According to numerous sources close to the situation and after regulatory pressure, Groupon will amend its S-1 public offering filing to remove references to an unusual accounting treatment that has attracted controversy.

Sources said the new filing by the social buying company, which is helmed by CEO and co-founder Andrew Mason (pictured above), will likely occur as early as Monday.

It can’t come a minute too soon regarding a metric called ACSOI, or adjusted consolidated segment operating income, which the Chicago-based Groupon used when it filed its S-1 documents in June.

As I wrote at the time about the odd use of ACSOI:

Let’s be clear, this is a number that does not include important costs, such as critical online marketing expenses to attract new customers to Groupon.

Such accounting is called non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles).

In 2010 and the first quarter of 2011, Groupon said its Adjusted CSOI was $60.6 million and $81.6 million, respectively.

On a GAAP basis, Groupon lost $413.4 million for 2010 and $113.9 million in the first three months of 2011.

And, indeed, questions from the media, investors and, most importantly, the Securities and Exchange Commission about how Groupon accounts for its revenue and profits using ACSOI were swift and decidedly negative.

Hence, a furious debate — along with much internal tension — within Groupon about what to do. At first, in another S-1 amendment, the company backed away from using ACSOI as a “valuation metric.”

But that was apparently not enough for the SEC or anyone else, so Groupon’s top managers finally thought it best to rid itself of the term entirely. That will happen next week, sources said.

And, in coming weeks, sources added, the company will be filing additional financial information about both its growth and costs, which will undoubtedly also be put under a microscope by the media, investors and regulators.

A Groupon spokesman declined to comment when asked about the removal of ACSOI from its public offering documents.

Earlier today, CNBC reported that the regulatory review of Groupon’s questionable use of certain accounting metrics in its IPO filing was delaying its offering until later in September.

While more questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission about how it accounts for its revenue and profits might indeed eventually push the IPO debut out, according to sources I have interviewed for months now, an offering in mid to late September was actually when the social buying company was planning to take its company public.

It makes sense, since August is seldom used for road shows for companies headed for an IPO — think Wall Street in the Hamptons and you’ll get why.

That said, the continued scrutiny by the SEC is not a welcome development for Chicago-based Groupon, which filed its S-1 documents in June.

In coming weeks, sources said, the company will be filing new financial information about both its growth and costs, which will undoubtedly be put under a microscope by investors and regulators.

That’s no surprise since the contents of the original filing immediately caused controversy, especially over the amount of its venture funding paid out to insiders and also over an unusual accounting treatment called adjusted consolidated segment operating income, or Adjusted CSOI.

As I wrote at the time:

Let’s be clear, this is a number that does not include important costs, such as critical online marketing expenses to attract new customers to Groupon.
Such accounting is called non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles).

In 2010 and the first quarter of 2011, Groupon said its Adjusted CSOI was $60.6 million and $81.6 million, respectively.

On a GAAP basis, Groupon lost $413.4 million million for 2010 and $113.9 million in the first three months of 2011.

Said Groupon about its accounting in its S-1 filing: “We believe Adjusted CSOI is an important measure of the performance of our business as it excludes expenses that are non-cash or otherwise not indicative of future operating expenses.”

Definitely sketchy enough to attract an SEC look-see, which caused Groupon to back away from Adjusted CSOI as a “valuation metric” in a recently amended S-1 filing. Groupon also stepped back a sloppy comment made after the filing by its Chairman Eric Lefkofsky — in a interview he apparently thought was off the record — that the company would be “wildly profitable.”

One thing is certain: There will surely be more amending of the Groupon S-1 in the weeks ahead as it stumbles toward its IPO, which will be one of the most prominent of the Web 2.0 era.

So exactly how fecund is “FarmVille”?

If reports hold, we’ll all find out today what the yield is from the online gaming phenom Zynga, which will finally be filing its regulatory documents sometime today.

The S-1 for a public offering valued at up to $20 billion, which will contain all kinds of juicy information about the San Francisco-based start-up’s business, is likely to come out after the markets close. Zynga is expected to raise $2 billion in the offering.

Before everyone gets to see what’s in it, there’s a lot that investors should be looking out for, based on recent IPO filings by similar companies, such as Groupon.

Digging Up New Accounting Ground

As Tricia Duryee pointed out, Zynga will be the “first major U.S. company supported primarily by the sale of virtual goods” to file.

That’s what will likely make the Zynga filing very interesting, from an accounting point of view.

How Zynga handles its accounting is sure to be much scrutinized, especially since Groupon attracted all kinds of ugly from its unusual treatment of its financial results.

To defocus from its money-losing under GAAP acounting, the Chicago-based social buying service used the more attractive “Adjusted CSOI,” which is defined as adjusted consolidated segment operating income.

My definition: Sketchy!

Zynga’s finances are expected to look better, reportedly generating about $400 million in profit last year on about $850 million in revenue.

It will be important to pay attention to the breakdown of those revenues and about what period of time the company accounts for them.

As Duryee wrote, Zynga has several choices:

Game-based model: The company recognizes revenue over the life of the game.

User-based model: Revenue is recognized over the estimated life a user plays the game.

Item-based model: Revenue is recognized based on the implied or explicit life span of the item — in other words, how long it would last in the real world. Examples of more durable goods are virtual vehicles, furniture or weapons. Revenue from these would be recognized for as long as the player stays active in the game. Revenues from a more consumable item, like a virtual cup of coffee or a jolt of energy, would be recognized almost immediately.

And there are still other factors to take into consideration, such as whether the goods were paid for with virtual currency or real cash, and how much information a company has for establishing the averages.

In the Revenue Weeds

Another interesting thing to study will be the revenue breakdown for Zynga, especially as it relates to its biggest platform provider, Facebook.

Such as: How many in-game items are purchased directly on Facebook versus through gift cards purchased in the store? How big (or small) is Zynga’s advertising business? What about mobile games? Will the profitability of individual games be called out, with details about their performance?

And, of all its various distribution platforms for its games, where does it get the most mojo?

That’s important, since Zynga will be seen as a proxy for Facebook’s business. Thus, a lot of investors might find some nuggets of information, since the pair are so tightly intertwined as businesses.

Facebook, of course, has been famously trying not to IPO, so any indication of the social networking site’s business will be carefully studied.

Reaping the Insider Rewards

Lastly, it’ll be important to see who is selling what and when among current Zynga investors.

Groupon ran into a buzz saw of criticism from the giant payouts its founders took out of the company from its massive venture funding rounds.

As Peter Kafka wrote:

Groupon raised a total of $946 million in two funding rounds last winter. It kept $136 million of it to help run the money-losing company. The remaining $810 million was paid out, via stock purchases, to CEO Andrew Mason and some of his backers, including Eric Lefkofsky, and, notably, the Samwer brothers, who sold their CityDeal company to Groupon in 2010 … Of note: This wasn’t the first time Groupon had raised money and taken cash off the table. In April 2010, the company raised $130 million, and handed $120 million to many of the same people.

My definition: Even sketchier!

Along with its founder and CEO Mark Pincus, Zynga investors are the pantheon of venture players, including Digital Sky Technologies, Kleiner Perkins, Union Square Ventures and angel investors LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman and Peter Thiel.

How much Pincus and others inside the company have taken out and are selling should be one of the first places new investors should look.

Because with the hyped valuations that many of these Web 2.0 companies are getting, who’s zooming who should be a key sign to pay mind to.

