Remarking on Palm’s gruesome third quarter during an earnings call yesterday, CEO Jon Rubinstein called the company’s performance “extremely disappointing to me personally.” This sentiment seems to be widely held among investors, who are dragging the company’s shares through the mud today–at $4.66, Palm is down 17.52 percent as I write this–and among analysts questioning whether Palm can ever pull off the turnaround for which it’s striving.

Analysts issued a handful of research notes on the company this morning and they are all viciously negative. The headlines proclaim that Palm’s brand value has collapsed, its financial performance is a disaster, and its execution missteps in a business as competitive as the mobile market have left its prospects dubious.

Over at Canaccord Adams, Peter Misek essentially threw in the towel on the company: “We believe that Palm’s troubles will only accelerate as carriers and suppliers increasingly question the company’s solvency and withdraw their support,” he wrote.

“With what appears to us to be roughly 12 months of cash on hand, an accelerating burn rate, a complete lack of earnings visibility, and substantial debt and preferred equity,” Misek added, “we no longer see any value in the company’s common equity. As such, we are reiterating our SELL recommendation and reducing our target to US$0.00 (previously US$4.00).”

Then there was this from Kaufman Bros. analyst Shaw Wu: “While we believe PALM has some value with its webOS and tight integration of hardware and software, we are unsure of the company’s prospects as an ongoing concern.”

And this from Morgan Keegan analyst Tavis McCourt: “It is certainly looking less likely that Palm can execute this turnaround on its own, but the company has at least one more chance with new hardware later this year to try and create some real consumer demand for webOS.”

And finally, this from Needham and Company’s Charlie Wolf: “Palm appears to be in a no-win situation. The company could invest even more in marketing the Pre and Pixi. But it’s unclear whether Palm could ever spend enough to reach a position where Pre and Pixi sales were sufficient to cover its marketing bill and return the company to profitability.”

Wolf concludes that “In the mean time, time is running out. Supported by an increasing number of smartphone manufacturers, the Android juggernaut is continuing to gain steam. And the day when Microsoft (N/R) launches Window Phone 7 and rejoins the spending party is drawing closer.”

If it’s true that bad news begets bad news, Palm is in for a very rough time of it in the months ahead. The company has already lost half its market value since the year began. Time for a takeover? Perhaps, though Rubinstein seems intent on staying the course.

“There’s all kinds of speculation out there that we are going to get bought, that we are not going to get bought,” Rubinstein said on the earnings call Thursday. “We’re not going to comment on any of those. Obviously, we are a public company. And if there’s a reasonable proposal, of course the Board has to consider it. But, that being said, our focus since the day I arrived here, and that’s almost three years ago now, is to build a great company with a great mobile platform and great products. And that has been our focus.”

FURTHER READING:

• Palm Pileup: Weak Smartphone Sales and a Gruesome Q4 Forecast
• Could Be Worse, Could Be Raining: Palm’s AT&T Launch Delayed?
• Could WebOS Licensing Be Palm’s Salvation?
• Palm’s Salvation? Less Push, More Pull.
• And if Palm’s Project JumpStart Doesn’t Work Out, There’s Always “Project Defibrillator”
• Double Face-Palm: Analysts React to Palm’s Lowered Guidance
• Time to Start Looking for a Buyer, Palm?
• 2010: Year of the Palm? Maybe Not…
• Analyst: Palm May Be Acquired in the Next Two Years

In his latest note on the company, Canaccord Adams analyst Peter Misek says Palm’s (PALM) already substantial troubles are mounting. Palm’s latest problem: Delays in the long-rumored launch of its smartphones on AT&T (T). Originally expected this spring, sources now say the debut of new Pixi and Pre models has been pushed back until summer.

“Beyond generally lacklustre handset sales in the current quarter, which are already reflected in our previous estimates, we have recently learned that AT&T has delayed the planned launch of the Pre and Pixi on its network from April to June/July,” Misek writes.

“Moreover, we believe that this is more than just an ordinary delay,” the analyst adds, “as AT&T has cited a long list of technical issues with the Pre and Pixi. Furthermore, the carrier has decreased its initial order size and has decided to sharply reduce its marketing budget for the launch.”

So: A delayed launch on another major carrier, a smaller first order and a soft marketing budget. On top of these issues, Misek cites a mysterious “list of technical issues.” I’m not quite sure what he is hinting at; my sources tell me there are no problems with the devices on AT&T’s network–but perhaps Misek knows something they don’t.

