“It is critical that we speak with one voice,” wrote Whitman in an internal email I obtained (below).

Thus, she has appointed longtime HP exec Lynn Anderson (pictured here) to “take on the role of acting Chief Communications Officer reporting directly to me,” according to the memo she sent to senior leaders at the company.

Not sure what “acting” means yet, but Anderson has gotten the job that was once that of former SAP exec Bill Wohl. He was put on “special assignment” late this summer, whatever that means, with his duties being taken up by Global Marketing EVP Marty Homlish.

Now Anderson is taking over, having helped during the Wohl transition. She previously headed up influencer relations for HP’s enterprise business.

And before that, she worked on a variety of marketing jobs for HP Canada. Anderson’s background is wonky, according to her company bio: “Before joining HP in 1983 as a systems engineer, Anderson was a programmer, analyst and operations manager for several IT departments.”

During the initial announcement of her new job running HP, Whitman relied on longtime comms adviser Henry Gomez. Gomez, who worked closely with her when Whitman was CEO of eBay and later on her unsuccessful run for California governor, has a consulting business and presumably did not want to work full time for HP.

Here’s the memo:

To: Senior Leaders
Subject: Acting Chief Communications Officer

As we continue to execute our strategy for HP, communications will be an extremely important function and it is critical that we speak with one voice.

I want to thank Marty Homlish, EVP Global Marketing who stepped in and provided leadership during a critical junction. Going forward, I have asked Lynn Anderson to take on the role of acting Chief Communications Officer reporting directly to me.

Please ensure that Lynn is brought into all communications activities.

Regards,

Meg

With the mobile payments space rapidly heating up, we thought it would be a perfect time to add the person most responsible for that current disruption–Square CEO and co-founder Jack Dorsey–to the speaker roster at the ninth D: All Things Digital.

By the way, Dorsey is the same man who also invented a little thing called Twitter, the groundbreaking microblogging service–where he also now serves as Executive Chairman and now its product guru once again.

In other words, Dorsey is just the kind of person Walt Mossberg and I are thrilled to have onstage at D9–a perfect entrepreneur to talk about the innovative product vision that has made tech in Silicon Valley so powerful.

Dorsey started Square in 2009, after serving as CEO of Twitter until 2008. A software engineer by training, he previously worked as a programmer at a bike courier dispatch service.

Just this week, Square made news by launching a new cash register for merchants and a new mobile wallet for consumers to make paying for retail goods extremely easy.

This is a quick development from the start-up’s original Square dongle and app, which allows consumers to use their smartphone or Apple iPad to accept credit card payments.

Square has distributed 500,000 of these dongles, which click into the headphone jack, and has recently said it is processing $2 billion in gross payment volume per month.

The new innovations should increase that if they catch on and Square can best a plethora of competitors, including a new digital wallet entry by Google (whose Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt will also be at D9 onstage demoing it too).

As Tricia Duryee wrote about Square’s latest effort:

It starts with the user’s card case, which must be set up in advance with a user’s credit card information. From the card case, the user will be able to see the menu of the restaurant, cafe or spa they are visiting. Users can click to order. When they go up to the register to pay, the consumer doesn’t hand over anything but their name.

Consumers and retailers will have to believe that using Apple products can be as safe and secure as big enterprise-grade systems that everyone is accustomed to seeing.

Square will also have to go up against a ton of other providers coming down the pike, including solutions from [eBay's] PayPal and payment giants such as Visa, MasterCard and American Express.

The San Francisco-based start-up recently received an investment from Visa.

Given that the future of the massive, badillion-dollar industry is at stake, it should make for a great interview session at D9.

Great fun to listen to for Apple watchers. But not that meaningful, really–mostly positioning and spin. There was at least one important nugget, though: Apple has a specific shopping list, with some very big-ticket items on it.

Jobs wouldn’t lay those out, of course. But when asked if he planned on spending any of Apple’s $51 billion (!) in cash via a dividend or stock buyback, he explained that he had something else in mind. From my notes, a combination of direct quotes and paraphrase:

“We strongly believe that one or more very strategic opportunities may come along that we’re in unique opportunity to take advantage of because of our cash,” and we want to keep our powder dry “because we feel that there are one or more” opportunities in the future.

M&A guys, start your engines!

The “what will Apple do with all its cash” speculation story is a time-honored tradition–I seem to remember writing one four or five years ago, when Apple had $6 billion or so lying around, and discussing whether it made sense for Jobs to buy a music company like Universal.

But I don’t remember Jobs every signaling his desire to go shopping quite as openly as this before (feel free to correct me in comments if I have this one wrong). Two caveats:

• Jobs is famous for saying one thing and doing…something else. So don’t get too riled up about this.
• Just because Jobs is talking about spending money on “opportunities” doesn’t mean he’s talking about buying a company. He could be talking about big, hairy capital expenditures, like the billion-dollar server farm Apple is finishing up in North Carolina.