When it goes public, the Facebook game developer will be the first major U.S. company supported primarily by the sale of virtual goods to do so.

To get an idea of what such an animal might look like, I talked to a handful of accountants, lawyers and game companies to get a sense of what we might find under the hood.

What’s immediately clear is that there are no obvious answers.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and other governing bodies have not yet come up with a legally prescribed method for taking into account the sale of virtual goods.

That leaves companies to come up with their own best guesses.

“There are no rules about this stuff,” said Bob Komin, the CFO and COO at Linden Lab, which operates Second Life, the four-year-old online virtual world. “I haven’t heard anything about a standard, but it’s probably the number one thing we talk about before we get audited every year.”

Revenue recognition on the sale of virtual goods is not exactly a sexy topic (unless we’re talking about an avatar’s undergarments!). But as more companies shift to a free-to-play model, where games are monetized through microtransactions and virtual goods, the subject will become more commonplace.

Zynga may be the first out of the gate, but many others are waiting in the wings — Facebook being the most prominent. Zynga declined to comment for this story.

Here’s what is known about Zynga

Four of its titles dominate the most popular applications on Facebook: CityVille (No. 1); FarmVille (No. 2); its newest title, Empires & Allies (No. 3); and Zynga Poker (No. 4).

All of those games are free and monetized through the sale of virtual goods, such as purple cows, energy boosts, clothing or premium buildings.

In-game items like these are either purchased directly on Facebook or through gift cards purchased in the store. Zynga also makes money from advertising and mobile games, but revenues from those are presumed to be far less.

In total, Zynga reportedly generated about $400 million in profit last year on about $850 million in revenue, although subsequent sources told AllThingsD’s Kara Swisher that the filing will reveal much more robust numbers.

But it’s not the sheer magnitude of Zynga’s business that has created problems for bean-counters. It’s the details on how to account for every last penny.

In a white paper, accounting firm Ernst & Young writes that there are three typical models being used today.

Here’s how they break it down:

• Game-based model: The company recognizes revenue over the life of the game.
• User-based model: Revenue is recognized over the estimated life a user plays the game.
• Item-based: Revenue is recognized based on the implied or explicit life span of the item — in other words, how long it would last in the real world. Examples of more durable goods are virtual vehicles, furniture or weapons. Revenue from these would be recognized for as long as the player stays active in the game. Revenues from a more consumable item, like a virtual cup of coffee or a jolt of energy, would be recognized almost immediately.

And there are still other factors to take into consideration, such as whether the goods were paid for with virtual currency or real cash, and how much information a company has for establishing the averages.

Lack of rules won’t stop companies from filing to go public

It can get really confusing really fast.

Kirk Soderquist and J. Dax Hansen, attorneys at Perkins Coie in Seattle, are looking at the legal ramifications of virtual goods.

“You have a bunch of alternative financial services companies that have sprung up on the Internet around social networks and gaming because there’s a need to deal with money in an innovative way. But the laws aren’t clear on how they apply to the Internet and the gaming space,” Hansen said.

Despite the lack of clear regulations, they said, they don’t believe that’s keeping any companies from filing for a public offering.

The one major aspect for a company to consider is unclaimed property laws. If a user purchases credits or coins but doesn’t use them, a company can’t necessarily set an expiration date and count them as revenue. In many states, it is considered “unclaimed property” — like an unused gift card — and the government can collect the revenue.

“Investors and acquirers will be interested in how you deal with that,” Hansen said. “If they are dependent on breakage for their business model, then they have another think coming.”

Linden Lab recognizes revenue over three years

Linden Lab’s approach for Second Life most closely resembles user-based accounting, which recognizes revenue over the average lifespan of a player, which is three years.

That time frame was picked, Komin said, because players tend to stick around for two to four years. “So, three years is not a bad estimate,” he said.

Komin prefers the long timeline because it evens out the revenues, making the company look like it has a very predictable and recurring business model. “If you have recurring and repeatable revenues over three years, it means that even if you are growing really fast, your reported numbers would be growing less quickly, but it would be more predictable. The other far extreme would be to report everything in the current period, and you’d see the growth as it was happening — but it would be more volatile.”

In other words, if Zynga does the same thing and reports FarmVille revenues over more than the two-year period it has been popular and revenues from Poker over three-plus years, revenues will be very consistent and not reveal much in terms of how well its games are currently performing.

Likewise, sales won’t spike when they release a new title, like Empires & Allies — which has jumped from the seventh most popular game to the No. 3 spot in the past week, according to AppData.com.

The iPhone is an example of the two accounting models

A good example for this is how Apple originally accounted for its iPhone.

When the first iPhone came out, Apple used subscription-based rules to account for the revenue. That meant that sales from the iPhone were spread out over many months, rather than right after a customer bought the phone. Wall Street analysts found the practice annoying because the company’s revenues barely budged despite selling two million devices in one quarter.

Apple was forced to report it this way because it technically wasn’t selling a finished product. Over the life of the product, Apple planned to push down free updates to the device. (This is also why Apple once charged for iOS updates for the iPod touch, so it could recognize all revenue immediately.)

The laws have since changed.

“Apple is a great analogy,” Komin said. And just as Apple figured it out over time, “I think there will be some adjustment as people figure [virtual goods] out.”

To be sure, Komin has his preferences for how he wants to do it, as the company considers an IPO.

“Generally speaking, investors don’t reward you for volatility,” he said. “Recognizing revenue that matches [a user's] life cycle feels better than recording it immediately. But whichever way we go, and whichever we choose to do, we have to make sure investors understand the business.”

Whatever Zynga decides, investors (and journalists!) will thank it for being transparent.

Today, after Demand Media beat Wall Street expectations, its execs got on the horn with investors to explain how it plans to beat the Panda.

That would be the beastly name for Google’s rejiggering of its search algorithm, in order to rid search results of poor quality content.

Along with many other sites, Demand has gotten smacked by its raging paw.

Still, the Santa Monica, Calif.-based company reported revenue of $79.5 million and six cents a share in adjusted net income.

Wall Street was expecting the company to report about $69.6 million in revenue for the three months, with four cents a share in adjusted profits.

On a GAAP basis, net loss per share was 13 cents compared to 94 cents a year ago.

Here’s the liveblog of the conference call:

2 pm PT: Demand’s investor relations dude came on and I immediately tuned out until CEO Richard Rosenblatt got on the line to talk about the results.

He was as perky as ever, launching right into the meat of the situation–how Demand was going to pretty up its offerings, such as a redesign of its flagship eHow site and its new editorial arrangement with another perky person, food lady Rachael Ray and the also perky fashionista/talk show lady Tyra Banks.

Gone will be user-generated content that Demand used to let people post at will on its eHow site that was, well, less than good.

As in, bad.

Instead, it’s “curation,” “editorial innovation” and feedback cycles.

We old-timers like to call that journalism and copyediting, complete with mean old editors who spiked said copy when it was crappy.

“Let me be clear,” said Rosenblatt, the Google changes did negatively impact Demand’s traffic. But Rosenblatt said the company dug into its content and has been improving it since.

2:17 pm: Now it was CFO Charles Hillard reading the results themselves. I am sorry, Mr. Finance Guy, but I can read it myself, so this is always the time in earnings calls when I check out and spend my time improving my content.

