According to the expected year-end box-office data figures compiled by Hollywood.com, the industry raked in $10.1 billion for 2011 in North America.

While that seems like a nice haul, it’s 4.5 percent less than in 2010. While not enough to result a major downturn in limo-riding and Botox, the results are likely to cause entertainment moguls some worry, since they are accompanied by continuing trends, including another year of lower attendance.

And given that the revenue was unusually bolstered by more higher-priced 3-D movie-ticket prices — Hollywood released several dozen 3-D films in 2011, double the previous year’s amount — the latest numbers are even more disappointing.

While some holiday movies did well — namely “Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol,” which has taken in about $70 million domestically since its opening less than two weeks ago — it pales in comparison to such digital hits as Activision’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 videogame, which pulled in $400 million in one day from the much-desired youth market.

It surpassed $1 billion in sales in 16 days, eclipsing the box office of the blockbuster movie “Avatar,” which took 17 days to gross seven figures.

Does that mean that the continued competition for the leisure time of pretty much everyone between digital and analog has gotten worse — an epic battle of the movie industry versus game players, tablets and smartphones?

Or is it because so many movies made in 2011 turned out to be just awful? (If you saw “New Year’s Eve,” you’ll know exactly what I mean.)

One thing is clear: No one is going to pay for poor-quality content, no matter the screen size.

More number-crunching to come, as the industry debates the issue into 2012 (coincidentally, the title of a movie I happened to like, as you can see below!), and at the upcoming D: Dive Into Media at the end of the month, down near Los Angeles, in the belly of the Web-smacked beast.

Until then, let’s hope it does not come to this next year:

Dell just reported quarterly earnings, and the numbers are a bit mixed. First off, sales in the fourth quarter were $15.692 billion, just a whisker short of consensus analyst expectations of $15.72 billion. That represents a 5 percent improvement over a year ago.

Per-share earnings, however, were way ahead of the consensus at 53 cents versus 37 cents, amounting to a change of 89 percent over the year-ago quarter.

In its outlook, Dell said it expects revenue to to grow in the range of 5 to 9 percent in its fiscal year 2012 (underway as of Jan. 29), and for profits to grow in a range of 6 to 12 percent. Cash flow from operations will exceed profits.

Dell shares are up more than 6 percent in after-hours trading.

Here are some highlights:

• Enterprise sales and services grew 7 percent to $4.6 billion, or 29 percent of overall sales.
• Server revenue increased 16 percent.
• EqualLogic sales grew 49 percent and, combined with Dell PowerVault sales, accounted for almost two-thirds of storage sales and north of 80 percent of storage gross margin dollars.
• Sales in the combined large enterprise, the public and small- to medium-business sector was up 9 percent to $12.4 billion in the quarter, with revenue for commercial laptop and desktop computers growing 10 percent.
• PC profitability (Dell calls them clients) improved in the second half of the year, driven by improvements in the supply chain, lower input costs and improved product quality. For the full year, PC revenue grew 14 percent to $33.7 billion, driven on a refresh cycle from corporate buyers.

CEO Michael Dell sounded an optimistic note, the first I can recall in some time:

“I’m very pleased with our fiscal year results and the strong performance we’re seeing in our commercial businesses. We remain focused on developing and acquiring new technologies and capabilities, and our IT solutions portfolio has never been stronger. Customers are now seeing Dell in a fresh light, and we’re heading into the new year with strength and optimism.”

So many people have asked Napier about the possibility that Rackspace might be taken out, it’s not hard to detect that his answer is well rehearsed. Rackspace is not for sale, he says, and he won’t comment on any approaches by larger companies it may be fielding. But he clearly doesn’t mind the speculation.

The market certainly is working on the assumption that an acquisition is coming. I talked with Napier on Friday, the day after Rackspace reported quarterly earnings that grew 50 percent over the same period in 2009, which was enough to send Rackspace shares up by more than $3, or more than 8 percent, closing at $40.07–more than twice what it traded for a year ago.

Rackspace will be a giant all its own, Napier insists, before it gets taken out by one of the lumbering tech giants that might like to drop a few billion dollars to absorb it. Ask him Rackspace’s chances of being acquired in the next several months, and he insists the company is not for sale. It sure sounds like he means it, as the growth opportunity that lies before him is just so good. But it’s also clear that he enjoys being in the position of being asked.

It’s a nice sentiment, but organic growth is only going to get you so far. Rackspace will cross the billion-dollar mark in revenue for the first time this year, and it has only $105 million in cash, so the only acquisitions Rackspace can make without going into a debt are small ones like the one last week of Anso Labs that NewEnterprise reported exclusively. The smart money says we’ll get a chance to see how serious Napier is about remaining independent before the end of the year.

NewEnterprise: Let’s talk about your business against the backdrop of the industry you’re in. In the last few weeks we’ve seen both NaviSite and Terremark acquired by larger companies. Clearly there’s some consolidation going on in the Web hosting and cloud services hosting business.

Napier: There is a shift in technology market around cloud. The market is shifting from one where companies do things themselves to buying technology as a service. We think of it as a world that’s going from buying inputs to buying outputs. We think this is a nascent trend and we’re in the first game of a seven-game series. On a macro basis we see this as the biggest growth opportunity in technology. Our strategy is to win the most valuable segment, which we believe is going to be the service segment. So if you look at how the market is developing, you have players like Amazon that’s offering a do-it-yourself cloud. For people who want the lowest price, and can do the work themselves, Amazon is an incredible pick. What we’re focused on is trying to be a service leader. We want to serve companies that want to run a critical app and who want us to run it for them and take accountability for it so they can sleep well at night. Over the past six quarters or so we’ve found ourselves in a crazy good spot. The growth opportunity ahead of us is expanding.

Let’s talk about growth. You don’t have all much cash on the balance sheet, about $105 million or so. You can grow organically, or you can acquire. You’ve made some small acquisitions recently. Is that going to continue?

We are an organic growth company. We have been since inception. The acquisitions we’ve done have been about technology and talent to improve our portfolio and the way we serve customers. We will remain an organic growth company. There are, I think, really two kinds of companies. Those that can grow organically and those that can’t, and so they grow by acquisition. Some companies are good at growing through acquisition. We’re just not. We’re organic growth folks here, so we’re going to stick to that. But we’ll still buy technology, capabilities and talent that we think is critical. As to the consolidation that’s taking place in the industry, it’s a great validation of the growth opportunity. There are some legacy tech and telecom companies that are behind and are trying to buy their way into the game. There was a similar wave of consolidation eight years ago and a lot of our competitors got taken out.

So let me ask the question you’re getting a lot lately. I’ve had three conversations with different people who have each picked three different large technology companies they think should acquire Rackspace. Have you been approached by anyone?

We have a policy not to comment on anything like that all. What I will tell you is that we’re not for sale. We feel like we have a tiger by the tail. I’ve been lucky to be at the company for 11 years and I think the next 11 years look better than the last. We’re not building the company to flip it. We think the market opportunity is such that new giants are going to emerge, and we want to be one of those giants.

Absent a scenario that someone shows up with eight or 10 billion in cash to buy your company, what are your strategic priorities for the year?

There’s a couple. We are making big investments in our product and service portfolio. That’s one. And then number two, we think we have a chance to improve the fundamental economics of our business model. As we make these investments, we’ll add more services and capabilities on top of our basic compute service. This drives up the average revenue for our basic compute which creates better outcomes for our customers and increases our economics. It’s a virtuous cycle. Our average revenue per server has increased for six consecutive quarters.

What are your biggest costs, and what kind of gross margin do you tend to run?

I think of them as investments, but I know that’s just semantics. Our no. 1 investment is technology and the Rackers [employees] that serve our customers. So if you look at the cost of revenue line, a year ago it was 31.5 percent. As of the end of 2010 it was 31.1 percent. We made some improvement. But we’re more focused right now on developing customer loyalty than we are in driving efficiency. It’s early in the game, and anytime a market is going through a period of rapid growth like this, it’s all about winning as many loyal and profitable customers as we can. When the growth slows down someday we’ll focus more on improving efficiencies throughout the business. Even so, in 2010 we grew faster, increased our margin and and improved our return on capital. Those are all difficult things, and we pulled it off.

Today, he says it’s all “new eBay.”

At the company’s analyst meeting at its headquarters, the company demonstrated the major changes made over the past couple of years and laid out plans for how local, mobile and social will lead the next wave of commerce.

In the afternoon, Bob Swan, eBay’s CFO, took the stage to give the financial rundown that everyone had been waiting for since the morning.

Swan highlighted PayPal’s growth trajectory by saying that it expects to double revenues over the next three years to between $6 billion and $7 billion, compared with $3.4 billion in 2010.

He also talked up how mobile was gaining speed by saying that PayPal mobile transactions were estimated to double to $2 billion in total payment volume, and that mobile on marketplaces will double to $4 billion in gross merchandise volume.

Meanwhile, when looking at the company’s gross merchandise volume, he sees the business increasing from $60 billion in 2010 to $75 billion in 2013. And, to support the strength of the business, the company anticipates generating $7.5 to $8 billion in free cash flow by 2013.

Swan wants to stress that these growth rates are being driven from the company’s core businesses, and not from the more innovative stuff eBay is working on in local, mobile and social. “We are in a  different state than we were in March 2009, where the crystal ball was murky and full of potholes. Now the crystal ball is full of opportunities. We have unmatched advantages that position us to win.”

That’s possible because of the improvements the company has been making over the past two years.