Leaving the mystery list aside, this is bad news all around for Palm, which clearly needs the additional distribution it will get through AT&T sooner rather than later. Misek is slashing his February quarter unit shipment forecast to 670,000 from 720,000 and his 2011 forecast to 3.58 million units from four million.

Honestly, this getting difficult to watch.

Palm is scheduled to report third-quarter earnings after Thursday’s closing bell.

FURTHER READING:

• Could WebOS Licensing Be Palm’s Salvation?
• Palm’s Salvation? Less Push, More Pull.
• And if Palm’s Project JumpStart Doesn’t Work Out, There’s Always “Project Defibrillator”
• Double Face-Palm: Analysts React to Palm’s Lowered Guidance
• Time to Start Looking for a Buyer, Palm?
• 2010: Year of the Palm? Maybe Not…
• Analyst: Palm May Be Acquired in the Next Two Years

If the ship date was to be April 3, why didn’t Jobs say so at the January event?

Obviously, it’s impossible to say. Though it’s certainly interesting that Jobs couldn’t offer a hard ship date for a major product that was just two months out.

Does this mean Apple (AAPL) may have run into a bit of an iPad manufacturing hiccup after all? I suppose it’s possible. Cannaccord Adams analyst Peter Misek, who first reported alleged production issues with the iPad, certainly thinks so.

“In our previous note we discussed that the upcoming iPad launch may be somewhat limited as a manufacturing bottleneck has impacted production,” Misek wrote in a research note to clients this morning. “We also suggested that there is a possibility that the launch will be delayed by a month due to a limited number of units available.”

Updating his assessment, the analyst notes, “According to today’s announcement, iPad is delayed by a week in the U.S. and by a month for some international markets. We believe the delay was caused by an unspecified production problem at the iPad’s manufacturer as we indicated earlier this week.”

Or perhaps this is simply about Apple’s level of visibility into its supply chain. After all, you’d think if there really had been production issues with the device, we would have been looking at delays of far longer than just a few days.

Either way, it’s really not of consequence to the company in any material sense. At $218.50, Apple shares are up nearly four percent on news of the April ship date. Obviously, Wall Street doesn’t care whether the iPad is late or not. And in the end, does it really even matter?

UPDATE: John Gruber has some interesting thoughts on all this over at Daring Fireball.

Last week, Canaccord Adams analyst Peter Misek warned that a bottleneck at Apple’s manufacturing partner might limit initial availability of the device or delay its launch. Then yesterday, Digitimes–not the most reliable of sources–published a report suggesting there would be no such inventory issues or delays.

Now, ThinkEquity analyst Vijay Rakesh has issued a note echoing Misek’s claim.

“Our checks in Taiwan indicate some minor delays on the iPad,” Rakesh writes. “The manufacturing of the iPads was supposed to pick up in February, but volumes even in March are still low. Current volumes are much lower than the market expected but most checks are indicating minor delays.”

Rakesh says his checks suggest that iPad production volumes are currently at about 200K to 250K for the month, but should ramp up to 800K to one million per month by April or May. “We believe this is just a minor hiccup in a longer-term entirely new revenue stream and product roadmap for [Apple],” he says.

Who best to believe, if we are to believe anyone at all? Honestly, I have no idea. As I mentioned, Digitimes doesn’t exactly have a great track record when it comes to Apple (AAPL) rumors. Neither does Misek, really. That said, the fact that channel checks conducted by two research houses both found production issues in Apple’s iPad manufacturing, suggests there may be something here.

In a research note this morning, Canaccord Adams analyst Peter Misek says he has heard rumblings that production issues at Apple’s (AAPL) manufacturing partners may keep the company’s iPad in short supply when it first goes on sale.

“We have…heard that the upcoming iPad launch may be somewhat limited as a manufacturing bottleneck has impacted production of Apple’s newest device,” Misek writes.

“An unspecified production problem at the iPad’s manufacturer, Hon Hai Precision,” the analyst explains, “will likely limit the launch region to the US and the number of units available to roughly 300K in the month of March, far lower than the company’s initial estimate of 1,000K units.”

Looking ahead, he adds, “The delay in production ramp will likely impact Apple’s April unit estimate of 800K as well. It is also possible that, given the limited number of units available in March, the launch will be delayed for a month.”

