Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster has modeled Apple’s performance for the 2013 calendar year and come up with some very large numbers indeed: Earnings per share of $40.50 on $164 billion in revenue.

That’s about 10 percent above Street consensus on EPS and 8 percent over consensus on revenue. But Munster has his reasons — specifically soaring demand for the iPhone and iPad. He figures that unit growth rates for both devices will be so strong over the next two years that Apple will end up selling 143 million iPhones and 68 million iPads in 2013. What’s more, it will sell them at sales prices far above the industry average for competing devices.

“We believe the markets for smartphones and tablets are big enough to support this growth, even if Apple’s ASP is significantly higher than its competition,” said Munster. “Consumers have demonstrated their willingness to pay up for the best technology, and we expect this trend to continue.”

And if it does, the iPhone and iPad will account for 49 percent and 21 percent of Apple’s revenue for calendar 2013 by Munster’s calculations.

According to IDC’s latest Worldwide Mobile OS Forecast and Analysis, Symbian will remain market leader until at least 2013, despite some big gains by rivals like Android. This is largely thanks to Nokia’s (NOK) strength in markets beyond the United States, particularly emerging ones.

Interestingly, IDC believes Google’s (GOOG) Android will be the fastest growing wireless operating system between now and 2013, when it will be the second most widely used mobile OS in the world. Which means that the research firm expects Android to best not only Apple (AAPL) and its iPhone OS, which holds the No. 3 spot globally, but BlackBerry maker Research In Motion (RIMM) which holds the No. 2 spot.

It’s a significant deal for IBM, and the company claims there’s a great fit between its BPM portfolio and Lombardi’s Teamworks and Blueprint offerings.

But not everyone agrees. MWD Advisors analyst Neil Ward-Dutton wonders if there’s a bit too much overlap between the two companies’ BPM offerings.

“Although the strengths of Lombardi’s tools are different from IBM’s there is almost 100% product overlap,” Ward-Dutton writes. “What’s more the design philosophy of Lombardi’s offering is almost diametrically opposed to that of IBM’s offering–many of Lombardi’s strengths come from its tightly-integrated toolset and repository. It’s not straightforward to see how these things can come together to form a coherent portfolio–unless they’re basically fenced off from each other and positioned as supporting different kinds of BPM scenario (with Lombardi focused on ‘people centric’ processes, WebSphere on ‘system centric’ processes).”

Call me Professor Positive if you must, but I don’t think that’s terrible: It means that 60 percent of phone users are okay with ads. And I suspect the number will be higher once the ads move from the theoretical/novelty realm into something you see whenever you use your phone or in exchange for getting something of value.

(And yes, I understand that a vocal minority absolutely hates advertising of all sorts and is reading this story on a computer that runs ad-blocking software. Good for you! Please let me know how you’d like to pay for this stuff and everything else you consume on the Web).

Here’s the research from Parks Associates, via Mediapost (click to enlarge):

Remember that even if mobile ads do take off as expected, it’s still going to be a relatively small business for some time. Bernstein Research figures mobile ads may generate $2.2 billion by 2013, which is nothing to sneeze at, but still a small fraction of the $32 billion Web ad market. Most of the mobile ad dollars, of course, are expected to flow to Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO).

Graph one: Look how fast this business is growing! Broadcast and cable shows on the Web will generate less than $600 million in ad dollars in the U.S. this year, but four years from now that number will be close to $1.5 billion (click to enlarge).

Graph two: Look how tiny this business is! That $1.5 billion will be a drop in the bucket for TV advertising as a whole, which is a $70 billion business, give or take a billion. (It’s so small it’s literally almost impossible to find, but if you squint hard you can see a tiny sliver of dark green on the top part of the chart below.) And crucially, it will be smaller than the $2 billion that Amel predicts will flow out of conventional TV advertising.

Amel is the same analyst who cause a bit of a stir last year when he predicted that Hulu, the joint venture owned by News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, GE’s (GE) NBC and Disney’s (DIS) ABC, was on track to eclipse Google’s (GOOG) YouTube in gross profit. This report is less pointed–it’s basically a landscape piece–but there are still some good nuggets.

Such as:

• Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes dominates the market for paid TV shows delivered over the Web and controlled 60 percent of the market last year. Amel figures iTunes will hold on to 43 percent of the market by 2013. But he thinks that market will be significantly smaller than advertising on free TV shows delivered over the Web: $800 million vs. $1.5 billion in four years.
• Web TV purveyors like Hulu and CBS (CBS) have been reluctant to run as many ads online as they do on conventional TV. But Amel says that will change. Web TV shows carry an average of five ads per hour, but he figures distributors can eventually boost that number to 12 ads an hour.

One big caveat here: Amel’s report only addresses TV shows on the Web, not video on the Web. Amel doesn’t spell this out, but I assume that’s because he’s most concerned here with the fate of existing players like NBC, ABC, et al. And, I’m guessing, because he doesn’t think that video on the Web that isn’t TV has much value.

There’s a whole ecosystem of players creating and distributing Web-native video who would argue with that. But they’ll have a stronger case when they can show significant revenue of their own.