So when I heard words such as “stock-based comp,” I moved on to fixing all the typos that a very nice reader alerted me to, since I was writing too quickly.

Then, I briefly considered writing a high-quality post for eHow on how to write earnings and fix typos at the same time. I am that good.

2:30 pm: The CFO dude finished up and the Q&A with analysts started.

All Panda questions, natch!

Rosenblatt seemed calm, cool and collected.

“We think on this one, they did a very good job,” he said of Google’s search-fixing efforts, trying to soothe the savage beast. “We all continue to evolve.”

Which translated to: Google says jump and we say: “How high?”

Which is then followed by: “Please sir, can I have some more (traffic)?”

More Google algo change questions.

I suspect there is a new tactic afoot by Demand: Bore us into submission about the traffic devastation from Larry Page’s minions with endless questions about algo.

Finally, a question about mobile and international expansion. Apparently, Demand content is going to be translated into five different languages.

Yay! I am readying my version of “How to Boil Water” in French! (“Comment Faire Bouillir L’eau”!)

Mobile is going to be big too for Demand, which it is for everyone.

Then it was onto a question about improving content, including paying its writers more moolah, which would then eat into the Demand cheaper content business model.

I liked that question! I suddenly decided I was going to shift to a lugubrious post on the history of the Maginot Line in 132 parts!

Oops, Rosenblatt said the data has to show that the peeps want those longer pieces.

Back to the boiling water opus!

It’s on to some video questions and then back to search, as in diversifying away from relying on search to get traffic and premium prices for its advertising.

As in, how much are you going to cozy up to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg?

“It’s less about where traffic comes from and more about where they land,” said Rosenblatt, except you just know he sent a lovely floral bouquet plus a hefty selection of citrus to Zuckerberg’s new house in Silicon Valley right after Panda roared.

Rosenblatt deflected a lot of questions in this arena. “We still think that search is a fantastic way” to gain traffic, he said, making sure Google’s Page did not chomp off his hand as he courted his social networking nemesis at Facebook.

But as the old Kikuyu proverb goes: “When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.”

More likely, as Mary Chapin Carpenter sings: “Sometimes you’re the windshield. Sometimes you’re the bug.”

We’ll see which is which for Demand in the quarters ahead.

Until then, here’s Carpenter performing her song, “The Bug”:

Demand Media handily beat Wall Street expectations in its first quarter results today, released after the market closed.

The company reported revenue of $79.5 million and six cents a share in adjusted net income.

Investors were expecting the company to report about $69.6 million in revenue for the three months, with four cents a share in adjusted profits.

On a GAAP basis, the net loss per share was 13 cents compared to 94 cents a year ago.

The decent results could boost Demand’s stock, which has been hit hard since Google launched “Panda,” an overhaul of its search algorithm to improve results and remove poor quality content.

In a conference call at 2 pm PT today, which BoomTown will be liveblogging, most will be paying more mind to what the online content company’s top execs–especially CEO Richard Rosenblatt–have to say about the impact of the updates from Google to Demand’s various Web offerings.

As a first strike, some of Demand’s execs briefed the media earlier today on efforts to improve the quality of its content–you can read the official press releases here on that and also here.

In them, Demand said it will remove some online posts that were substandard and created under a now-suspended writers’ compensation system. It said it is also improving reader feedback tools and adding more substantive stories to its sites.

Those are all good ideas, since Google’s tweaks have been chewing away at a range of Web sites–such as those owned by Demand–which rely heavily on search engine optimization to bring in huge traffic.

One big hit for Demand, due to Panda, has been to its flagship eHow site.

All the mishegas has hurt the Santa Monica, Calif., company’s stock. It’s down just over 30 percent since Demand’s IPO in late January, as bearish investors fret over the implications of Panda.

Still, in its report, Demand said its content and media revenue was up 72 percent to $51.9 million, compared to $30.2 million last year.

CEO John Chambers said in a company statement that the quarter “played out as we expected” and that the company is “going through a period of transition as we move aggressively in the market with our architectural strategy….Simply put, we are owning our evolution and the next generation of industry leadership.”

That’s a change from the “air pockets” phrase Chambers used to describe the surprise downward in Cisco’s guidance when it last reported earnings in November, and the stock has yet to recover from the drop that resulted. More as I go through the numbers.

4:38 pm: Chambers: Our routing architecture is in the best shape in its history.

Chambers: We are in the middle of a major product transition with dramatically higher price performance advantages. With this in mind we did see our switching revenue decline 7 percent.

4:41 pm: Chambers: We are seeing pricing pressures on our Catalyst portfolio. This is where our competitors are targeting us and this is where we intend to own our evolution.

We are moving very aggressively to prevent any future erosion of our product share.

Services revenue increase 18 percent year over year.

International bookings are okay. Italy was the only country to see a fall.

Enterprise solid. Grew 10 percent year over year. Public sector grew 7 percent. U.S. public sector orders grew 9 percent. [He thinks orders will worsen in this sector in the coming quarters.]

Set-top business declined.

4:44 pm: Initial customer and industry feedback to Videoscape is being received well

4:45 pm: Chambers: There were a number of areas where we are pleased with our progress.

Guidance coming up.

4:47 pm: Q3 revenue 4 to 6 percent year over year.

Q4: 8-11 percent increase year over year.

4:48 pm: As I look, stock is now trading down nearly 4 percent after-hours.

Frank Calderoni, Cisco CFO is now on the call.

Calderoni: There are multiple product transitions in areas such as switching, which, although expected, are happening faster than expected.

4:56 pm: Cash and equivalents: $40.2 billion. Cash flow from operations: $2.6 billion

4:58 pm: Calderoni says Cisco would issue a dividend in fiscal 2011 with a yield in the 1 to 2 percent range.

4:58 pm: Shares now down about 6 percent.

More guidance coming up from Calderoni.

5:00 pm: Q3, we exepect revenue growth of 4 to 6 percent year on year.

That’s with one less week this year than last year.

Q3 we expect non-GAAP operation 23 to 24 percent

EPS 35 to 38 cents per share.

In Q4 we expect 8 to 11 percent growth in revenue year over year.

FY11 will be mid to lower end of 9 to 12 percent given in previous guidance.

5:03 pm: John Chambers is back on the call.

Enterprise orders growth good. Grew high 20 percent range.

Shares are down 9 percent on that “lower range” guidance for the full year.

We believe we are not losing market share with developed-world governments.

This growth will be severely challenged in the next several quarters, and will grow in the low single digit.

5:11 pm: We believe the growth in enterprise will balance out the challenges in government business.

5:12 pm: Decrease in gross margins was affected by several factors.

He says the company has started something called a working group to study the decline in gross margins. What does that mean?

5:17 pm: Shares are within sight of trading down 10 percent after hours.

5:18 pm: Chambers: I think we will look back on this period of time and wish we could have avoided it, but it will make us stronger.

Q&A about to start. Should be interesting.

5:20 pm: Chambers: Bookings were comfortably above the revenues. In terms of momentum in switching I would expect them to be positive.

5:39 pm: Chambers is now talking about tax policy. Echoing a point he’s made repeatedly about bringing cash that’s held overseas into the U.S. He think the taxes are too high.

5:39 pm: Cash in the U.S. is $3.1 billion versus total cash holdings of more than $40 billion. Calderoni is talking about the $3 billion debt offering. He said Cisco has about $3 billion in long term debt that’s coming due soon, and that the debt it’s issuing will carry a lower rate.