“We’ve made significant and necessary changes necessary for growth. Two years ago, search was optimized for auctions and suffered. Two years from now, search will be a competitive advantage for eBay,” said Mark Carges,” eBay’s CTO of marketplaces. “We’ve rolled out many tailored experiences and selling on eBay will be vastly simplified.”

To illustrate the change, Carges showed how there’s no more irreverent banner ads on the search results page, and instead of returning up to 19 paid results, it gives shoppers the “best matches” and cuts the time in half that it takes to return results.

The company also launched the buyer protection program, which will return the price of the item and the cost of shipping to customers unhappy with purchases.

Christopher Payne, VP of eBay marketplaces North America, said the company will start to increase marketing spend on these improvements to drive awareness: “We’ve been intentionally quiet as we fixed fundamentals, but starting in the second half, we’ll start marketing this new experience.”

At lunch, analysts were so eager to talk to Donahoe he wasn’t even able to get to his seat. They crowded around him in the lobby to grill him on what impact Facebook, Apple and Google were going to have on the company’s payments aspirations.

Donahoe wasn’t phased, saying that PayPal is technology agnostic. He will support BlackBerry, Google’s Android, Apple’s iPhone — and all of the iterations they produce from phones to tablets. What’s more, he says, the company is building the tools and technology for merchants to keep up in what can be a daunting world.

Analysts appear impressed with the improvements. Today, the company’s shares traded up nearly 8 percent, or $2.57, to $34.53, coming close to marking a 52-week high.

But its statement contained a new characterization from CEO John Chambers about the circumstances Cisco finds itself in. Gone was talk of temporary air pockets that emerged in November when Cisco’s outlook turned suddenly, and unexpectedly, sour. Now it’s in a “period of transition.”

One that’s far from over, apparently. Having reported the hard numbers, it saved the bad news, in particular its outlook, for the conference call. And it wasn’t pretty. It fell to CFO Frank Calderoni to deliver the bad news. While Cisco forecast revenue to grow at a rate of 4 to 6 percent in the third quarter over the same period in 2010, profits were forecast at 35 to 38 cents a share, well below the consensus of 39 cents. Gross margins for the full year will be in the 62 to 63 percent range, down from 64 percent in 2010.

Chambers noted weaknesses both in Cisco’s switching business, where sales declined by 7 percent, and in sales to government customers, saying he expected that segment to be problematic during the next several quarters. Sales of set-top boxes were also weak. Summing it up, Chambers said: “I think we will look back on this period of time and wish we could have avoided it and yet it will make us stronger in the long run.”

There was good news. Cisco will pay its first dividend this year, somewhere in the range of 1 to 2 percent.

And then there’s Cisco’s cash position, which stands at $40.2 billion, though only $3 billion or so of it is inside the U.S.

Chambers used the subject to once again complain about U.S. tax policy regarding cash held overseas. “We have a tax policy that is just broken,” he said.

Pixelmator co-founder Aidas Dailide told me the company sold about 33,000 copies of the software at $29.99–a limited-time discount from its standard $59 price–to gross $1 million. And he said he had no problem paying Apple the 30 percent cut of sales it demands of App Store vendors, something critics have labeled “the Apple Toll.”

“The 30 percent cut is definitely worth it,” he said. “The increase in sales and exposure is worth much more than that. Especially in our case.” And just how much of a sales increase from the pre-App Store days did Pixelmator experience? Dailide wouldn’t say, though he did remark that “the jump in sales was dramatic.”

Which is a point worth noting, because earlier this month Pixelmator made the Mac App Store its exclusive sales channel.

But pressed to talk about some of the company’s non-search businesses, Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette did allow that YouTube’s revenues “more than doubled” last year.

That’s good to know! But also not a shock. Last quarter, when the company offered up a smattering of numbers to appease inquiring minds, it told us it had doubled the number of video views it was monetizing, to two billion a week.

So the real surprise would have been if YouTube revenues hadn’t doubled in the last year.

Meanwhile, trying to figure out the true size, and value, of YouTube remains a guessing game for the best-intentioned observers.

Citigroup’s Mark Mahaney, for instance, thinks YouTube’s gross revenue is on a $1 billion run rate, but figures that number could grow by as much as 50 percent this year. Barclays’ Doug Anmuth, though, offers up a slightly more modest estimate of $1 billion + for 2011.

Profits? Who knows.

One pretty safe guess: Google won’t be giving us real YouTube numbers we can chew on for quite some time.

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:

Amazon.com (AMZN) could be responsible for close to a third of all U.S. e-commerce transactions, RBC Capital analyst Stephen Ju asserted in a research note this morning. Ju notes that Amazon’s reported revenues consist of a mix of gross revenues from its own businesses plus net third-party commissions. To date, he notes, Amazon has not given a breakdown of the two numbers, other than as a percentage of units shipped. The question, he says, is how much third-party gross merchandise value is flowing through Amazon’s platform–and what slice of all e-commerce Amazon is actually facilitating.

Read the rest of this post