No big deal, Google said–just a little re-org.

And at first blush, Wall Street seemed to take the company at its word. Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, whatever. A sampling of analyst reactions:

• J.P. Morgan’s Imran Khan: “We think it is important to note that although the titles have changed, the core team remains the same. We think this new team structure makes a lot of sense and could result in faster decision making.”
• Citigroup’s Mark Mahaney: “We view this change as un-dramatic, as Eric Schmidt will still be working closely with Page and Brin…we believe Larry Page has been groomed for the role of CEO, and we don’t expect any dramatic changes to Google’s core strategies.
• Barclays’ Douglas Anmuth: “We don’t actually view it as that material of a change. We still think Google will be run in a similar manner as it is today, and mostly by the same people.”

Investors also seemed to yawn, or at least they seemed to last night: Google stock moved up a little bit after the market closed, but that was it.

Today, though, the story is harder to discern from the GOOG chart, which is one of the reasons you should always be wary when someone tells you with confidence why a stock is moving one way or another.

Watch the huge spike at this morning’s open, and then the steady decline. This was taken shortly before noon, New York time:

Again, don’t make too much of a stock’s movement on any given day. But you do have to wonder if any of this reflects a reassessment of the move.

It is definitely true that Larry Page was deeply involved in every major decision Google grappled with, and it’s undeniable that the company relies on a second tier of executives, like CFO Patrick Pichette and sales boss Nikesh Arora, to make the trains run on time. So, easy enough to argue that there’s no real change.

Still, now we’re seeing reports reminding us that the weird power-sharing arrangement between Schmidt, Page and co-founder Sergey Brin was, in fact, a weird arrangement. And that it didn’t always work smoothly. And that the three men may not have been on the same page about a variety of things. Which means that the company may in fact behave differently under Page’s guidance.

Which again, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But it could be a new thing–and Wall Street never quite knows what to make of that.

Here are the three data points that the search giant showed off during its earnings call this afternoon. All of them “begin with the letter B,” as product SVP Google Jonathan Rosenberg noted, and all of them come with caveats:

• $2.5 billion: Non-text display ad revenue run rate. That number includes ads from its DoubleClick unit as well as YouTube.
• 2 billion: YouTube monetized views per week.
• $1 billion: Mobile annualized revenue run rate.

All of those seem big–and they are! But they’re also deliberately fuzzy enough that it’s hard to tell exactly what they mean.

For instance: As Henry Blodget notes, those display-ad dollars are gross revenue, which means that Google only keeps a portion of them. And while that two billion YouTube views number is up from a billion a year ago, it’s proportionally the same: A year ago YouTube said it was monetizing a billion views a week while serving up a billion views a day; now the video site says two billion views a week and two billion a day.

Meanwhile Google officials, who routinely announce that YouTube is close to profitability, refused to tell analysts whether YouTube is actually profitable.

No matter! The point of b-as-in-big numbers was to impress Wall Street with Google’s ability to create new revenue streams beyond its core search ads. And the data, along with the company’s impressive Q3 performance, seems to have worked: Shares are up nine percent in after-hours trading.

——————

EARLIER

There’s the beat Wall Street was looking for. Google reports earnings of $7.67 a share and net revenues of $5.48 billion. The consensus was for $6.67 and $5.25 billion. GAAP EPS was $6.72.

Google (GOOG) has been plowing money into capital expenditures and people–it now has 23,300 employees, up from 21,800  months ago, a 6.8 percent increase–but it has been able to keep operating income quite healthy, anyway. Adjusted operating income was $2.93 billion, well above the $2.77 billion consensus.

GOOG is up considerably, now seven percent, in after-hours trading. Robot cars for all!

You can listen to (and watch) Google’s 4:30 pm ET earnings call by clicking on this YouTube link. I’ll add updates from the earnings call occasionally starting here:

As in recent quarters, CEO Eric Schmidt is sitting this one out.

CFO Patrick Pichette starts off. Aha! Teases that “we may have” Schmidt available for the first 30 minutes of Q&A before he gets on a GooglePlane.

300 of those new 1,500 employees came from acquisitions.

Discussion of “long-term” growth–”the next 5 to 10 years.” “Simply put, we’re on this growth agenda at full throttle…investing heavily in people and in product.”

There’s a “war for talent” in our industry, which is “out of synch” with the broader economy. Currently exploring how to attract and retain people. Winners and losers determined by this battle.

Re: Product investment, which you’ll hear about from product SVP Jonathan Rosenberg. He’s going to tell you about some numbers, but don’t expect to hear an update on these–they’re merely “proof points” about Google’s success.

Here’s Rosenberg, teasing new previously unreleased numbers.

Here they come. Starting with search and Google Instant:

Impact has been “very minimal” on revenue and “quite expensive” from a resource perspective.

But! “We launched it because we could.”

As search gets better, ads have to keep pace. Great momentum with AdWords.

New ad formats appear on more than 10 percent of query. Some formats show clickthrough rates as much as 10 percent on some, up 30 percent in others.