I’m going to close this early because I have to make another meeting. I’ll be posting more on Cisco earnings shortly.

With the offering, LinkedIn hopes to raise $175 million. The company reports revenue for the 2009 fiscal year of $120 million and a loss of about $4 million. And for the first nine months of 2010 it reported revenue of $161 million with a profit of $1.9 million, or about 4 cents a share. It may be profitable now, but it doesn’t expect to be profitable on a GAAP basis in 2011 because it expects its costs to increase. Leading the list of costs it expects to increase: Technology infrastructure.

As of Sept. 30 it was sitting on nearly $90 million in cash.

As BoomTown’s Kara Swisher reported earlier today, the offering will be led by Morgan Stanley, with J.P. Morgan Securities, Allen & Company and UBS Securities all part of the underwriting team. No mention of Goldman Sachs however, which is also an investor.

The Mountain View, Calif., company runs what it calls “the world’s largest professional network on the Web with some 90 million members in 200 countries and territories.” The filing reports a monthly average of 65 million unique visitors during the three-month period ended December 2010, nearly double the 36 million from the same period in 2009, and 5.5 billion page views during the same period, up from 2.8 billion in 2009.

LinkedIn’s had a head count of 1,000 990 full-time employees as of Dec. 31. Of those, 524 were in engineering, product development and customer operations; 313 were in sales and marketing; and another 153 were classified as general and administrative.

Revenue for the first nine months of 2010 breaks down like this:

LinkedIn says that 27 percent of net revenue came from customers outside the U.S.

CEO Jeffrey Weiner made $462,297, including a base salary of $250,000 a year and a bonus of more than $211,000. He has options to purchase 3,521,237 shares at an exercise price of $2.32 per share, and blocks of these options vest on a monthly basis. So far, options on about 1.6 million shares, or about 45 percent of his total option grant, have vested.

CFO Steven Sordello made $342,507, with a base salary of $240,000 and a bonus of $101,306. He has options to buy about 295,000 shares in various blocks, with strike prices that range from 46 cents to $2.32 a share.

Founder and chairman Reid Hoffman owns more than 19 million pre-IPO shares, or a little more than 21 percent of the company. With valuation estimates for the company ranging from $2 billion to $3 billion, Hoffman’s stake would be worth somewhere between $428 million and $642 million.

Weiner owns 3.8 million shares, or about 4 percent, a stake worth between $82 million and $123 million. Among LinkedIn’s VC investors, Sequoia Capital has a little less than 17 million shares, or 19 percent, followed by Greylock Partners, with 14 million shares, or a little less than 16 percent. Bessemer Venture Partners has 4.6 million shares, or about 5 percent. They invested total venture funding of $103 million and collectively hold stakes worth between $796 million and $1.19 billion, depending on the valuation.

LinkedIn’s long-awaited entry into the public market is one that many expect will be followed by other Internet firms in the coming year, including Zynga, Chegg and, finally, Facebook. And news of the filing comes on the heels of yesterday’s IPO by Demand Media, a Web publisher based in Santa Monica, Calif., which went public yesterday, with an offering that valued the company at $1.5 billion. Another anticipated IPO, by Skype, looks like it will be delayed until later this year.

Yet an IPO is only one of the various scenarios that could take place at LinkedIn. According to NetworkEffect’s Liz Gannes, one scenario could be an acquisition by Google or Microsoft that takes place either right after filing of the S-1, or right after an IPO. Recent stock purchases have pegged the company at a valuation of about $2 billion, and an IPO would likely push it even higher.

The results were led by strong growth in sales of IBM’s System Z mainframe servers, which were up 69 percent. That contributed to a 21 percent boost in sales in the Systems and Technology segment, which totaled $6.3 billion. Software sales were $7 billion, up 7 percent. Services revenue was $10.2 billion, up 2 percent.

It finished the year with earnings of $11.52, up 15 percent, on sales of $99.9 billion, which were up 4 percent form 2009. It was the eighth year in a row of double-digit per-share profit growth.

Looking ahead to the new fiscal year, IBM said it expects per-share earnings of at least $12.56 on a GAAP basis and at least $13 on a non-GAAP basis. This would put it on track to meet its road map that calls for earning of at least $20 a share in operating profit by 2015.

IBM shares rose 65 cents to close at $150.65 on the New York Stock Exchange, which amounts to a record, and climbed as high as $155 in after-hours trading.

Sales were $8.6 billion, helped mostly by new software license sales that grew 21 percent to $2 billion, while updates and product support revenue grew 12 percent to $3.7 billion. The consensus estimate was $8.34 billion. Sales grew 47 percent from the same period a year ago.

Non-GAAP per-share earnings were 51 cents, beating the 46-cent forecast estimate of analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial. Earnings after one-time items were 37 cents, up from 29 cents a year ago.

Gross margins on Sun-branded hardware increased to 53 percent.

Shares are up almost 4 percent in after-hours trading.

There’s a quote from CEO Larry Ellison, reminding us how fast his new products are, and digging once again at the competition:

“Sun’s new SPARC Supercluster computer shattered the world record for database transaction processing performance by running 3 times faster than IBM’s fastest computer, and a stunning 7.5 times faster than HP’s best ever database performance,” said Oracle CEO, Larry Ellison. “Our new generation of Exadata, Exalogic and SPARC Supercluster computers deliver much better performance and much lower cost than the fastest machines from IBM and HP.”

Here’s another quote, from Oracle co-President (and former HP CEO) Mark Hurd, about the Exadata product line:

“Since joining Oracle I’ve met with and visited many customers that have expressed a high level of enthusiasm around our strategy of engineering hardware and software that works together,” said Oracle President, Mark Hurd. “That enthusiasm translates into an Exadata pipeline that has now grown to nearly $2 billion. That number is a good leading indicator that customers are planning to increase their investment in Oracle technology.”

Yes I would say there’s enthusiasm. It was precisely because of the Exadata line that Macquarie Research upgraded Oracle today.

More from the conference call, which starts at 5 pm ET.

4:53 pm: Seven minutes to go before the Oracle earnings conference call starts. Right now it’s all mellow classical guitar.

Call is running a little late.

5:10 pm: And we’re underway with the safe-harbor statement.

Ellison, Hurd and president Safra Catz are on the call.

Americas grew 32 percent in U.S. dollars.

5:15 pm: Balance sheet: $24.8 billion in cash and short-term investments.

Generated $3.7 billion in free cash flow.

5:15 pm: Safra Catz is now speaking. We exceeded the high point of license guidance. Even excluding a payment for legal fees, we beat guidance by 4 cents.

5:16 pm: All geographies reported double-digit growth.

5:16 pm: “We continue to take share from SAP.”

5:17 pm: With Sun, included operating margins were 44 percent, which is better than SAP. [Another dig.]

5:18 pm: Hardware guidance: $1.1 to $1.2 billion in revenues.

Non-GAAP EPS expected to be 48 to 50 cents, and 34 to 36 cents on a GAAP basis.

Here’s Larry:

5:19 pm: Our goal is to be No. 1 in high-end market for servers. Right now our numbers are behind HP and IBM.

5:20 pm: IBM’s and HP’s servers are slow, and software is slow and expensive and have no software value-add. [Another dig at the competitors.]