Still. It’s hard not to read or hear that quote and not think that he’s thinking about some very big buys. Like what?

A lot of folks will assume that Jobs is talking about buying a big content producer. Music doesn’t make any sense, because there’s little value left in that business. But if Jobs wants to make headway in the TV business, perhaps it makes sense for him to snag a big broadcaster or programmer to give him the leverage he needs with the Comcasts, Viacoms and Time Warners of the world.

Or you could make the same argument for other content makers, like game studios. The biggest one, Electronic Arts, has a market cap of a mere $5.21 billion. Jobs could give ERTS shareholders a hefty premium and still have plenty of walking-around money.

Or perhaps it makes zero sense for Apple to be in the content business, because it’s done just fine not being in the content business to date.

So then what?

Feel free to throw your own guesses in, but I’ll kick off with my own: It’s a company that has yet to compete with or brush up against Apple in any significant way. And it’s one that Apple seems unlikely to be able to move aside, even if it wanted to. And it’s one that’s already competing directly with Google, which has to make Jobs like it even more.

And, if you believe this L.A. Times report, Jobs is already strolling around Palo Alto with its CEO: What do you think of Apple buying Facebook? Discuss….

Earlier

Apple investors who got their first look at the company’s earnings numbers don’t like them–AAPL is trading down seven percent after hours. Let’s see if Apple executives can soothe their concerns during the earnings call.

You can listen in for yourself via this link, or follow along in my liveblog below:

Live Blog

Apple or Apple’s IR company trying some very, very mellow string and piano stuff while we wait.

CFO Peter Oppenheimer kicks off. “Outstanding results” for September quarter. Highest quarterly revenue, earnings.

Mac products and services: 3.9 mm Macs. Record quarter. 27% y/y growth. Double market growth for Q.

IMac, Macbook, Macbook Pro all good. Asia/Pacific performing best.

IPods: 9.1 million.

ITunes revenue more than $1 billion.

IPhone. “Extremely pleased” with 14.4 million unit sales; basically doubled y/y.

$8.6 billion in sales value of iPhones alone.

Heaping praise on iPhone 4 (justified) and stressing iPhone’s move into corporate market, rattling off blue-chip customers.

IPad. “Thrilled” with momentum. “Great enthusiasm” from customers.

65% of Fortune 100 deploying or piloting iPad. Lists some of them.

125 million iOS device sales last month.

200,000 registered iOS developers.

“Very happy” with results of iAd so far.

On to Apple stores. More records here.

Expects to open 40-50 stores next year, 50% of them outside U.S.

IPhone sales mix “better than expected”–boosted overall margin.

$51 billion cash hoard. [Deep, longing sigh from everyone in media, tech business.]

For the year: 5x revenue and 10x earnings compared with five years ago.

“Very enthusiastic” about lineup, “extremely confident” in new product pipeline.

Rare appearance from Steve Jobs!

Had to drop by for first $20 billion quarter.

“We’ve now passed RIM, and I don’t see them catching up to us in the foreseeable future.”

They have to move into software/platform development, and I don’t think they can.

So what about Google?

Apple is activating 275,000 iOS devices per day on average over the past 30 days; peaked at 300k iOS devices some days. 300,000 apps in app store.

Unfortunately, there is no solid data on how many Android handsets sold each quarter.

Google loves to characterize Android as open, Apple as closed. “We find this a bit disingenuous.”

Windows is “open.” But Android is “very fragmented.” OEMs like Motorola install own stuff to make their phones stand out. We don’t do that.

Shout out to “Twitterdeck” ( I think he means Tweetdeck) and their challenges running 100 versions of Android client. “Compare this to iPhone, where there are two versions of the software…to test against.”

Meanwhile, at least four app stores on Android. “This is going to be a mess for both users and developers.”

Apple’s app store has 3x apps compared with Google marketplace.

“Even if Google were right, and the real issue was closed vs. open, it’s important to remember that open systems don’t always win.”

For instance: Microsoft’s [miserable] “PlaysForSure” strategy, RIP.

Google’s “open” argument is a “smokescreen.” Real issue is what’s best for customer–”fragmented vs. integrated.”

Integrated is a huge advantage for us, because it’s better for customers, and better for developers. “We are very committed to the integrated approach no matter how many times Google tries to characterize it as closed.”

Now! On to our tablet competitors:

First of all, only a few credible competitors.

Second, most of them are pushing 7.5″ screen. That means they are just at 45% size of our 10″ screen. “You heard that right….This size isn’t sufficient to create great tablet apps.”

Extolling features of iPad size vs. teeny tiny tablet competitors: They’re “tweeners”–too small to compete with iPad, too big to compete with smartphones.

