The details are scant, but Angry Birds 2 apparently will be "bigger, badder and birdier," going by a tweet from Rovio.
Rovio hasn't specified if Angry Birds 2 will launch on both Android and iOS, but the company indicated that the game will hit "app stores," plural. Exclusivity could hurt a company that's still searching for it's next massive hit.
The first entry in the Angry Birds series won the hearts of critics, casual and core gamers alike. While times have changed, along with the fortunes of Rovio, the franchise's longevity indicates the sequel may win the support of current fans and even attract more, said Ted Pollak, Jon Peddie Research senior analyst for the games industry.
"Angry Birds' popularity has persisted long enough that it's bordering on becoming an evergreen franchise, "As long as Rovio continues to make quality versions of an historically popular game, success amongst its fan base is likely, and with a good possibility of drawing in new users."
Still, Rovio has been after more than just another base hit, as its revenues have tapered quarter after quarter. It wants a home run.

The Sequel

Not every sequel succumbs to the sophomore curse; Rovio has had 15 games to hone its craft ahead of Angry Birds 2.
Market conditions are right. Mobile revenues were up 20 percent, year over year, in June, and Bethesda's "Fallout Shelter," -- supposedly a marketing tool for Fallout 4 -- just smashed Candy Crush Saga on iOS charts, raking in US$5.1 million in its first two weeks, according to a report from SuperData Research.
While the health of the mobile market offers promise -- it amassed $317 million in June revenues -- Rovio's own figures over the past three years suggest that fans have had their fill of birds cooked 15 ways, said Rob Enderle, principal analyst for the Enderle Group.
Its 16th variation on the original Rovio recipe could struggle.
"Sequels can do better than original games, so there is a chance," Enderle told TechNewsWorld. "Interest in Angry Birds has waned over the years, though, making it unlikely in this case."

Adjusting Its Trajectory

About two years into the release of Apple's first smartphone, Angry Birds launched exclusively for the platform. Rovio raked in about $10 million dollar in revenue in Angry Birds' first year, and by the end of 2010, it had released an Android version of the game.
The company's revenues increased by about 963 percent, once the game was available on both Android and iOS. From there, however, Rovio's revenues have been on a downward trajectory.
Seeking to keep the wind beneath its wings, Rovio began to borrow licenses for popular properties, most notably Star Wars, and moved into merchandising.
Still unhappy with the company's performance, Rovio's board replaced Mikael Hed as CEO at the start of this year. Rovio's 2014 earnings before interest and taxes were down about 73 percent from the previous 12-month period, the company reported in March.
Rovio likely will make it's best case for the Angry Birds franchise when it debuts at the end of this month. Consumers will play judge and jury.

The latest release of iOS also contains two new smart folders. One automatically collects any photos captured with the front-facing camera in an iOS device -- which typically is used for selfies -- and the other aggregates any images used for screen shots.
Other new features in beta three of iOS 9:

• a setting to enhance the quality of streaming over cellular networks;
• display of Siri search results with a down swipe;
• display of more apps per folder on an iPad; and
• the debut of a News app. When the app is launched, you can select a number of content sources. News from those sources will be displayed on a News Screen.

"Apple is not only expanding functionality in iOS, but also adding significant capabilities," said Brian Blau, a research director at Gartner.
"While these preview features are't final," he told TechNewsWorld, "it's good to see that Apple continues to advance their platform to give users more robust access to content, such as with improved streaming quality, and security through two-factor authentication."

Apple Polishes Security

Two-factor authentication typically requires the user to acquire a code either by text message, phone call or email when trying to log into an account from a new device.
Apple's new authentication method will be an improvement over it's existing two-factor verification method, which is less than elegant. With the new system, an Apple ID won't be sufficient to log on to an Apple service from a new device or browser. Users also will need to authenticate their identity with a password and six-digit verification code.
For those who have an Apple device that's already been verified and is running the latest versions of Apple's operating systems, the code automatically will be displayed on that screen. If an Apple device isn't close by, the user can receive the code through a text message or phone call.

After a device has been authenticated, the user won't need an authentication code again unless the device data is wiped, passwords are changed, or the device is removed from the user's approved device list.
A browser can be treated like a device; once a browser is authorized to access an account, the user won't need to obtain a code for subsequent log-ins.
Unlike Apple's existing authentication system, the new one is built into iOS 9 and El Capitan. That allowed Apple to streamline the process and perhaps entice more people to use the security measure.
The new system also gets rid of the 14-character code deployed by the existing scheme, which was difficult to remember for most users, but did come in handy if a password was forgotten and access to an account needed to be regained.