5:22 pm: Exadata pipeline continus to grow. We expect our new generation of Sun machines will enable us to win significant share, and position us in the No. 2 position behind IBM very soon. And then we’ll fight it out for No. 1.

5:23 pm: Now Mark Hurd is speaking.

5:23 pm: I want to focus on our opportunities to grow significantly.

5:24 pm: Deal volume was spread across companies of all sizes and strength in the public sector as well.

5:24 pm: All of our customers and competitors are reacting to us.

5:25 pm: 150,000 Middleware customers. We ended the quarter with a record hardware backlog.

5:26 pm: Now going to Q&A:

A question from UBS. Are you starting to see a halo impact on adoption of the Oracle suite?

Larry: Close rates are improving. You’ll see great improvement in Exadata sales from Q2 to Q3. Because it’s new, people were running a lot of benchmarks and trying it out first. We’ll sell a lot more Exadata in Q3 than in Q2.

As for the halo effect, when you buy these servers you buy them to run specific software. Engineer them at the same time and make sure they run well together. We have a huge advantage over IBM and HP. The notion of systems, hardware and software that run well together will dominate the high end of the business.

Q: You clearly have a lot of irons in the fire with Fusion apps coming up and Exadata. Focus on Exalogic. Can you share early feedback from customers and compare that to Exadata ramp.

Mark: Exadata experience benefits Exalogic. We’ve matured the use case, we think we know where the targets are. The Exadata experience is a big deal for us.

5:31 pm: A question about Fusion Middleware.

Larry: We’ve been in the middleware business for a long time. With release 11 everything has been rewritten. It’s a much better user experience, you can patch our entire suite with a single file. We think the fact that we have an integrated suite gives us a huge advantage over IBM.

5:33 pm: A question about Europe. It was better than expected. Apps business was really strong. Look at competitors. You’ve been gaining share against SAP. We are seeing a pickup in general environment.

Hurd: I’m not an economist, but we’re doing well in Europe. It was broad-based. It was not singular to a deal or country. It was broad-based to countries where we have been gaining share. It’s been one quarter after another, a pretty steady beat.

Larry: We had a wonderful set of industry specific applications, in telecommunications and banking and retail, and that’s unique vis-a-vis SAP. that has helped us a lot to establish us in a lot of industries. Also Fusion is right around the corner.

5:35 pm: Q: How frequently is an Exadata deployment resulting in the displacement of a competitor’s product?

Hurd: About 70 to 75 percent of the time. About 20 to 25 percent of the time it’s a consolidation.

We’ve sold Exadata now in 50 countries, and 30 to 35 percent of our customers have made a second purchase. You’re starting to see repeat purchases. We’ve learned a lot about this and so as we launch Exalogic we can accelerate our learnings.

5:36 pm: Q: Margin was also great. What can we expect going forward and what were one-time items?

Catz: In general, it’s the business. The only nonrepeatable thing is the $120 million legal settlement, which we will not repeat. Hardware margins and operating margins, this is something we’ve done for many years.

5:38 pm: Q: What is visibility for database licenses?

Larry: A couple quarters ago, someone noticed database licenses were growing nicely. We think Exadata is going to be a nice turbocharge to our database business. Across the board our database business is going to get strong with Exadata.

I just looked at after-hours trading in Oracle shares and they’re up more than 4.5 percent.

Hurd: “The secret to Exadata is bringing the smarts to the data, versus bringing the data to the smarts.”

5:42 pm: Q: What continues to drive the database business? Is it just core database, add-ons?

Larry: We think our technology is getting faster and more reliable at a faster rate than that of our competitors.

5:43 pm Larry: As far as applications, we think there are lots of reasons we continue to gain share every quarter over the last few years over SAP.

It’s the industry-specific applications. We have telecom companies that are running only Oracle software. We have some banks that are making the same kind of commitments up and down the stack. SAP just doesn’t have that.

5:44 pm: Larry: We’ve got this extremely modern Java-based suite called Fusion that is going to strengthen our competitive stance against Salesforce.com and against Workday.

5:46 pm: That seems to be it. The call is concluded.

Netflix ended the quarter with 16.9 million subscribers, which beats the Street’s 16.6 million consensus, and should please investors. And it has also pushed up its Q4 expectations–it now expects to have between 19 million and 19.7 million subscribers at the end of the year, up from earlier projections of 17.7 million to 18.5 million.

Other guidance: Revenue of $586 million to $598 million, versus $580 million to $596 million. The Street was looking for $592 million.

GAAP net income of $32 million to $40 million, unchanged.
GAAP EPS of $0.59 to $0.74 per diluted share, unchanged.

Two important points deep into the accompanying “management commentary“:

• The company, which moved into Canada this year, is contemplating moving “beyond North America” in the second half of 2011. If it does, it will spend about $50 million on the effort.
• A bit more info on the possibility of a streaming-only option in the U.S., which the company had previously talked about. It is testing one now, and says, “If our results are as strong as we think they will be, then we will look to start this offering later in this Q4.“

Earnings “cheat sheet” via Citi’s Mark Mahaney:

Netflix earnings are getting progressively more interesting, as the company pushes further and further into digital video, which brings it into competition (and/or cooperation) with…everybody: Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. I’ll be back at 6 pm ET for the conference call.

Smart investors will decide whether or not they like online content maker Demand Media, which recently filed to go public.

Before Wall Street buys into the IPO, those investors will peruse the financial disclosures, assess the management and analyze the market for creating content that uses digital tools to gauge consumer demand and assign stories based on those results.

And they will also look closely at the Santa Monica, Calif., start-up’s traffic, which has been growing steadily since its founding several years ago.

Except, insisted two bloggers in posts on the exact same day earlier this week, it looked like Demand’s traffic dramatically fell off over the last month.

First, Dan Primack from peHUB, using data from Quantcast, noted a huge traffic drop-off, although he did add that other analytic groups were not showing such declines.

He then spun what he himself called “an alternate (and unsubstantiated) theory” that Google (GOOG) had somehow tweaked its search algorithm and kicked Demand’s knees in some doing-some-evil plot to get into the content business itself.

If you are thinking it was grassy-knoll time, as I did, you are not far off.

But, by the end of the post, Primack wheeled back as fast as Demand’s traffic had supposedly declined, noting that a Quantcast spokesperson attributed the Demand traffic plunge to a “measurement tag that had fallen off.”

(Don’t you hate when that happens? That’s why we use digital superglue here at All Things Digital to keep those pesky measurement tags affixed firmly!)

But that seemingly bad data from Quantcast also popped up in a post by Slate’s James Ledbetter, who also noted a precipitous decline for Demand in late July.

He tried to throw out a number of scenarios and theories to explain the possible plunge, none of which were supported by much proof, either. But it all sounded juicy and sneaky!

The post actually seemed more of a lark for Ledbetter than any real reported analysis.

And comScore Director of Industry Analysis Andrew Lipsman even stressed in the comments of the Ledbetter piece that “there is no such traffic drop-off at Demand and there may be other inorganic reasons behind the apparent decline you noted in your article.”

Indeed, according to comScore (SCOR), which is sometimes considered an undercounter of Web traffic by publishers, Demand’s traffic is actually up to 58.7 million unique monthly visitors in July, a rise of seven percent from the previous month.