IPad has 35,000 apps. New crop of tablets will have “near zero.”

Competitors having a hard time coming close to iPad pricing, even with their puny screens. We make our own everything, and this results in an “incredible product, at a great price.” Our competitors will “likely offer less, for more.” They’ll be “DOA. Dead on arrival.”

Questions and Answers

Supply constraints on iPad?

COO Tim Cook: We’ve got a handle on it. And note that we’re expanding distribution in the U.S. and internationally, with more countries to come.

Question about margins I didn’t quite catch.

Oppenheimer: Sold more iPhones than planned, and commodity prices came down, so that helped.

Q for Steve. Please talk about “iPad opportunity.” Size of business, etc., two years or more down the road?

Jobs: “The iPad is clearly going to affect notebook computers. The iPad proves it’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when.” Already seeing “tremendous” interest from education and “much to my surprise, from business.”

“The more time that passes, the more I am convinced that we’ve got a tiger by the tail here.” We’ve trained tens of millions of people on this OS via the iPhone. “I see it as really general purpose, and I see it as very big.”

Could it be the second biggest business after the iPhone?

“I try not to predict, I try to report.” We’re selling more iPads than Macs.

What about Flash? Any update?

“Flash memory? We love flash memory” [hohoho]

A question on iPhone demand, which I missed.

Q: Steve, “You are the tablet market.” Do you see tablet competitors cutting into your market in the same way you cut into RIM’s market? Won’t that fragment the market?

“I have a hard time imagining what those strategies…are.” Pricing won’t work. “Flash hasn’t presented any problem at all; as you know, most video on the Web is now presented in HTML5.” The iTunes store is dominant and “we’re not done” working on stuff for the future.

Q: Smartphones–”Do you see that as a zero-sum game?”

Jobs: As you know, most phones in the world aren’t smartphones. They’ll convert over time, so there will be room for multiple competitors, but “eventually it will turn into a zero-sum game, or close to that.”

Q: For Oppenheimer: Another margins question.

A: We do see a small sequential decline. Higher-than-expected mix of new iPods and new iPads. We’ve been very aggressive on pricing there, and that’s what’s pushing down margins.

Q: Steve, how’s your Apple TV “hobby” coming? And what’s up with streaming media?

Jobs: We don’t talk about unannounced products, but I’m happy to tell you what we know about Apple TV. We have moved to streaming. It’s all streaming. Everything is rented, and/or soon to be streamed from iPad or iPhone.

So far we’ve sold 250,000 new Apple TVs. “I’m thrilled with that.” And with Airplay set up, “it will give people another big reason to buy it.”

Another margin/guidance question. Seems to be the same one repeated each time, with the same answer.

Q for Steve: Key risks for company?

The goal is to make the best devices in the world. “It’s not to be the biggest. As you know, Nokia’s the biggest… but we don’t aspire to be like them.”

Android is the biggest competitor. Outshipped us in June quarter as we transitioned. We’re waiting to find out what happened in this quarter. “I don’t know how we’ll find out” though.

Our approach is to create products that “just work” and “their approach is very different from that.”

Questions for Steve and Tim: Aspirations for iPhone and iPad. In Mac, you didn’t aspire to high market share; in iPod, it was the opposite–you own that market. In the past, Tim you’ve described iPhone business as closer to the iPod model. Steve, you sort of said something different. Please resolve that difference: Biggest, or best?

Jobs: “Nokia makes $50 handsets. We don’t know how to make a great handset for $50.” We want to make “breakthrough, best products,” and “drive costs down” while making them better through “relentless improvement.”

We have a very low share in the phone market. Single digits. And a very high share in tablets. But we don’t think about it that way.

The reason we won’t make a seven-inch tablet isn’t because of price point, “it’s because we don’t think you can make a great tablet with a seven-inch screen.” And as a software company, we think of software first. Developers don’t want to build for all these different platforms and devices, and on this small screen. “It’s not about cost, it’s about value, when you factor in the software.”

Q: Okay, but if the market moves toward lower-functionality smartphones and “dramatically lower price points,” then you’ll cede share, right?

Jobs: “You’re looking at it wrong.” You’re looking at it as a hardware guy who doesn’t really know about software. You assume that software “can come alive on this product that you’re dreaming of. But it won’t” because developers want to build for better products, with faster processors and better screens.

Q: You have about $50 billion in cash. What are you going to do with that? Why not return it to shareholders?

Jobs: “We strongly believe that one or more very strategic opportunities may come along that we’re in unique opportunity to take advantage of because of our cash” and want to keep our powder dry “because we feel that there are one or more” opportunities in the future.

Missing next question about iPhone and iPad penetration into corporate market.

[Market not sold on Apple's story yet, btw: Stock still down 5.84%.]