Big numbers, “which all begin with the letter B.”

$2.5 billion: Non-text display ad revenue run rate. That includes DoubleClick, YouTube.

2 billion: YouTube monetized views per week

$1 billion: Mobile annualized run rate

Mobile search queries up 5 times in the last few years.

Back to Pichette, to tamp down numbers.

In some cases, there is overlap with numbers. For instance, with AdMob, numbers counted in both display and mobile.

Time for Q&A, Schmidt is now on the line.

Schmidt says query growth is pushing click growth, and so are new ad formats. Ads are more compelling, etc.

Pichette notes that AdX numbers are included in the $2.5B display total.

Q: Please talk about YouTube. Of the two billion monetized views, what percent is that of total views? And are you profitable yet?

Pichette: Re: Profitability, “We have not made any comments on it.” [Except of course when they do, over and over.]

Rosenberg: Note that we’ve said we do two billion views per day–that will give you context.

Sorry, missed a Q.

Schmidt says growth of Android is “well past what I had ever hoped for.”

90,000 apps on Android “and growing very fast.”

Question about “proprietary benefits” of Android.

Schmidt: Android is the “largest single platform play” in mobile today.

We’re growing it by giving software away. How does that help us? Well, for starters, people who use Android search two times more than anyone else. Obvious benefit for us there, and search is more lucrative for us there as well, and that makes Android “hugely profitable.”

And we can add other value-added services to Android, but that’s not the focus right now.

Questions on cost: Cost per employee has declined. Can you continue that? And on mobile, will you stay with the “indirect monetization” Android strategy?

Pichette: Wouldn’t read anything into the cost-per-employee numbers. But we’re continuing to be frugal and generous.

Ad boss Nikesh Arora: We’re excited about the revenue model we have. We have no reason to change the model we have with Android.

Schmidt: And display will become a very big component of mobile.

Q: On display, can you break out YouTube and AdX numbers? And what do you think of competitive Android marketplaces?

Pichette: No breakout of numbers. [Duh.]

Schmidt: Goal of the app store is to make money for developers. Not a revenue goal for Google. More stores are a “win for everybody.”

Question about CPC on mobile devices. Rosenberg: They’re lower than desktop, because there aren’t many practical ways to consumate transaction. But on the iPad, activity looks a little bit more like it does on a PC, because there’s more room to enter credit card numbers, etc.

Q: Please discuss cannibalization between smartphone and PC–are iPad and tablet searches incremental or cannibalization? And can you give us color on international 26 percent growth?

Rosenberg: We don’t see cannibalization. We see mobile as complimentary to desktop. Different use patterns–mobile search is on weekends, during lunchtime, etc.

Arora: Generally, trend positive across the board. U.K. a bit weaker, but some of that is FX. Southern Europe way better than Northern. Asian markets robust.

Q: Competitors make $300 profit per handset sold over the lifetime of a device.You’re approaching this with a different model, but do you think that’s an upper limit on that number?

Schmidt: Our model is that handset makers and manufacturers make a lot of money from the phone, and we make money from advertising. So can’t compare the two, and premature for us to guess what we can do. “It should be highly lucrative” and a “very very strong revenue stream compared to a PC.”

Q: On social search. How do you “capture the signal” without access to the data feeds, as you have with Twitter.

Schmidt: “There are some ways we can do that” now, and we’re working on new ways.

Sorry, stepped out. Back now.

Q: TAC rate seems to be lowest since IPO. Sustainable? Growth has been driven by volume, not price. Sustainable, and/or will pricing increase going forward?

Pichette: MySpace deal is now over. That saved us a bunch of money. And mix of our partners will effect our TAC. That’s about it.

Rosenberg: Can’t answer volume/price question without “being forward-looking.” [Heh]

Q: Microsoft/Facebook deal was exclusive. But do you think you’ll see exclusive data deals? And what about Groupon, etc.? Can you compete there?

A: Value of exclusive data is “swamped” by “vastness” of the Web. So no concern there.

Schmidt: Always a concern that large chunks of data are not accessible to search engines….long pause… up to the content owner to decide how much to expose. We believe the world is better off if more information is searchable. “We fundamentally believe that.”

Rosenberg: Daily deals are very exciting. “A lot of small companies doing a fabulous job there.” We participate a little bit via sitelinks. But no question “that’s a very exciting and hot space.”

Q: When will Google Instant be on the BlackBerry or iPhone? What’s Android activation rate? And why not let advertisers bid directly on mobile inventory?

Rosenberg: Instant availability on other platforms “relatively soon”–probably this fall.

Not updating Android activation numbers.

Q: Given that non-core search is more material, do you think you’ll keep allocating resources with your 70-10-10 model? And when do you anticipate mobile overtaking desktop?

Schmidt: On mobile vs. display: Even if we knew I don’t think we’d talk about it.