That’s actually the best Demand has done since last fall, as you can see here from comScore’s numbers since last September, during which time its traffic rises and falls by small amounts:

Demand’s U.S. Unique Visitors (000)

Sep-2009 52,495
Oct-2009 52,710
Nov-2009 49,278
Dec-2009 47,166
Jan-2010 51,327
Feb-2010 50,017
Mar-2010 55,481
Apr-2010 55,915
May-2010 56,261
Jun-2010 54,619

These numbers, as you will see, are not quite as gripping, showing a very slow march forward, as did Demand’s financials.

As I wrote in a post earlier this week, titled “The Lesson of Demand Media: The Online Content Business Is a Looooong March to the Big Time”:

The media business at Demand is still small, relatively speaking to other big content companies, with the content and media part of the revenue representing almost 60 percent of the business (a domain registrar business makes up for the rest).

And, most importantly, it is still unprofitable.

[Demand] said that, for the six months ended June 30, the company posted a loss of $22.3 million on revenue of $114 million. It was an improvement over a loss of $28.9 million on revenue of $91.3 million in the same period of 2009.

Using less strict accounting, on an operating basis, the picture is better, with the company’s loss cut to $4.7 million from $12.3 million in the same six months.

And using even less stringent non-GAAP financial rules, called, “Adjusted OIBDA,” Demand said in its regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission Friday that it made $25.6 million in profits.

Like I said, not so riveting, but also not so bad.

Which comes to BoomTown’s own theory: If you want a good story, buy a good book.

“The Sun integration is going even better than we expected,” said Oracle President Safra Catz. “We believe that Sun will make a significant contribution to our fourth quarter earnings per share as well as meet the profitability goals we set for next year.”

Oracle (ORCL) said its net income for the quarter fell to $1.2 billion, or 23 cents a share, from $1.3 billion, or 26 cents a share last year. But revenue rose to $6.4 billion from $5.5 billion. Excluding items, earnings for the quarter were 38 cents a share, which is what analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters had been expecting.

Two last details worth noting: Revenue from new software licenses rose 13 percent during the quarter. Another sign that enterprise spending on technology is on the rise.

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison is a funny guy. From the company’s earnings release:

“Every quarter we grab huge chunks of market share from SAP,” said Oracle CEO, Larry Ellison. “SAP’s most recent quarter was the best quarter of their year, only down 15%, while Oracle’s application sales were up 21%. But SAP is well ahead of us in the number of CEOs for this year, announcing their third and fourth, while we only had one.”

Oracle Reports GAAP EPS of $0.23, Non-GAAP EPS of $0.38

REDWOOD SHORES, Calif., March 25, 2010 — Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today announced fiscal 2010 Q3 GAAP total revenues were up 17% to $6.4 billion, while non- GAAP total revenues were up 18% to $6.5 billion. Excluding the impact of Sun Microsystems, Inc., which Oracle acquired on January 26, 2010, GAAP total revenue grew 7%. GAAP new software license revenues were up 13% to $1.7 billion, and up 10% to $1.7 billion excluding Sun. GAAP software license updates and product support revenues were up 13% to $3.3 billion, while non-GAAP software license updates and product support revenues were up 12% to $3.3 billion. GAAP operating income was down 5% to $1.8 billion, and GAAP operating margin was 29%. Non-GAAP operating income was up 13% to $2.9 billion, and non-GAAP operating margin was 45%. GAAP net income was down 10% to $1.2 billion, while non-GAAP net income was up 9% to $1.9 billion. GAAP earnings per share were $0.23, down 11% compared to last year while non-GAAP earnings per share were up 9% to $0.38. GAAP operating cash flow on a trailing twelve-month basis was $8.2 billion.

“Our solid top line growth, coupled with disciplined expense management, was key in generating $8.0 billion of free cash flow over the last twelve months,” said Oracle CFO Jeff Epstein.

“The Sun integration is going even better than we expected,” said Oracle President, Safra Catz. “We believe that Sun will make a significant contribution to our fourth quarter earnings per share as well as meet the profitability goals we set for next year.”

“Exadata is the fastest growing product in Oracle’s history,” said Oracle President, Charles Phillips. “Introduced a little over a year ago, the Exadata pipeline is now approaching $400 million with Q4 bookings forecast at nearly $100 million. This strengthens both sales growth and profitability in our Sun server and storage businesses.”

“Every quarter we grab huge chunks of market share from SAP,” said Oracle CEO, Larry Ellison. “SAP’s most recent quarter was the best quarter of their year, only down 15%, while Oracle’s application sales were up 21%. But SAP is well ahead of us in the number of CEOs for this year, announcing their third and fourth, while we only had one.”
In addition, Oracle’s Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.05 per share of outstanding common stock to be paid to stockholders of record as of the close of business on April 14, 2010, with a payment date of May 5, 2010. Future declarations of quarterly dividends and the establishment of future record and payment dates are subject to the final determination of Oracle’s Board of Directors.

Palm (PALM) expects third-quarter revenue to be between $285 million and $310 million–significantly less than the $425.4 million analysts had been expecting. As a result, revenue for the fiscal year will be “well below” the $1.6 billion to $1.8 billion the company had projected.

Damn. Puts a new spin on that Chinese New Year smartphone production respite we heard about earlier this month, doesn’t it?

Clearly, concerns about declining sales of the company’s webOS smartphones were well-founded. It now seems there’s a growing possibility they may not reach critical mass. Which is obviously worrisome because Palm has essentially bet the farm on them.

“Palm webOS is recognized as a groundbreaking platform that enables one of the best smartphone experiences available today, and our work to evolve the platform and bring industry-leading technology to market continues. However, driving broad consumer adoption of Palm products is taking longer than we anticipated,” Palm CEO Jon Rubinstein said in a statement. “Our carrier partners remain committed, and we are working closely with them to increase awareness and drive sales of our differentiated Palm products.”

Rubinstein’s reassurances have done little to temper investor disgust over the company’s news. At $6.68, Palm shares are down more than 17 percent as I write this.

Perhaps it’s time for Palm to start looking for a buyer, whether Nokia (NOK), Dell (DELL) or someone else. Not that these companies are interested. For Palm to be a good acquisition target, it needs to demonstrate viability, something it’s obviously having trouble doing.

Below, Palm’s press release detailing today’s ugly news.

Palm, Inc. (NASDAQ:PALM) today indicated that it expects that revenues for the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 will be in the range of $285 million to $310 million on a GAAP basis and in the range of $300 million to $320 million on a non-GAAP basis. Revenues for the quarter and full year are being impacted by slower than expected consumer adoption of the company’s products that has resulted in lower than expected order volumes from carriers and the deferral of orders to future periods. Accordingly, Palm expects fiscal year 2010 revenues to be well below its previously forecasted range of $1.6 billion to $1.8 billion. The company will provide more detail on its financial results during Palm’s third-quarter financial results conference call currently scheduled for Thursday, March 18.

“Palm webOS is recognized as a groundbreaking platform that enables one of the best smartphone experiences available today, and our work to evolve the platform and bring industry-leading technology to market continues. However, driving broad consumer adoption of Palm products is taking longer than we anticipated,” said Jon Rubinstein, chairman and chief executive officer. “Our carrier partners remain committed, and we are working closely with them to increase awareness and drive sales of our differentiated Palm products.”

The Company expects to close its third fiscal quarter with a cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments balance in excess of $500 million.