Surprises to Come?

New features for the iPad show that while many tablet makers have embraced the idea of slates as primarily content consumption devices, Apple continues to press the idea that its tablets are content-creation machines.
Features such as multitasking and split-screen view on an iPad Air 2 are all "developments that relate to the use of the iPad as a full-featured computing device," noted Charles Golvin, chief analyst at Abelian Research.
"As is often the case with Apple, many of the features they introduce as 'new' are, in actuality, closing or overcoming gaps between Apple's and competitors's current products," he added.
"In these releases, I would point to the natural language search in Spotlight, the proactivity that Google Now introduced, and the long-missing transit option in Maps that Nokia Here premiered several years ago," Golvin told TechNewsWorld.
"Still missing from Maps," he said, "is the cycling option that Google has offered for some time."
Whenever Apple releases a new beta of its operating systems, the code often is scrutinized for clues to features in future hardware products.

In actuality, both vehicles responded as they were supposed to, the companies said in response to the media brouhaha.
The incident occurred on Tuesday when John Absemeier, director of Delphi Automotive's Silicon Valley lab, was a passenger in his company's Audi Q5 as it drove along San Antonio Road. The Delphi autonomous car began to change lanes when a Google self-driving Lexus SUV began to move into the same lane.
The Delphi-controlled Audi Q5 responded quickly once it detected that the lane was no longer open, and it terminated the lane change until the road ahead was clear. This type of vehicular conflict is common among human-driven cars and often results in fender benders or more serious accidents; however, in the case of Tuesday's incident, the vehicles responded appropriately to the situation, and an accident was avoided.

Much Ado About Nothing

That's not the way the incident has been reported in a slew of articles published Friday.
Many suggest that the "near collision" raises concerns about the safety of autonomous vehicle technology, and some fret over the fact that Google's self-driving vehicles soon will be tooling down the streets of Silicon Valley.
However, both companies involved in the episode insist this is a case of media hype and little else.
"Any accounts that the cars 'almost collided' simply aren't correct," said Google spokesperson Courtney Hohne.
"This was an everyday driving scenario that both cars handled as they should have," she told TechNewsWorld.
"In this case, it was a lane change maneuver where both cars began their execution at the same time," added Delphi Automotive spokesperson Kristen L. Kinley.
"The vehicles did not come within a lane width of each other, and the Google car did not 'cut us off,'" Kinley told TechNewsWorld. "Both vehicles did exactly what they were supposed to do."

Expected Response

Rather than an example of what can go wrong with self-driving cars, Tuesday's occurrence demonstrates how self-driving cars can avoid accidents by reacting quickly to avoid common human errors, both companies said.
The Delphi car "leverages complex software algorithms to assess its situation -- much like a human driver would -- to avoid going into a lane if another car decides to move over at the same time," said Delphi's Kinley.
"Timing a merge or making a lane change is a common scenario a human driver would encounter, and one where experience and intuition plays a major role -- such as speed up or slow down to find an opening," she pointed out.
"This is unlike automated vehicles which need to work through a decision via a highly complex network of technology and data processing to calculate the correct move," Kinley explained. "Our car did exactly what it was supposed to. Our car saw the Google car move into the same lane as our car was planning to move into, but upon detecting that the lane was no longer open, it decided to terminate the move and wait until it was clear again."

Overreactions Abound

The "story" behind the fact that an accident was avoided is simply that the self-driving technology performed as expected.
"The subject has so much news value that anything that gets attention is written up," Egil Juliussen, director of research and principal analyst at IHS Automotive Technology, told TechNewsWorld.
"If a driver controlling the vehicle had started the same lane change, it could have easily resulted in an accident -- and that is not an uncommon occurrence with human drivers," noted Jeremy Carlson, senior analyst for autonomous driving at IHS.
"What we are seeing is that there is so much interest in what is going on with self-driving cars that anything that is close to news is going to get blown up," he told TechNewsWorld. "The media has taken this out of context."

Real-World Situations

Autonomous cars likely will be subject to many more years of testing before they become widespread, and those watching from the sidelines should expect more "incidents" down the road.
"This is the objective of road testing," said Praveen Chandrasekar, automotive and transportation research manager at Frost & Sullivan.

Google has released blueprints for VR headsets made of cardboard and encouraged third parties to bring their best designs to market. Several are available for purchase with a "Works with Google Cardboard" badge, meaning they're compatible with Cardboard apps.