On core vs. emergent: We talk about this all the time. Depends. Android is very small, and growing fast, so they get all the resources they need. We end up still at 70-10-10, but that’s not really a formula for us.

Pichette: What really matters the most to us is as Eric says, “When you see a hockey stick, pour gasoline on that fire.”

Q: Big-picture data question: What does Google think about leveraging user data to better target ads (see Facebook, Yahoo, etc.)–particularly with search data and display?

Schmidt: “We have a pretty strong opinion that we’re not going to do very much of it.” We’re intensely serious about privacy.

So “we’re not going to do the kinds of things that we could do with it… without your explicit permission. And in many cases we probably won’t do it forever.”

A question on display, which I’ve missed but will have to return to.

Pichette wraps things up. Today’s data points “are not about giving you information” for coming quarters, but to give you confidence that we’re building long-term businesses.

Call ends.

Mark Mahaney’s cheat sheet will help you decipher the numbers:

With Clearwire struggling to build out a next-generation network that will go up against Verizon Wireless (VZ) and AT&T (T) for future mobile customers, Sprint has little choice but to throw more money at it. But it’s not alone in doing so. Fellow partners Comcast (CMSCA), Time Warner Cable (TWC), Intel (INTC), Eagle River Holdings and Bright House Networks are also making additional investments, though together they total only $500 million.

Oddly absent from this list is Google (GOOG), which participated in a May 2008 investment round that pumped $12 billion into Clearwire but has evidently decided to sit this one out. Said Google spokesman Andrew Pederson: “We have already made a significant financial investment, and at this point we think the best way we can continue to add value is through continued product and strategic cooperation.”

One wonders if the shared mission of which the two companies boasted when the deal was announced has somehow changed in the ensuing year.

“In an effort to provide you with greater transparency and control over their own data, we’ve built the Google Dashboard,” the company explained in a blog post. “Designed to be simple and useful, the Dashboard summarizes data for each product that you use (when signed in to your account) and provides you direct links to control your personal settings.”

And it does do that, offering a nice single view of all of the data associated with our Google accounts. That said, it’s not quite the extraordinary achievement Google would have us believe.

I suppose it is true that “the scale and level of detail of the Dashboard is unprecedented,” as Google claims. That said, it doesn’t offer much in the way of new information. Noticeably absent from Dashboard is any view of the cookie data Google uses to target ads. Essentially, all Dashboard does is consolidate the admin pages of the services associated with a user’s account in a single place. Convenient, yes. But does it tell us anything we didn’t already know? Or, more importantly, how Google is using that information? No.

Larry and Sergey told me we could only add this to the homepage if we took a word away — keeping the “weight” of the homepage unchanged at 28. Given that the new Privacy link fit best with legal disclaimers on the page, I looked to the copyright line. There, we dropped the word “Google” (realizing it was implied, obviously) and added the new privacy link alongside it.

– Marissa Mayer, Google’s vice president of search products and user experience, Oct. 2008

Looks like Google (GOOG) is tweaking its homepage again. Surf over to the search sovereign’s front page today and, if you’re in a select “bucket” of users, you’ll find that the buttons for “Google Search” and “I’m Feeling Lucky” have been swapped out for a bit of new text:

That text does fade out after a few moments. But nothing appears to replace it. I guess Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry page have decided to modify the no-more-than-28-words-on-the-homepage rule they set back in the early days of the company. Or perhaps 23 is the new 28.

UPDATE: Here’s the official word from Google: “At Google, we run anywhere from 50 to 200 experiments at any given time on Google sites around the world. Today, we’re testing several homepage design changes. This is just a test, and a way for us to gauge whether our users will like an even simpler search interface.”

You’ll find more information about how Google runs experiments here.

How nonexclusive is Microsoft’s deal with Twitter?

So nonexclusive that just hours after Microsoft (MSFT) announced it, rival Google (GOOG) lurched forward to say that it has entered into a similar partnership with the San Francisco-based microblogging service.

The search giant may be second to this party, but it’s not going to be late. But make no mistake–this is very clearly a rush job.

Some proof? Microsoft has code running. Google does not.

Twitter and Google announced the deal in posts to their respective company blogs.

“Our friends down in Mountain View want to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful,” Twitter co-founder Evan Williams wrote. “A fast growing amount of information is coursing through Twitter very quickly, and we want there to be many ways to access that information. As part of that effort, we’ve partnered with Google to index the entire world of public tweets as fast as possible and present them to their users in an organized and relevant fashion.”

Marissa Mayer, Google’s vice president of search, was similarly enthusiastic about the deal.

“We believe that our search results and user experience will greatly benefit from the inclusion of this up-to-the-minute data, and we look forward to having a product that showcases how tweets can make search better in the coming months,” Mayer wrote. “That way, the next time you search for something that can be aided by a real-time observation, say, snow conditions at your favorite ski resort, you’ll find tweets from other users who are there and sharing the latest and greatest information.”

Once Google gets around to indexing Twitter’s real-time data.