The second-quarter loss Palm reported Thursday afternoon was narrower than the one it reported last year, but still fell far short of what Wall Street had been expecting. The smartphone maker lost 37 cents a share for the period on sales of $302 million. Analysts had been expecting a net loss of 32 cents per share on revenue of $266.2 million.

Palm (PALM) did manage to ship a total of 783,000 smartphone units during the quarter, though, a five percent decrease from last quarter, but a year-over-year increase of 41 percent. That said, the company actually sold only 573,000 units, down 29 percent from the previous quarter and down four percent year-over-year. Seems the launch of the Pixi wasn’t quite as successful as Palm had hoped.

“We are continuing to execute strongly against our long-term strategy with the delivery of Palm Pixi, the new carrier launches completed this quarter, and the upcoming opening of Palm’s full developer program,” said Jon Rubinstein, Palm’s chairman and chief executive officer.

“We’re still in the early stages of a long race,” Rubinstein added, “and we’re energized by the opportunity to compete in this exciting market. We remain confident that Palm’s innovative product design capabilities, integrated cloud services and the differentiated and delightful Palm webOS experience will provide the foundation for our sustained success.”

Once again, Palm did not break out unit sales of the Pre or Pixi in its earnings release, below. At $11.26, Palm shares are down 3.92 percent in after-hours trading.

Palm Reports Q2 FY 2010 Results

SUNNYVALE, Calif.– Palm, Inc. (NASDAQ: PALM) today reported that total revenues in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010, ended Nov. 27, 2009, were $78.1 million. Gross profit was $5.5 million, and gross margin was 7.0 percent. These results include the effects of subscription accounting applied to Palm(R) webOS(TM) products as required by GAAP.(1) In accordance with this methodology, revenues and direct cost of revenues for Palm webOS products (currently Palm Pre(TM) and Palm Pixi(TM) smartphones) are deferred and recognized over the products’ estimated economic lives.

To facilitate comparisons to Palm’s historical results, Palm has included non-GAAP adjusted measures, which exclude the impact of subscription accounting, stock-based compensation and other items detailed later in this release. The company believes this information will help investors better evaluate its current period performance and trends in its business.

Non-GAAP Adjusted Revenues in the second quarter totaled $302.0 million, non-GAAP Adjusted Gross Profit was $77.3 million and non-GAAP Adjusted Gross Margin was 25.6 percent.

“We are continuing to execute strongly against our long-term strategy with the delivery of Palm Pixi, the new carrier launches completed this quarter, and the upcoming opening of Palm’s full developer program,” said Jon Rubinstein, Palm’s chairman and chief executive officer. “We’re still in the early stages of a long race, and we’re energized by the opportunity to compete in this exciting market. We remain confident that Palm’s innovative product design capabilities, integrated cloud services and the differentiated and delightful Palm webOS experience will provide the foundation for our sustained success.”

The company shipped a total of 783,000 smartphone units during the quarter, representing a 5 percent decrease from the first quarter of fiscal year 2010 and a year-over-year increase of 41 percent compared to the second quarter of fiscal year 2009. Smartphone sell-through for the second quarter was 573,000 units, down 29 percent from the first quarter of fiscal year 2010 and down 4 percent year-over-year.

On a GAAP basis, net loss applicable to common stockholders for the second quarter of fiscal year 2010 was $(85.4) million, or $(0.54) per diluted common share. This compares to a net loss applicable to common stockholders for the second quarter of fiscal year 2009 of $(508.6) million or $(4.64) per diluted common share. The company’s second quarter of fiscal year 2009 results included a non-cash charge with a net impact of $396.7 million to the tax provision pertaining to the increase of the valuation allowance for the Company’s U.S. deferred tax assets.

The company’s net loss applicable to common stockholders on a GAAP basis reflects accounting guidance, effective in the first quarter of fiscal year 2010, which requires the anti-dilutive provisions of Palm’s series C preferred shares and related warrants to be treated as derivatives for financial reporting purposes. The fair value of the derivatives were estimated as of the first day of fiscal year 2010 and are marked to market on a quarterly basis, with any change in value reflected in the company’s financial results for the period. The series C derivatives balance was $178.7 million at the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2010 compared to $235.0 million at the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2010. This reduction in fair value resulted in a $56.3 million non-cash gain on series C derivatives and was reflected in the company’s second quarter GAAP financial results. With regard to the series C derivatives, any future increases in Palm’s stock price from period to period will be reflected as a non-cash loss on these derivatives in the company’s financial results, and any future decreases will be reflected as a non-cash gain in the company’s financial results.

Non-GAAP Net Loss for the second quarter of fiscal year 2010 was $(59.6) million, or $(0.37) per diluted share. This compares to a non-GAAP Net Loss for the second quarter of fiscal year 2009 of $(80.2) million, or $(0.73) per diluted share.

Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, for the second quarter of fiscal year 2010 totaled $(70.1) million. EBITDA, adjusted to exclude the impact of subscription accounting, stock-based compensation, net other income (expense), restructuring charges and a gain on series C derivatives, or Adjusted EBITDA, totaled $(48.3) million.

The company’s cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments balance was $590.0 million at the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2010. This includes net proceeds of approximately $360 million from the company’s public equity offering, which closed on Sept. 23, 2009. Cash from operations for the second quarter of fiscal year 2010 was $16.7 million.

Palm may periodically provide new software features free of charge to customers of its Palm webOS products and currently recognizes Palm webOS product revenues and related standard cost of revenues on a subscription basis based on the applicable product’s estimated economic life, which is currently 24 months. The company records deferred revenues and deferred cost of revenues on its balance sheet, and amortizes them into earnings on a straight-line basis over the estimated economic product life.

Palm announced today that it expects to early adopt two recently released accounting standards related to revenue recognition, Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2009-13 and ASU No. 2009-14, effective for its third quarter of fiscal year 2010. These accounting changes will result in a substantial portion of Palm webOS product revenues being recognized upon delivery. The remaining Palm webOS revenues, which are related to future services and deliverables, will be recorded as deferred revenues on the company’s balance sheet, and amortized into earnings on a straight-line basis over the estimated economic product life, which is currently 24 months. Under the new standards, all related cost of revenues will be recognized upon delivery. This change in accounting will reduce the amount of revenues that Palm will defer on its balance sheet but will have no impact on cash flows and does not change how Palm accounts for Palm OS(R) products, like the Centro(TM), or its Treo(TM) line. Consistent with the company’s past practice, Palm will continue to provide non-GAAP, adjusted measures that exclude the impact of deferred revenue accounting, stock-based compensation and other items as appropriate.

At first glance, it looks like the company beat them. Netflix (NFLX) posted earnings of 37 cents a share on revenue of $394.1 million. Wall Street had been looking for 31 cents and $390 million, respectively. The company said it ended the quarter with 10.3 million subscribers, which is the high end of the range it had promised to deliver.

And guidance was strong, too. From the company’s press release, here are Q2 predictions:

– Ending subscribers of 10.4 million to 10.6 million
– Revenue of $403 million to $409 million
– GAAP net income of $27 million to $32 million
– GAAP EPS of 44 cents to 53 cents per diluted share

And here’s the company’s revised guidance for 2009 (full year), which it increased:

– Ending subscribers of 11.2 million to 11.8 million, up from 10.6 million to 11.3 million
– Revenue of $1.63 billion to $1.67 billion, up from $1.58 billion to $1.635 billion
– GAAP net income of $96 million to $106 million, up from $88 million to $98 million
– GAAP EPS of $1.56 to $1.72 per diluted share, up from $1.43 to $1.59 per diluted share.

