. He only needed to handle the technical aspects, and Apple and Samsung would help him destroy Google.

Indeed, this is the case; even with Google's efforts, the Android camp has still been shaken.

Instead of responding to Google's binding agreement immediately, the five major Android manufacturers secretly sent people to South Korea to prepare to negotiate a higher price.