“We’re open for business in making strategic acquisitions both large and small,” Schmidt said. “Because of what we’ve seen, we have the confidence to be optimistic about our future and we’re going to invest as a result.”

And what sort of acquisitions is Google (GOOG) looking to make? Smaller strategic acquisitions mostly. Buyouts the size of YouTube or DoubleClick will be, according to Schmidt “quite infrequent.”

The Google CEO’s latest comments echo remarks he made earlier this month and back in September when he first said the company had begun seriously looking at acquisitions again. “Acquisitions are back on again at Google and we are doing our normal maneuvers, which is small companies,” he said. “My estimate would be one-a-month acquisitions and these are largely in lieu of hiring. There may be larger acquisitions, but they really are unpredictable.”

So what’s the M&A outlook? What will Google acquire next? Dynamic ad optimization start-up Teracent, perhaps? The oft-rumored Twitter? Or something else entirely?

Reporting third-quarter results after market close Thursday, Google (GOOG) topped estimates, posting net income that rose to $1.64 billion, or $5.13 a share, from $1.29 billion, or $4.06 a share in the same period last year. Net revenue for the period ended in September rose nearly one percent to $4.38 billion. Excluding items, earnings for the quarter were $5.89 a share. Consensus estimates had been calling for $5.42 a share and $4.24 billion in net revenue. The chart below shows revenue sources within Google (click to enlarge).

Impressive. Seems paid clicks grew 14 percent compared to the same period last year, and four percent compared to the prior period. Cost per click was down six percent year over year, but up five percent sequentially.

“Google had a strong quarter–we saw seven percent year-over-year revenue growth despite the tough economic conditions,” said CEO Eric Schmidt. “While there is a lot of uncertainty about the pace of economic recovery, we believe the worst of the recession is behind us and now feel confident about investing heavily in our future.”

Good to hear. Google’s shares, which have already risen more than 50 percent in the past six months, are on another upward tear. They rose 1.82 percent to $539.27 on the news in after-hours trading.

Earnings call highlights via The Wall Street Journal’s Andrew LaVallee:

4:32: Call starts. The cast is the same as last quarter: Mr. Schmidt, CEO; Patrick Pichette, CFO; Jonathan Rosenberg, SVP of product management; and for the first time, Nikesh Arora, president of global sales operations and business development. But there’s a twist–they’ll be using Google’s moderator to vet questions with voters. They vote on “the most relevant questions,” which go to the Google execs, the operator says.

4:35: “While there’s obviously a lot of uncertainty about the pace of the economic recovery, we believe the worst of the recession is behind us,” Schmidt says.

He adds that Google now has the confidence to invest “heavily” in its future. “It’s all good news from our perspective, at least in looking at the quarter.”

4:37: Says “we want to really get to the perfect search engine” and that many advertisers would like to spend more with Google if the company’s product allow them to do that.

4:38: Schmidt says “we’re open for business in making strategic acquisitions, both large and small.”

4:39: It’s Pichette’s turn. “At a high level, we’re very pleased with our Q3 results,” he says. The quarter benefited from growth in AdSense for content and display initiatives.

4:41: U.S. revenue up 4% to $2.8 billion. U.K. revenue decline affected by foreign exchange as well as ongoing macroeconomic weakness, Pichette says.

4:42: Operating expenses rose from the prior quarter, mostly due to payroll, equipment and facilities-related expenses.

“We believe the worst of the recession is behind us,” he says.

4:44: Brazil was a standout in Latin America, Arora says. We’re beginning to see signs of recovery in Europe and Africa, particularly Spain. In Asia, China performed strongly as an emerging market.

4:46: Looking at the display-advertising business, those have also shown strong results, he says.

On YouTube, new advertisers and partners are helping with monetization efforts. Ninety percent of the top 50 advertisers have run YouTube campaigns with successful results–recent examples include McDonald’s and Hewlett-Packard.

4:47: YouTube has signed deals with all four major record labels and several independent labels. Earlier today, Google announced a partnership with Channel 4 in the U.K., which will bring full-length programming to the video-sharing site.

4:48: Arora adds a personal shout-out to the sales team.

4:50: Rosenberg calls the new AdWords front-end one of the company’s biggest investments of the year. Advertisers have new reports, can run more efficient campaigns and can get new features faster thanks to the platform, he says.

In a 13-page letter to the Federal Communications Commission Wednesday, the carrier again said that Google should play by the same rules as its telecom competitors. AT&T also took issue with the search giant’s claim that Google Voice restricts calls to certain rural areas to avoid the so-called traffic pumpers that route calls there to drive up charges.

“Contrary to the public pronouncements of Google and its allies, Google’s rural call blocking regime is not limited to Google simply blocking calls to ‘adult sex chat lines’ and ‘free’ conference calling services to avoid high access charges,” wrote AT&T’s senior vice president, Bob Quinn, in the letter to the FCC’s wireline bureau. “In fact, Google is blocking calls to, among others, an ambulance service, church, bank, law firm, automobile dealer, day spa, orchard, health clinic, tax preparation service, community center, eye doctor, tribal community college, school, residential consumers, a convent of Benedictine nuns, and the campaign office of a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.”