All of this seems to compare favorably with Wall Street’s expectations. Via Citibank’s Mark Mahaney, here’s what investors were looking for (click to enlarge):

Netflix shares have been bouncing around in the aftermarket following the earnings release, and last I looked, they’re just about flat. It will probably take investors a while to figure out if they’re disappointed that the numbers aren’t even bigger.

UPDATE: The stock is now down around 5%, presumably because guidance wasn’t strong enough. I’m back for the earnings call, which I’ll live blog part of: I’m particularly interested in Netflix’s digital strategy, so I’ll be focusing on that.

CEO Reed Hastings: Subscribers renting more DVDs and Blu-rays than ever. Disc rental will continue to grow for many years, so we’re investing in that.

More realistic Blu-ray pricing (previously discussed) of 20% to 25% premium for subs. Though we’re paying the studios a higher premium for Blu-ray. If we can get those costs in line, we can promote Blu-ray more agresssively [i.e. bring down your prices, Hollywood, and we'll push more of your high-margin discs].

We are losing customer to $1 kiosk rentals. “By end of they year, kiosks will likely be our #1 competitor,” as rental stores fail. “Longterm effects,” of cheap kiosks “are not positive for us, or the industry as a whole.”

Streaming: Overall consumer embrace of online video growing. “Not hard to believe that online video will grow substantially every year for a long time”. [Duh]. Important for us to be spending “aggressively” on streaming content. “But that means we are essentially buying many titles twice now”. Buying once on DVD, and again on streaming. Great for content owners, ok for us since costs for streaming are lower than physical distribution.

We believe we’ll get more streaming licenses as TV networks, who control titles, look to increase distribution. We are looking to a day, when we have plentiful content for streaming… “we will simply be a fourth option for consumers and a fourth revenue source for networks and studios”. It’s possible that within a few years, all CE devices sold will include a Netflix component.

It’s easy to focus on the Internet for its distribution abilities, but its important to think about social possibilities. Future of Internet TV is closer to Facebook and social networks than the standard grid lineup. Social, social, social. Long term outlook for Internet TV is very promising.

[Join to pass on most of CFO notes] No “cocooning” effect from recession apparent in DVD usage. Acquisition costs “record low” in part because of depressed online ad pricing.

Q&A: “Tremendous amounts” of hardware partnerships in the pipeline. Xbox renewal? No answer.

Have sub growth slowed at end of quarter? No. Q4 growth back-end loaded because of holidays, and Q1 growth front-end loaded for same reason.

How about a fee-based service for a streaming only service by year’s end? We talk about that from time to time, but not pressing. For now, combination of DVD rental and streaming is what consumers are interested in. A streaming-only service would be a “sweetner” to what we have now. We don’t think it would cannibalize, though.

Can you talk about streaming-enabled devices’ contribution to subscriber additions? No details, but we think it’s helpful to have Xbox, Blu-ray players, etc. “It’s definitely a very positive part of the ecosystem for us”.

What are dynamics to adding more content to streaming library? More money.

Can you talk more about new marketing efficiencies? There aren’t any new ones, really. Weak economy, lower ad prices, plus consumer excitement about streaming product.

What does competition look like on streaming front from Apple and Amazon? Right now, “all three of us are three drops of water in the pool that is watching television”, … “we all recognize in the long-term there will be competition between us” but we’re all “so tiny” compared to TV-viewing that that’s what we’re focused on.

That appears to be it for streaming-related queries. I’ll check back in with the full transcript later on.

A few quick highlights from the earnings statement and investor call before the official release, appended below.

• Apple sold 22.7 million iPods and 4.4 million iPhones during the quarter.
• It shipped 2.5 million Macs.
• Looking ahead to the second fiscal quarter of 2009, the company expects revenue in the range of about $7.6 billion to $8 billion.
• The release includes no mention of Jobs’s health.

During a call to discuss Apple’s latest earnings, Steve Jobs and his health were top of mind. Indeed, the first question of the call centered around this very issue:

Q: Well, since I’m going first, I guess I’ll ask how is Steve and hope he’s doing well. And I just wanted to know how, if you’ll run the company differently with Tim or the same and if need be, if Tim — do you feel like you would be the likely candidate if the worst case scenario were to happen if Steve was unable to return.”

Apple COO Tim Cook: There is an extraordinary depth and breadth in Apple’s executive team. And it leads over 35,000 wicked smart people. We believe we’re on the face of earth to make great products, and that’s not changing. We believe in simple not complex. We believe in deep collaboration. We have the self-honesty to admit when we’re wrong. These values are so embedded in the company that we will do extremely well regardless of who has the CEO Job. I strongly believe that Apple is doing the best work in its history.

Also the focus of some discussion the possibility of an Apple netbook. Is Apple considering entering the sub-$500 netbook market? Cook says not right now. “We’re watching that space, but from our point of view, the products are based on hardware that’s not very powerful, software that’s not that good and cramped displays. We don’t think that people are going to be pleased with that. It’s a category we watch and we have some ideas for it, but we think the products there right now are inferior.”

Here’s the official release:

Apple Reports First Quarter Results
Best Quarterly Revenue and Earnings in Apple History
iPod Sales Set New Record

“Even in these economically challenging times, we are incredibly pleased to report our best quarterly revenue and earnings in Apple history—surpassing $10 billion in quarterly revenue for the first time ever,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO.

A few quick highlights from the earnings statement and investor call before the official release, appended below.

• Apple sold 22.7 million iPods and 4.4 million iPhones during the quarter.
• It shipped 2.5 million Macs.
• Looking ahead to the second fiscal quarter of 2009, the company expects revenue in the range of about $7.6 billion to $8 billion.
• The release includes no mention of Jobs’s health.

During a call to discuss Apple’s latest earnings, Steve Jobs and his health were top of mind. Indeed, the first question of the call centered around this very issue:

Q: Well, since I’m going first, I guess I’ll ask how is Steve and hope he’s doing well. And I just wanted to know how, if you’ll run the company differently with Tim or the same and if need be, if Tim — do you feel like you would be the likely candidate if the worst case scenario were to happen if Steve was unable to return.”

Apple COO Tim Cook: There is an extraordinary depth and breadth in Apple’s executive team. And it leads over 35,000 wicked smart people. We believe we’re on the face of earth to make great products, and that’s not changing. We believe in simple not complex. We believe in deep collaboration. We have the self-honesty to admit when we’re wrong. These values are so embedded in the company that we will do extremely well regardless of who has the CEO Job. I strongly believe that Apple is doing the best work in its history.

Also the focus of some discussion the possibility of an Apple netbook. Is Apple considering entering the sub-$500 netbook market? Cook says not right now. “We’re watching that space, but from our point of view, the products are based on hardware that’s not very powerful, software that’s not that good and cramped displays. We don’t think that people are going to be pleased with that. It’s a category we watch and we have some ideas for it, but we think the products there right now are inferior.”

Here’s the official release:

Apple Reports First Quarter Results
Best Quarterly Revenue and Earnings in Apple History
iPod Sales Set New Record

“Even in these economically challenging times, we are incredibly pleased to report our best quarterly revenue and earnings in Apple history—surpassing $10 billion in quarterly revenue for the first time ever,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO.