The information that can be retrieved shows that this vocabulary was "first created" by LeEco Jia Moumou and promoted as its business philosophy.
It is not known whether this concept, which has been created and repeatedly hyped, has substantive significance, but it is also difficult to escape the suspicion of pretending to be profound, which makes the general audience unable to understand immediately. This seems to be one of the effects that the speaker wants to achieve.
Let's take a look at his speech-"The next generation of UI can only return simplicity to users if it really opens up app and app, app and UI systems, and makes UI an interactive hub between ecology and terminals through ecologicalization, so that the experience will no longer be compromised by hardware and platforms."
I would like to ask, how many people can understand such flying abbreviations and terms if they come from professionals rather than entrepreneurs without the help of search queries? How does this reflect the speaker's advocacy of "returning simplicity to users"?
If ideas and products are really valuable, it is enough for the market to speak, and there is no need to fabricate some specious concepts to deify themselves. It is understandable to imitate the old practice of "buying a machine in 0 yuan" in the telecommunications industry more than ten years ago, but it is suspected of over-packaging and fabricating concepts to deliberately mislead consumers. What real big shots say in public is easy to understand without exception. Those who are full of terminology are often bluffing. Look at those liars.
What's more, this seemingly high-tech vocabulary is still new, and whether it is meaningful still needs to be questioned. I don't know what is the relationship between ecology and chemical reaction, but I know that fusion belongs to the category of physics. "Chemical fusion reaction"-this is Mr. Jia's exclusive high technology, and it has not subverted Apple, but subverted modern science first, which makes people have to be convinced.