My God. Google, the company whose business philosophy proudly proclaims “you can make money without doing evil,” blocking calls to small businesses? To Benedictine nuns? Don’t be evil?

Don’t be evil, my ass.

“We can now see the power of Internet-based applications providers to act as gatekeepers who can threaten the ‘free and open’ Internet,” Quinn continues. “Google’s double standard for ‘openness’–where Google does what it wants while other providers are subject to Commission regulations–is plainly inconsistent with the goal of preserving a ‘free and open’ Internet ecosystem.”

That established, Quinn goes in for the kill, arguing that the FCC should regulate the search giant not just on the wires, but on the Web as well.

“Google’s call blocking begs an even more important question that the Commission must consider as it evaluates whether to adopt rules regarding Internet openness,” he writes. “If the Commission is going to be a ‘smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet,’ then shouldn’t its ‘beat’ necessarily cover the entire Internet neighborhood, including Google? Indeed, if the Commission cannot stop Google from blocking disfavored telephone calls as Google contends, then how could the Commission ever stop Google from also blocking disfavored websites from appearing in the results of its search engine; or prohibit Google from blocking access to applications that compete with its own email, text messaging, cloud computing and other services; or otherwise prevent Google from abusing the gatekeeper control it wields over the Internet?”

An interesting question. And one for which Google (GOOG) is presumably already preparing a long-winded answer. This is far from over yet, and we’ll continue to go round and round until the FCC puts a stop to it.

In a 13-page letter to the Federal Communications Commission Wednesday, the carrier again said that Google should play by the same rules as its telecom competitors. AT&T also took issue with the search giant’s claim that Google Voice restricts calls to certain rural areas to avoid the so-called traffic pumpers that route calls there to drive up charges.

“Contrary to the public pronouncements of Google and its allies, Google’s rural call blocking regime is not limited to Google simply blocking calls to ‘adult sex chat lines’ and ‘free’ conference calling services to avoid high access charges,” wrote AT&T’s senior vice president, Bob Quinn, in the letter to the FCC’s wireline bureau. “In fact, Google is blocking calls to, among others, an ambulance service, church, bank, law firm, automobile dealer, day spa, orchard, health clinic, tax preparation service, community center, eye doctor, tribal community college, school, residential consumers, a convent of Benedictine nuns, and the campaign office of a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.”

My God. Google, the company whose business philosophy proudly proclaims “you can make money without doing evil,” blocking calls to small businesses? To Benedictine nuns? Don’t be evil?

Don’t be evil, my ass.

“We can now see the power of Internet-based applications providers to act as gatekeepers who can threaten the ‘free and open’ Internet,” Quinn continues. “Google’s double standard for ‘openness’–where Google does what it wants while other providers are subject to Commission regulations–is plainly inconsistent with the goal of preserving a ‘free and open’ Internet ecosystem.”

That established, Quinn goes in for the kill, arguing that the FCC should regulate the search giant not just on the wires, but on the Web as well.

“Google’s call blocking begs an even more important question that the Commission must consider as it evaluates whether to adopt rules regarding Internet openness,” he writes. “If the Commission is going to be a ‘smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet,’ then shouldn’t its ‘beat’ necessarily cover the entire Internet neighborhood, including Google? Indeed, if the Commission cannot stop Google from blocking disfavored telephone calls as Google contends, then how could the Commission ever stop Google from also blocking disfavored websites from appearing in the results of its search engine; or prohibit Google from blocking access to applications that compete with its own email, text messaging, cloud computing and other services; or otherwise prevent Google from abusing the gatekeeper control it wields over the Internet?”

An interesting question. And one for which Google (GOOG) is presumably already preparing a long-winded answer. This is far from over yet, and we’ll continue to go round and round until the FCC puts a stop to it.

This morning, Goldman Sachs (GS) and Bernstein both had good things to say about the company, noting that investors may have underestimated its potential for growth. “Discussions with advertising agencies, including a dinner we hosted with senior agency executives, point to rising spending on Google since June, led by travel, clothing and home improvement advertisers,” Goldman said in a research note issued this morning.

Bernstein analyst Jeffrey Lindsay was similarly bullish. “We expect Google’s results to show some signs of cyclical improvement in Q3, as easier comparisons and more favorable currencies should benefit topline trends,” he wrote in a research note. “Paid search is an early cycle advertising format given the immediacy of keyword auctions, and Google has maintained its dominant position within the category.”

Also bolstering Google (GOOG) shares today are the recent comments of company CEO Eric Schmidt, who told journalists at a roundtable discussion last week that the economy is starting to turn around. “The worst is behind us and we clearly see aspects of recovery, and what is notable is we’re seeing aspects of recovery not just in the United States but also in Europe,” Schmidt said. “We are increasing our hiring rate and our investment rate in anticipation of a recovery.”