If Misek is right–and that’s a big if; Misek’s prediction earlier this year that Apple would debut a brand new iPhone on Verizon (VZ) at its January special event proved woefully off–it’s a slight setback for Apple, which obviously wants to take good advantage of enthusiasm for the device to really blow out first-year sales. That said, since this would be only a temporary production delay, it probably wouldn’t have that much effect on sales.

Says Misek: “We believe that the only material impact from the iPad delay could come in the form of frustrated consumers and some modest loss of lustre for the company’s product launch.” He figures Apple will sell 550,000 units in its third quarter, which ends in June, 1.2 million in fiscal year 2010 and 3.5 million in 2011.

Misek told his firm sales force [Wednesday] afternoon–and then told me–that he thinks sales of the Pre Plus and Pixi Plus so far are less than 50 percent of Palm’s target levels. He believes Verizon will have to reassess its approach. Misek notes that there are multiple options: the carrier could ratchet up marketing (likely together with Palm); it could re-train store sales reps to push the phones; it could change its marketing approach; or it could simply throw in the towel and stop selling Palm phones entirely.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

iPhone OS 4.0. And the iPhone 4G–on Verizon (VZ).

That’s the word from Canaccord Adams analyst Peter Misek, who believes there’s “a good chance” we’ll hear about all three come next Wednesday.

“Together with our semi-conductor partners, we have ascertained that there is a reasonable chance the Asian supply chain is prepping for mass production of a new iPhone in March, for availability in late Q2, likely June,” Misek wrote in a note to clients today.

“The phone will be carried on Verizon and hence will operate on the CDMA network,” he asserts, adding, “however, it will also support European GSM and HSPA standards. An updated 4GS version that will support LTE is anticipated to arrive in June 2011.”

As to the cost, the analyst expects change. “At this moment, we have not heard about the pricing of the device, but believe it will be different from what it is at the moment. While we remain of the view that tiered data plans are imminent, our checks indicate the new iPhone from Verizon will still come with an unlimited data plan.”

Now, I have no idea how much credence to give speculation like this, nor do I have any insider insight into Apple’s carrier negotiations. But I will say this: It seems unlikely that Apple will announce a new iPhone and carrier partnership right after unveiling a brand new, and presumably revolutionary, product.

It might do so before, though. After all, the debut of the iPhone at Macworld 2007 was prefaced by the announcement of Apple TV.

[Image credit: Robert Davis / iLounge]

“We are very impressed by Apple’s ability to post a record profit quarter during difficult macro spending conditions,” Canaccord Adams analyst Peter Misek said in a note to clients this morning. “A host of new product introductions and continued traction with the iPhone give us confidence in the sustainability of Apple’s operating model.”

Suffice it to say, Misek wasn’t the only the analyst lauding Apple’s (AAPL) fourth-quarter performance. Below a selection of commentary from other Apple watchers:

Gene Munster, Piper Jaffray
“September results were strong despite headwinds of iPhone production constraints and a Mac desktop offering in need of a refresh. We expect these headwinds to become tailwinds in the December quarter, which we believe will be positive for AAPL shares in the coming months.”

Mike Abramsky, RBC Capital Markets
“With strong financial performance and product uptake amidst recession, and further catalysts (iPhone in China, Tablet, refreshed iMacs, iPhone share gains/momentum), we foresee further upside for the shares.”

Maynard Um, UBS
“Upside to virtually every metric in the qtr backs our positive view on Apple. We continue expect greater “recurring” iPhone hardware revenue (growing installed base & stickiness of the App Store), which should drive more visibility into iPhone sales (20%+ of our FY10 iPhone shipments), as well as iPhone expansion driven by new partnerships (& end of exclusivities). Longer term, we believe a service to provide seamless access & mobility of digital content across all products may be the draw (halo) that drives additional future Apple product sales.”

Tavis McCourt, Morgan Keegan
“Overall, Q4:09 was a strong quarter for Apple, as the Mac is nearly becoming the de facto computer for the back-to-school season. Additionally, iPhone trends remain remarkably strong, with unit economics holding up at unheard of levels in the wireless industry.”

Yair Rainer, Oppenheimer
“As usual, Apple appears to be leaving plenty of room for upside surprises to both revenue and margins. On the revenue side, Apple should benefit from continued Mac momentum (particularly in Europe), higher recognized iPhone revenue, and some channel fill for both Mac and iPhone. Gross margin upside is likely to come from a higher proportion of recognized, high-margin iPhone revenue.”