Users with some arts-and-crafts chops can create their own. The idea is simple, according to Clay Bavor, vice president of product management at Google. After constructing the simple cardboard headset, users simply slot their smartphones into the contraptions -- and voila: They get a VR experience for about US$20.
"Cardboard is about making it possible for anyone to check out virtual reality experiences with their smartphone," Bavor told TechNewsWorld. "Combined with the Cardboard SDKs, we want to make it possible for anyone to develop new VR apps or add to their existing apps."

Going Pro

A number of dedicated VR headsets have been priced around $400.
Oculus VR would like to offer its virtual reality headset and a gaming PC bundled for an "all-in" price of about US$1,500, which is meant to be a bargain.
Along with making a case to justify the equipment price tags, developers of VR hardware have been faced with the challenge of ensuring there's enough content to attract early adopters.

During I/O 2015, Google revealed how it intends to generate a trove of VR content for Cardboard and make money doing so.
Google has partnered with action camera manufacturer GoPro to develop Jump, a 16-camera rig that could put VR production well within reach of indie filmmakers.
"We thought it'd be good if someone who really knows how to build a great camera could help us out building our Jump 16-camera rigs," Bavor said. "So we called our friends at GoPro."
The 16 cameras function as one unit, allowing content creators to capture stereoscopic VR that delivers 360-degree videos with depth of field. The Jump rig's video resolution puts out about as many pixels as five 4K TVs, according to Google.
Google already owns a platform that may be perfect for the task of storing and streaming all of that video content -- YouTube. With its support for Jump videos, said to be coming soon, Google could see a bump in ad revenue.

Virtually Here

Virtual reality is coming, whatever the price. There will be 5-10 million VR headsets in the wild by next year, predicted Beck Besecker, CEO of Marxent.
While Google is offering the masses a taste of VR, a large number of consumers will want the very best of the tech, he told TechNewsWorld. Cardboard may offer an interesting use case for realtor showcases and other virtual tourism, but it may serve primarily to pique the desire for a better experience.
"I think [Cardboard] will help with the general popularity of VR," Besecker said, "but I think the folks that are really going to gravitate to VR are going to want a high-quality experience -- and gamers, specifically, won't mind paying for it."
It's long been held that gamers will drive the nascent market forward, but VR visionaries are looking to the second, third and fourth waves of virtual experience to capitalize on the technology's expansion.

Windows 10 is a well-meaning effort by Microsoft to mollify Windows 8 haters and coax Windows 7 loyalists to upgrade — all while stubbornly sticking to its goal of a single OS for every possible platform. And by framing the problem that way, Microsoft has given itself a nearly impossible task.
To the company’s credit, each new build lurches closer to being usable, although with new bugs every time, it is difficult to evaluate how smooth the final release version will be. Best case: It may earn the grudging acceptance of Windows 7 users who refuse to move to Windows 8. And part of that acceptance will come not from sudden enthusiasm for a new way of interacting with the desktop, but from a desire to take advantage of the clear core benefits Windows 10 provides in performance, security, administration, and memory usage over Windows 7 and even Windows 8.
So why is it so hard to convince users to move to a brand-new, free, feature-packed, more efficient OS? Apple does it all the time. Simply put, because Microsoft didn’t build Windows 8 or Windows 10 for Windows users. It built them to further its own business strategy of using the power of the once-ubiquitous Windows platform to extend its dominance into the rapidly growing mobile space. The result is an OS whose features are now flipping and flopping with each new build — as Microsoft tries to fix problems of its own creation.

Imagine how good a desktop OS Windows 10 could have been

What if instead, after realizing what a terrible mistake Windows 8 was, Microsoft had made the truly brave decision to come clean and change its strategy? If Windows 10 had been designed from the beginning to be the best possible desktop OS, and the thousands of developer years spent trying to make it everything to everyone were instead spent providing services and applications for the mobile OS platforms people actually want? If in tandem Microsoft was willing to let go of its sub-3% market share in mobile, it could also have spent the cash it used to buy Nokia to build out its cross-platform services offerings instead. We could have had a really excellent desktop OS — worth paying for — and great integration with the leading mobile platforms.
Certainly Microsoft has woken up to providing competitive versions of its applications on Android and iOS. But imagine how much further along it would have been if it had put real work into the effort starting years ago. Perhaps we wouldn’t have to use third-party utilities to sync our information between Google and Outlook, for example. Or OneNote might have supported syncing on Android during the first several years it was available, instead of only recently. Pick any Microsoft desktop technology you access from your iOS or Android device and you can come up with a list of features that would make it much more useful.