This morning, Goldman Sachs (GS) and Bernstein both had good things to say about the company, noting that investors may have underestimated its potential for growth. “Discussions with advertising agencies, including a dinner we hosted with senior agency executives, point to rising spending on Google since June, led by travel, clothing and home improvement advertisers,” Goldman said in a research note issued this morning.

Bernstein analyst Jeffrey Lindsay was similarly bullish. “We expect Google’s results to show some signs of cyclical improvement in Q3, as easier comparisons and more favorable currencies should benefit topline trends,” he wrote in a research note. “Paid search is an early cycle advertising format given the immediacy of keyword auctions, and Google has maintained its dominant position within the category.”

Also bolstering Google (GOOG) shares today are the recent comments of company CEO Eric Schmidt, who told journalists at a roundtable discussion last week that the economy is starting to turn around. “The worst is behind us and we clearly see aspects of recovery, and what is notable is we’re seeing aspects of recovery not just in the United States but also in Europe,” Schmidt said. “We are increasing our hiring rate and our investment rate in anticipation of a recovery.”

This past July, Google CEO Eric Schmidt left Apple’s board presumably for the same reason. The cozy relationship between the companies, which increasingly compete in the cellphone and operating systems markets, had led the FTC to question whether close ties between their boards of directors violate antitrust laws. With Schmidt gone from Apple’s board room and Levinson gone from Google’s, it would seem there’s no longer reason for the FTC to do so.

“Art has been a key part of Google’s success these past five years, offering unvarnished advice and vital counsel on every big issue and opportunity Google has faced,” Schmidt said in a statement. “Though he leaves as a member of our Board, Art will always have a special place at Google.”

Though not nearly as special as his place at Apple, where his remaining board seat and true allegiances clearly lie.

UPDATE:Levinson’s resignation from Apple’s board appears to have appeased the FTC. “Google, Apple, and Mr. Levinson should be commended for recognizing that overlapping board members between competing companies raise serious antitrust issues and for their willingness to resolve our concerns without the need for litigation,” FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz said in a statement. “Beyond this matter, we will continue to monitor companies that share board members and take enforcement actions where appropriate.”

“Recent reports indicate that Google’s Google Voice service restricts calling from consumers to certain rural communities,” the FCC wrote. “We are interested in gathering facts that can provide a more complete understanding of this situation.”

Though Google (GOOG) has until Oct. 28 to file a formal response, the search giant was quick to thump the tub in its defense on its Public Policy Blog. There, Rick Whitt, the company’s telecom and media counsel, argued again that Google Voice is not a traditional phone service and should not be regulated like one.

“Google Voice is not intended to be a replacement for traditional phone service–in fact, you need an existing land or wireless line in order to use it. Importantly, users are still able to make outbound calls on any other phone device,” Whitt wrote. “…AT&T apparently now wants web applications–from Skype to Google Voice–to be treated the same way as traditional phone services. Their approach is what a former FCC chairman has called ‘regulatory capitalism,’ the practice of using regulation to block or slow down innovation. And despite AT&T’s lobbying efforts, this issue has nothing to do with network neutrality or rural America. This is about outdated carrier compensation rules that are fundamentally broken and in need of repair by the FCC.”

“Recent reports indicate that Google’s Google Voice service restricts calling from consumers to certain rural communities,” the FCC wrote. “We are interested in gathering facts that can provide a more complete understanding of this situation.”

Though Google (GOOG) has until Oct. 28 to file a formal response, the search giant was quick to thump the tub in its defense on its Public Policy Blog. There, Rick Whitt, the company’s telecom and media counsel, argued again that Google Voice is not a traditional phone service and should not be regulated like one.

“Google Voice is not intended to be a replacement for traditional phone service–in fact, you need an existing land or wireless line in order to use it. Importantly, users are still able to make outbound calls on any other phone device,” Whitt wrote. “…AT&T apparently now wants web applications–from Skype to Google Voice–to be treated the same way as traditional phone services. Their approach is what a former FCC chairman has called ‘regulatory capitalism,’ the practice of using regulation to block or slow down innovation. And despite AT&T’s lobbying efforts, this issue has nothing to do with network neutrality or rural America. This is about outdated carrier compensation rules that are fundamentally broken and in need of repair by the FCC.”

While this might seem optimistic for an OS that is found on less than two percent of all smart phones today, it’s not entirely unreasonable given the distribution deals Google (GOOG) has been lining up. Yesterday, the search giant announced a deal to bring Android-based devices to Verizon Wireless (VZ). Now comes word that Dell (DELL) is building an Android handset for AT&T (T). People briefed on the companies’ plans tell The Wall Street Journal that the device is similar to the one the PC marker has been showing off in China and is scheduled to hit the market sometime in early 2010.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Dell Dullephone Sighted in China
• Dellephone? More Like Dullephone…
• Dude, Your Phone Is Dull
• Dellephone?