“We are very impressed by Apple’s ability to post a record profit quarter during difficult macro spending conditions,” Canaccord Adams analyst Peter Misek said in a note to clients this morning. “A host of new product introductions and continued traction with the iPhone give us confidence in the sustainability of Apple’s operating model.”

Suffice it to say, Misek wasn’t the only the analyst lauding Apple’s (AAPL) fourth-quarter performance. Below a selection of commentary from other Apple watchers:

Gene Munster, Piper Jaffray
“September results were strong despite headwinds of iPhone production constraints and a Mac desktop offering in need of a refresh. We expect these headwinds to become tailwinds in the December quarter, which we believe will be positive for AAPL shares in the coming months.”

Mike Abramsky, RBC Capital Markets
“With strong financial performance and product uptake amidst recession, and further catalysts (iPhone in China, Tablet, refreshed iMacs, iPhone share gains/momentum), we foresee further upside for the shares.”

Maynard Um, UBS
“Upside to virtually every metric in the qtr backs our positive view on Apple. We continue expect greater “recurring” iPhone hardware revenue (growing installed base & stickiness of the App Store), which should drive more visibility into iPhone sales (20%+ of our FY10 iPhone shipments), as well as iPhone expansion driven by new partnerships (& end of exclusivities). Longer term, we believe a service to provide seamless access & mobility of digital content across all products may be the draw (halo) that drives additional future Apple product sales.”

Tavis McCourt, Morgan Keegan
“Overall, Q4:09 was a strong quarter for Apple, as the Mac is nearly becoming the de facto computer for the back-to-school season. Additionally, iPhone trends remain remarkably strong, with unit economics holding up at unheard of levels in the wireless industry.”

Yair Rainer, Oppenheimer
“As usual, Apple appears to be leaving plenty of room for upside surprises to both revenue and margins. On the revenue side, Apple should benefit from continued Mac momentum (particularly in Europe), higher recognized iPhone revenue, and some channel fill for both Mac and iPhone. Gross margin upside is likely to come from a higher proportion of recognized, high-margin iPhone revenue.”

Seems the Street would have much preferred the “boatloads of money” Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz once said she’d demand for a search deal, than the “boatloads of value” she claims to have given them this morning. As I write this, Yahoo (YHOO) shares are trading down more than 12 percent at $15.14. Microsoft (MSFT) shares are up 1.41 percent at $23.80.

Below, a roundup of analyst notes that have been issued on the deal.

Jeff Lindsay, Bernstein Research: We believe Yahoo!’s search deal represents a significant positive for the company’s economics, as both Yahoo! and MSFT were too subscale to compete effectively versus Google. Although the combined 30% search share is still less than half the size of Google, both Yahoo! and MSFT will realize significant cost savings from combining their search technologies. In addition, the greater scale should increase the effectiveness of the search engine, driving revenue synergies through improved search monetization.

Sarah Friar, Goldman Sachs: We view the deal as positive for Microsoft as terms are better for the company than had been speculated (no upfront fee; 88% TAC) and the combined market share provides scale to drive efficiency and legitimacy/relevancy for Microsoft’s online investments. Yahoo!’s $3.0 bn/year search sales translates to $360 mn/year for Microsoft in revenues. Microsoft will incur incremental expenses when the deal closes (expected early CY10), but limited (if any) impact on FY10E and while investments will continue into FY11, our model already assumes sizable expenses.

Douglas Anmuth, Barclays: YHOO-MSFT terms not nearly as favorable as anticipated, but we believe deal is neutral to the co’s L-T positioning. We would have liked to have seen an upfront payment, higher TAC, & rev share on Bing.com searches among other things, but we like that YHOO maintains ability to sell search adv, & therefore relationship with its largest advertisers. It’s unclear how favorable the deal will be to YHOO over time, but our fundamental reasons for owning shares remain the same. We expect better execution on the audience & content biz & specifically within display adv., & we believe YHOO will be able to take out a meaningful amount of costs from the biz aside from search tech. over the next couple yrs.