It’s not like there isn’t anything to fix in Windows

Anyone who thinks Microsoft didn’t focus on desktop users as it evolved Windows 8 and 10 because its desktop OS has “no need for improvement” hasn’t spent enough time wrestling with the inscrutable hex error codes from Windows Update, or debugging driver version mismatches, or finding information they’re sure is somewhere on their disk. While Windows 10 isn’t final, judging by the builds so far, all of those problems are still there. Even support for high-resolution displays is still spotty. Windows 10 adds some new Zoom options, but there is still no serious scalable-font solution that works across the full range of possible displays.
As a good example of how this alternate direction would have worked, let’s look at the Control Panel. No one doubts that it is an old, crufty system for managing a computer. A desktop-focused OS project would have overhauled it completely while preserving its functionality. Instead, Microsoft seems determined to replace it in bits and pieces with new “touch-friendly” settings that aren’t much more intuitive, and that become even more frustrating when you need to go back to the old system for pieces that are still missing. Windows 10 is supposed to address this problem, but we’re less than two months from shipment and Settings are still far from being either intuitive or finished.
Tablet mode and Continuum are also inventions seeking to solve a problem Microsoft has invented for itself. For the few of us who actually own and use a Surface Tablet mode, it’s sort of a good thing. (I love that I can both taken written notes and run Outlook on my SP3, but with the addition of desktop apps to Android, I’m not sure how many others will see the need to spend that kind of money for basic productivity.) It’s good because it is better than Windows 8, where often the touch keyboard wouldn’t pop up when needed, and icons could be hard to finger.
It’s still only sort of good, though, because it’s confusing and forces the user to have one more thing to think about. Somehow iPads and Android tablets seem to easily survive the addition of a keyboard without the need for an entire special OS mode. Like many of the other new features in Windows 10, it seems like a “throw it against the wall and hope it sticks” attempt to solve a user pain point — not a from-the-ground-up technology architected to support the broad range of devices that can now run Windows.

Windows 10 internals are actually pretty impressive

There is a lot to like about Windows 10 — in addition to having the best kernel Windows has ever had. Edge (aka Spartan) is promising (although it too is only a prototype version, and certainly could have been shipped separately). Cortana might be useful, but is so limited and buggy in the current builds that it is hard to tell. If it doesn’t get sorted out by July, Microsoft risks taking yet another step backwards in desktop search functionality, which would be a shame. Virtual desktops are a nice feature, although hardly groundbreaking.
The included apps are certainly way ahead of the ones Microsoft shipped with Windows 8, but Microsoft has had many excellent desktop apps over the years — including the now-dead Windows Media Center, LiveWriter, and MovieMaker. It is the company’s own fault that it feels the need to start over time and again. On the tablet side, if Microsoft is serious about usability, it should be providing a better touch keyboard — one that includes swipe-through typing, for example. I also wish the company had finally fixed Windows Update. Mobile users won’t put up with the way it works now — they are spoiled by seamless OTAs from Apple and even many Android vendors.
Perhaps the ultimate warning sign about Windows 10 for me is that for many, its positioning is summed up as being “no worse than the six-year-old Windows 7, while adding support for tablets and phones.” That sounds pretty silly, but maybe not far from the truth. I run a Windows 7 desktop for some of my business-critical applications right next to a couple of Windows 8.1 machines and a couple of Windows 10 machines. I don’t really feel any less productive when I’m on the Windows 7 machine, and I can’t imagine that I’ll upgrade it to Windows 10 and risk something breaking.
Tablets are certainly a different story. I’ve already put Windows 10 on almost all my Windows tablets, and suspect most of the small number of Windows tablet users will also. Unfortunately for Microsoft, Windows tablets are a relatively small market, and may never become mainstream.
Laptops are the most interesting case. While each version of Windows adds new power management features, that may not be enough to get laptop users to upgrade. For example, Microsoft keeps changing the WiFi settings interface, and for many of us, the new version is lame compared to the more powerful one that preceded it. Engineering laptops still ship primarily with Windows 7, and I don’t see anything about Windows 10 changing that. Mainstream laptops will get dragged along onto Windows 10 because of the Microsoft marketing machine, but I don’t know how many current laptop users will bother to take advantage of the free upgrade. No doubt that is part of why Microsoft is inflicting its Windows 10 adware on the already confusing Windows Update process.