[Image Credit: mobile.163.com]

While this might seem optimistic for an OS that is found on less than two percent of all smart phones today, it’s not entirely unreasonable given the distribution deals Google (GOOG) has been lining up. Yesterday, the search giant announced a deal to bring Android-based devices to Verizon Wireless (VZ). Now comes word that Dell (DELL) is building an Android handset for AT&T (T). People briefed on the companies’ plans tell The Wall Street Journal that the device is similar to the one the PC marker has been showing off in China and is scheduled to hit the market sometime in early 2010.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Dell Dullephone Sighted in China
• Dellephone? More Like Dullephone…
• Dude, Your Phone Is Dull
• Dellephone?

[Image Credit: mobile.163.com]

Troubling news for Microsoft (MSFT). Hitwise’s latest numbers are the second set of metrics from a Web analytics firm showing Bing’s market share in decline. Last week, StatCounter claimed Bing’s share of the U.S. search market in September had slipped to 8.5 percent from 9.6 percent in August.

As I noted then, while a month of slight decline might herald the beginning of a trend, it certainly doesn’t guarantee one–especially in search, where surges and lulls in market share are quite common. That said, this is the second set of data suggesting that Bing’s traffic may be leveling out. Whether this reflects the end of the big Bing marketing campaign or falling consumer interest remains to be seen.

Incidentally, Microsoft’s new search partner, Yahoo (YHOO), also saw its search share slip for the month, according to Hitwise. Yahoo claimed 16.96 percent in August. In September, it claimed 16.38 percent. Meanwhile, Google (GOOG) took 71.08 percent share for the month, up from 70.24 percent in August.

The judge presiding over the case, who’d been urged by the U.S. Department of Justice to reject an earlier version of the settlement, set that date during a morning hearing so brief that when MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka asked Google CEO Eric Schmidt about it at a company roundtable this morning, Schmidt was unaware a date had been set. When Peter broke the news to him, Schmidt didn’t have much of a comment, but he did speak briefly about the settlement and Google’s view of it earlier in the morning.

From Peter’s paraphrased notes on the session:

With respect to book search, we were doing something that we thought was appropriate. We were sued, and after three years of discussion we’ve come to a settlement. This is perfectly normal. From our perspective, this is a settlement we like, it’s a settlement we think they’ll like, and we’ll hear what the court says, within minutes. Let me reframe your question: There’s nothing particularly exclusive about what we’re doing. The rights registry we’re doing is for the benefit of orphan works. “It’s not a particularly good business for us. We’re doing it because we think it’s the right thing to do.” We don’t think the settlement is perfect, but we think it’s good.

Though it’s not yet clear what form the revised settlement might take or what adjusted terms are being discussed, Google and the authors and publishers it has allied with it have quite a few critics to appease, including academics, librarians, privacy advocates, would-be rivals and the French and German governments.

New metrics from Web analytics firm StatCounter show Bing’s share of the U.S. search market in September falling to 8.5 percent from 9.6 percent in August. Its share of the global market declined as well, slipping to 3.25 percent from 3.58 percent.

Microsoft’s (MSFT) new search partner, Yahoo (YHOO), also suffered a decline. Its market share fell to 9.4 percent from 10.50 percent in the U.S. and to 4.37 percent from 4.84 abroad. Meanwhile, Google’s (GOOG) September share rose to 80 percent from 77.8 percent in the U.S. and to 90.54 percent from 90 percent globally. (See chart below; click to enlarge.)

“The trend has been downwards for Bing since mid August,” StatCounter CEO Aodhan Cullen said in a statement. “The wheels haven’t fallen off but the underlying trend must be a little worrying for Microsoft.”

Mmm, I doubt it. While a month of slight decline might herald the beginning of a trend, it certainly doesn’t guarantee one, especially in search, where surges and declines in market share are quite common. Furthermore, we haven’t yet seen search metrics from Nielsen, comScore (SCOR), and Hitwise. And all three showed Bing gaining share in August, a month that Statcounter claimed shows the beginning of a downward trend.

Seems AT&T (T) feels that Google’s Google Voice Internet call-forwarding service violates federal rules designed to ensure that phone companies connect all calls. From the company’s letter:

Numerous press reports indicate that Google is systematically blocking telephone calls from consumers that use Google Voice to call telephone numbers in certain rural communities. By blocking these calls, Google is able to reduce its access expenses. Other providers, including those with which Google Voice competes, are banned from call blocking because in June 2007, the Wireline Competition Bureau emphatically declared that all carriers are prohibited from pursuing “self help actions such as call blocking.” The Bureau expressed concern that call blocking “may degrade the reliability of the nation’s telecommunications network.” Google Voice thus has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services. Google casually dismisses the Bureau’s Order, claiming that Google Voice “isn’t a traditional phone service and shouldn’t be regulated like other common carriers.” But in reality, “Google Voice” appears to be nothing more than a creatively packaged assortment of services that are already quite familiar to the Commission….