Peter Misek, Cannacord Adams: We are relieved that Microsoft did not have to provide an upfront payment as part of this deal while effectively garnering more scale. This deal provides Microsoft with a much needed boost in competing with Google (GOOG : NASDAQ : US$435.00 | BUY) as its search algorithm, Bing, is being catapulted to greater market share. In addition, utilizing Yahoo!’s sales force for premium search will allow Microsoft to lower expenses over the duration of the partnership while attempting to attract a greater level of advertisers for the combined platforms. We believe this is a much needed relief for Microsoft, but is one step in a greater battle. In the end this doesn not solve Microsoft’s competitive disadvantage with Google. Rather we think it accelerates Microsoft’s desire to think outside the box and come up with a non-linear way to catch Google.

Heath Terry and Andrew Thomas, FBR Capital Markets: The lack of an up-front payment, no minimum revenue guarantee, and a revenue share that, while above average, is slightly below the +90% that larger deals command make for a lackluster deal for Yahoo!, in our opinion. The lack of any display component to the deal also seems like a missed opportunity for the company. As we see it, the only financial benefit to Yahoo! is the ability to shed the not insignificant technology costs associated with running a search engine. According to the company, this should result in an annual benefit to GAAP operating income of $500M….Restructuring these two businesses and untangling them from their existing partnerships and internal ties will be a massive organizational challenge for both companies.

Mark Mahaney, Citi Investment Research: Implications For YHOO – Positives: 1) YHOO believes deal would generate incremental $250MM in annual cash flow (17% accretive to our ’09 est)–assumptions very hard to test, but magnitude is reasonably conservative; 2) 88% TAC is higher than industry average, but as expected given deal size. Challenges: 1) No upfront payment to YHOO is a negative vs. expectations, tho guaranteed RPS provides significant backstop; 2) Lack of display advertising deal is a negative vs. expectations; & 3) Acknowledgment of YHOO’s Search technology limitations.

Todd Greenwald, Signal Hill Capital Group: The deal announced today will take a very long time to come to fruition we think, and will face several challenges–it will face regulatory hurdles given Microsoft’s antitrust history (though we’d expect it to ultimately get through given Google’s dominance). Additionally, it seems hard to fathom operationally, as it will require Yahoo’s salespeople to be selling Microsoft’s technology. Advertisers will want one point of contact (which would be Yahoo), though that point of contact won’t be entirely responsible for what they are selling–instead of bringing in an engineer from within the same building, the Yahoo salesperson may have to coordinate with a Microsoft employee up in Redmond. Not impossible, just tricky. And considering how smooth and automated the process of buying ads is on Google’s platform, this could prove to be a competitive disadvantage.

Mark May, Needham & Company: Search advertising is not a zero sum game, in our opinion. If Microsoft is able to make Yahoo! (and Microsoft) search more effective through this deal/combination, then we believe is will result in advertising spending more on the new search platform but not less on the Google platform. A more effect Yahoo!/Microsoft search platform does not mean Google search becomes less effective, and we believe there is more demand than supply for effective search marketing. The dollars will likely come from other, less effective, buckets.

Business 101 convincingly argues that most large M&A deals and partnerships are not successful. And, most large-scale Internet media M&A deals and partnerships have tended to under-perform their original promise (e.g., AOL Time Warner, Google/MySpace, etc.). Moreover, in the case of Yahoo!/Microsoft Search, you have two very different cultures and an expected 24 month transition process. The odds are stacked against this deal having a meaningfully impact on Google. And, over the next 2+ years while Yahoo! and Microsoft are trying to transition, Google will be innovating.

Seems the Street would have much preferred the “boatloads of money” Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz once said she’d demand for a search deal, than the “boatloads of value” she claims to have given them this morning. As I write this, Yahoo (YHOO) shares are trading down more than 12 percent at $15.14. Microsoft (MSFT) shares are up 1.41 percent at $23.80.

Below, a roundup of analyst notes that have been issued on the deal.

Jeff Lindsay, Bernstein Research: We believe Yahoo!’s search deal represents a significant positive for the company’s economics, as both Yahoo! and MSFT were too subscale to compete effectively versus Google. Although the combined 30% search share is still less than half the size of Google, both Yahoo! and MSFT will realize significant cost savings from combining their search technologies. In addition, the greater scale should increase the effectiveness of the search engine, driving revenue synergies through improved search monetization.

Sarah Friar, Goldman Sachs: We view the deal as positive for Microsoft as terms are better for the company than had been speculated (no upfront fee; 88% TAC) and the combined market share provides scale to drive efficiency and legitimacy/relevancy for Microsoft’s online investments. Yahoo!’s $3.0 bn/year search sales translates to $360 mn/year for Microsoft in revenues. Microsoft will incur incremental expenses when the deal closes (expected early CY10), but limited (if any) impact on FY10E and while investments will continue into FY11, our model already assumes sizable expenses.

Douglas Anmuth, Barclays: YHOO-MSFT terms not nearly as favorable as anticipated, but we believe deal is neutral to the co’s L-T positioning. We would have liked to have seen an upfront payment, higher TAC, & rev share on Bing.com searches among other things, but we like that YHOO maintains ability to sell search adv, & therefore relationship with its largest advertisers. It’s unclear how favorable the deal will be to YHOO over time, but our fundamental reasons for owning shares remain the same. We expect better execution on the audience & content biz & specifically within display adv., & we believe YHOO will be able to take out a meaningful amount of costs from the biz aside from search tech. over the next couple yrs.

Peter Misek, Cannacord Adams: We are relieved that Microsoft did not have to provide an upfront payment as part of this deal while effectively garnering more scale. This deal provides Microsoft with a much needed boost in competing with Google (GOOG : NASDAQ : US$435.00 | BUY) as its search algorithm, Bing, is being catapulted to greater market share. In addition, utilizing Yahoo!’s sales force for premium search will allow Microsoft to lower expenses over the duration of the partnership while attempting to attract a greater level of advertisers for the combined platforms. We believe this is a much needed relief for Microsoft, but is one step in a greater battle. In the end this doesn not solve Microsoft’s competitive disadvantage with Google. Rather we think it accelerates Microsoft’s desire to think outside the box and come up with a non-linear way to catch Google.

Heath Terry and Andrew Thomas, FBR Capital Markets: The lack of an up-front payment, no minimum revenue guarantee, and a revenue share that, while above average, is slightly below the +90% that larger deals command make for a lackluster deal for Yahoo!, in our opinion. The lack of any display component to the deal also seems like a missed opportunity for the company. As we see it, the only financial benefit to Yahoo! is the ability to shed the not insignificant technology costs associated with running a search engine. According to the company, this should result in an annual benefit to GAAP operating income of $500M….Restructuring these two businesses and untangling them from their existing partnerships and internal ties will be a massive organizational challenge for both companies.

Mark Mahaney, Citi Investment Research: Implications For YHOO – Positives: 1) YHOO believes deal would generate incremental $250MM in annual cash flow (17% accretive to our ’09 est)–assumptions very hard to test, but magnitude is reasonably conservative; 2) 88% TAC is higher than industry average, but as expected given deal size. Challenges: 1) No upfront payment to YHOO is a negative vs. expectations, tho guaranteed RPS provides significant backstop; 2) Lack of display advertising deal is a negative vs. expectations; & 3) Acknowledgment of YHOO’s Search technology limitations.

Todd Greenwald, Signal Hill Capital Group: The deal announced today will take a very long time to come to fruition we think, and will face several challenges–it will face regulatory hurdles given Microsoft’s antitrust history (though we’d expect it to ultimately get through given Google’s dominance). Additionally, it seems hard to fathom operationally, as it will require Yahoo’s salespeople to be selling Microsoft’s technology. Advertisers will want one point of contact (which would be Yahoo), though that point of contact won’t be entirely responsible for what they are selling–instead of bringing in an engineer from within the same building, the Yahoo salesperson may have to coordinate with a Microsoft employee up in Redmond. Not impossible, just tricky. And considering how smooth and automated the process of buying ads is on Google’s platform, this could prove to be a competitive disadvantage.

Mark May, Needham & Company: Search advertising is not a zero sum game, in our opinion. If Microsoft is able to make Yahoo! (and Microsoft) search more effective through this deal/combination, then we believe is will result in advertising spending more on the new search platform but not less on the Google platform. A more effect Yahoo!/Microsoft search platform does not mean Google search becomes less effective, and we believe there is more demand than supply for effective search marketing. The dollars will likely come from other, less effective, buckets.

Business 101 convincingly argues that most large M&A deals and partnerships are not successful. And, most large-scale Internet media M&A deals and partnerships have tended to under-perform their original promise (e.g., AOL Time Warner, Google/MySpace, etc.). Moreover, in the case of Yahoo!/Microsoft Search, you have two very different cultures and an expected 24 month transition process. The odds are stacked against this deal having a meaningfully impact on Google. And, over the next 2+ years while Yahoo! and Microsoft are trying to transition, Google will be innovating.