[The FCC] cannot, through inaction or otherwise, give Google a special privilege to play by its own rules while the rest of the industry, including those who compete with Google, must instead adhere to [FCC] regulations.

AT&T’s letter comes just days after FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed six Net neutrality regulations that will apply to both wireline and wireless platforms. Interestingly, it also follows an FCC investigation into the rejection/delay of Google Voice for the iPhone.

UPDATE:

Google’s responded to AT&T’s letter in a post to the company blog, pointing out the differences between Google Voice and traditional phone service and questioning AT&T’s motives for appealing to the FCC.

“AT&T is trying to make this about Google’s support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn’t fly,” Richard Whitt, the company’s Washington telecom and media counsel, wrote. “The FCC’s open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers–not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.”

Seems AT&T (T) feels that Google’s Google Voice Internet call-forwarding service violates federal rules designed to ensure that phone companies connect all calls. From the company’s letter:

Numerous press reports indicate that Google is systematically blocking telephone calls from consumers that use Google Voice to call telephone numbers in certain rural communities. By blocking these calls, Google is able to reduce its access expenses. Other providers, including those with which Google Voice competes, are banned from call blocking because in June 2007, the Wireline Competition Bureau emphatically declared that all carriers are prohibited from pursuing “self help actions such as call blocking.” The Bureau expressed concern that call blocking “may degrade the reliability of the nation’s telecommunications network.” Google Voice thus has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services. Google casually dismisses the Bureau’s Order, claiming that Google Voice “isn’t a traditional phone service and shouldn’t be regulated like other common carriers.” But in reality, “Google Voice” appears to be nothing more than a creatively packaged assortment of services that are already quite familiar to the Commission….

[The FCC] cannot, through inaction or otherwise, give Google a special privilege to play by its own rules while the rest of the industry, including those who compete with Google, must instead adhere to [FCC] regulations.

AT&T’s letter comes just days after FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed six Net neutrality regulations that will apply to both wireline and wireless platforms. Interestingly, it also follows an FCC investigation into the rejection/delay of Google Voice for the iPhone.

UPDATE:

Google’s responded to AT&T’s letter in a post to the company blog, pointing out the differences between Google Voice and traditional phone service and questioning AT&T’s motives for appealing to the FCC.

“AT&T is trying to make this about Google’s support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn’t fly,” Richard Whitt, the company’s Washington telecom and media counsel, wrote. “The FCC’s open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers–not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.”

Perhaps it’s time to put that beta tag back on.

Google (GOOG) is aware of the issues and is working on a fix, according to a Google Apps Status message:

“September 24, 2009 7:29:00 AM PDT
We’re aware of a problem with Google Mail affecting a small subset of users. The affected users are unable to access Google Mail, but we’ve provided a workaround below. We will provide an update by September 24, 2009 8:29:00 AM PDT detailing when we expect to resolve the problem. Please note that this resolution time is an estimate and may change.”

UPDATE: Google says it has resolved the issues affecting Gmail “for some users” and expects a resolution for the remaining ones within the hour. One caveat though: “Please note this time frame is an estimate and may change.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Google Outage Caused by Asian “Traffic Jam”
• New From Google Labs: Seriously Offline Gmail
• Hotmail Users Unable to Access Spam for Second Week

Perhaps it’s time to put that beta tag back on.

Google (GOOG) is aware of the issues and is working on a fix, according to a Google Apps Status message:

“September 24, 2009 7:29:00 AM PDT
We’re aware of a problem with Google Mail affecting a small subset of users. The affected users are unable to access Google Mail, but we’ve provided a workaround below. We will provide an update by September 24, 2009 8:29:00 AM PDT detailing when we expect to resolve the problem. Please note that this resolution time is an estimate and may change.”

UPDATE: Google says it has resolved the issues affecting Gmail “for some users” and expects a resolution for the remaining ones within the hour. One caveat though: “Please note this time frame is an estimate and may change.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Google Outage Caused by Asian “Traffic Jam”
• New From Google Labs: Seriously Offline Gmail
• Hotmail Users Unable to Access Spam for Second Week

“It is because the parties wish to work with the DOJ to the fullest extent possible that they have engaged, and plan to continue to engage, in negotiations,” the groups wrote in their request to U.S. District Judge Denny Chin. “Nevertheless, it is clear that the complex issues raised…preclude submission of an amended agreement by Oct. 7.” And with that they asked if they could return to the court Nov. 6 with a revised settlement and a new timeline for hearings.

Though it’s not yet clear what form the revised settlement might take or what adjusted terms are being discussed, the opposition is already crowing over it. “This is a huge victory for the many people and organizations who raised significant concerns that this settlement did not serve the public interest, stifled innovation, and restricted competition,” the Open Book Alliance, an ad hoc group led by some of Google’s largest rivals, said in a post to its blog. “It’s also an enormous loss for Google, which had been saying for months that no changes were necessary to the settlement. Now, that settlement, as we know it, is dead.”