In a research note issued this week, Canaccord analyst Peter Misek speculates that Apple (AAPL), which recently debuted an iPhone capable of shooting and editing video, plans to bring the same functionality to the iPod.

“We believe Apple is now targeting to enter the low-end camcorder market by adding this functionality into its iPod lineup,” he writes. “…We believe Apple will unveil various iPod versions with camcorder functionality. We believe this will drive sales not only for traditional MP3 players, but as a new competitive dynamic to the lower end camcorder market that is now dominated by Flip line of digital camcorders.”

Misek sees such a move giving a nice boost to iPod sales, which, as Apple revealed earlier this week, have been declining a bit. “On anticipation of this we have markedly raised our iPod growth assumptions and have raised our iPod shipment forecast from 50 million to 65 million units.”

And what of Cisco (CSCO)? What would the transformation of the iPod into a point-and-shoot camcorder mean for the Flip? Certainly not good things. Who’d want to carry two devices for music and video capture when they could carry just one?

But has the chatter obscured softening fundamentals?

Canaccord Adams analyst Peter Misek thinks so. Yesterday, he cut his ratings on 3 major players.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

As I write this, Palm is trading at $6.10–up an astonishing 85 percent since its big announcement. And it seems destined to go higher still, given the enthusiastic reception analysts have given it.

Deutsche Bank’s Jonathan Goldberg raised his rating on Palm (PALM) to Hold from Sell saying this morning that he is impressed with the Pre and the direction in which the company is now heading.

“Our thesis on Palm has been that its future is a binary outcome,” he wrote in a note to clients. “We are favorably impressed with the new device and more importantly with the new WebOS. We think the focus has now shifted from their mere survival to execution. The earnings model has the potential for significant earnings leverage, but our outlook is tempered by Palm’s history of missteps. We think they can ship 1m units FY09 and 4m in FY10. The stock has run significantly over the past two days reflecting this, but as we learn more about the popularity of the OS and the potential for them to actually ship a UMTS version of the Pre this year we will revisit our thesis.”

Obviously, there are a few noteworthy caveats in there. Still, Goldberg’s note is vastly different from the funereal notes analysts were writing about the company less than a month ago. Indeed, on Dec. 18, Canaccord Adams analyst Peter Misek essentially dismissed the company. “Due to increased competition in the industry, Palm has lost its place as a leading smartphone manufacturer and has gradually become less relevant as more competitors have introduced more innovative smartphone devices,” Misek said. “The company is financially distressed and lacks any viable future catalysts which could help restore profitability…. We believe that Palm has become largely irrelevant in the smartphone space due to a series of strategic errors and poor execution.”

Clearly, Palm’s situation has changed for the better. Now, let’s see for how long.

As I write this, Palm is trading at $6.10–up an astonishing 85 percent since its big announcement. And it seems destined to go higher still, given the enthusiastic reception analysts have given it.

Deutsche Bank’s Jonathan Goldberg raised his rating on Palm (PALM) to Hold from Sell saying this morning that he is impressed with the Pre and the direction in which the company is now heading.

“Our thesis on Palm has been that its future is a binary outcome,” he wrote in a note to clients. “We are favorably impressed with the new device and more importantly with the new WebOS. We think the focus has now shifted from their mere survival to execution. The earnings model has the potential for significant earnings leverage, but our outlook is tempered by Palm’s history of missteps. We think they can ship 1m units FY09 and 4m in FY10. The stock has run significantly over the past two days reflecting this, but as we learn more about the popularity of the OS and the potential for them to actually ship a UMTS version of the Pre this year we will revisit our thesis.”

Obviously, there are a few noteworthy caveats in there. Still, Goldberg’s note is vastly different from the funereal notes analysts were writing about the company less than a month ago. Indeed, on Dec. 18, Canaccord Adams analyst Peter Misek essentially dismissed the company. “Due to increased competition in the industry, Palm has lost its place as a leading smartphone manufacturer and has gradually become less relevant as more competitors have introduced more innovative smartphone devices,” Misek said. “The company is financially distressed and lacks any viable future catalysts which could help restore profitability…. We believe that Palm has become largely irrelevant in the smartphone space due to a series of strategic errors and poor execution.”

Clearly, Palm’s situation has changed for the better. Now, let’s see for how long.