Question for Oppenheimer. Guess what? It’s about gross margins. Any change in manufacturing, etc? Any color at all?

Oppenheimer: Don’t provide product-specific gross margins. Always trying to lower costs, though. “We were happy” with gross margins for quarter. Down slightly because of product mix, as I’ve said over and over.

Q: Talk about demand from carriers to pick up iPhone 4.

Cook: The pressure I’m feeling is about supply. That’s the problem. At the country level, we have 166 relationships in 89 countries. In many countries, we went to more than one carrier. Latest one of those is Germany.

IPhone 4 in 85 of 89 countries. Will be in all 89 by end of year.

What happens to margins and subsidy when you go nonexclusive?

We don’t give information out on specific markets, but you can see that our ASPs have stayed above $600.

For Steve: Why do you have advantage in price on iPad, as opposed to PC?

Jobs: We engineer so much of it ourselves. Everything from chip to battery to enclosures. We’ve learned so much. We’ve learned a lot, developed a lot of our own components, where competitors have to go through middlemen. “This is a product we’ve been training for for the last decade.”

Call is over. You can hear the whole thing on a podcast later this evening.

Has Apple’s iPad (AAPL) won the tablet wars before they even started? Maybe. But before you leap to that conclusion, best to see what everyone else has to offer, too.

I’ve heard anecdotal reports from media types who are lukewarm about the forthcoming HP (HPQ) tablet. But here’s a rave mini-review for Dell’s (DELL) Streak from Greg Clayman, who runs digital for Viacom’s (VIA) MTV Networks:

All the important caveats: Clayman’s thumbs-up isn’t an official Viacom endorsement. And even if everyone at Viacom loves the thing, it doesn’t mean the cable programmer is going to let you watch lots of its shows for free on the thing. In fact, it probably won’t. And past performance does not guarantee future results, and objects in mirror are closer than they appear, etc., etc.

[Streak image via Engadget.]

The characters change, but the script is always the same. A programmer wants more money from a cable provider and threatens to pull its shows. See: Viacom (VIA) versus Time Warner Cable (TWC), News Corp. (NWS) versus Time Warner Cable, Cablevision versus Scripps Networks (SNI), Etc. Etc.

Spoiler Alert! The conclusion is always the same too: Both sides compromise, and cable subscribers get to watch their shows–in exchange for paying ever-increasing fees.

My interest here is whether either side wants to use the Web as a weapon in the fight given that the Internet is an increasingly plausible alternative for TV watchers who don’t want to pay for cable. Last year, for instance, Time Warner Cable showed its customers how to get Fox shows–and everything else–onto their TVs via the Internet (you can still see those instructions here).

The problem, of course, is that by highlighting the Web option, both sides run the risk of undermining their market power in the long run. If couch potatoes really do get used to the idea of consuming their shows using their PCs, it makes it easier for them to tell both programmers and the cable guys to pound sand.

For now, though, both sides are leaving the Web alone while they rattle their swords.

Disney (DIS) reminds Cablevision’s three million New York-area viewers that they’ll still be able to get ABC shows via an old-fashioned TV antenna. But the network doesn’t mention ABC.com or Hulu, its joint venture with Fox and GE’s (GE) NBC. And Cablevision (CVC), at least so far, hasn’t brought up the Web either.

Both sides are clearly betting this gets resolved before Sunday night when ABC is set to broadcast the Oscars–not coincidentally, one of the only programs you really have to watch live.

Here’s Disney’s opening salvo:

[Image credit: Alexindigo]

Last year’s version featured Time Warner Cable facing off against Viacom (VIA). This year, it’s Time Warner Cable (TWC) versus News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox channel. (Disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site).

If you’re looking for a  variation on a theme, note that Fox is trying to get paid for its Fox broadcast channels, which the cable guys traditionally don’t pay for, at least not directly. But big picture, it’s the same pool of money, divvied up by the same companies and funded by the same people–Time Warner Cable customers like me–who don’t really have a say. Nothing new here.

I have noticed one difference. Last year, the Time Warner Cable guys suggested that if Viacom shows really did disappear from customers’ homes, it would be easy enough to find them by going online. And the company promised to help its customers figure out just how to find the likes SpongeBob and Jon Stewart on the Web, if it came to that.

This year, we haven’t heard this particular threat. But for a lot of people, Web TV is a much more plausible alternative than it was 12 months ago. What gives?

Nothing, says TWC spokesman Alexander Dudley. He just hasn’t gotten around to talking about it yet.

“We have plans, if it goes on, to direct customers to specific content” on the Web, Dudley says. One of the reasons it hasn’t come up yet, he adds, is because it’s so obvious–everyone knows that if you want to watch Fox shows on the Web, you go to Hulu, the video site the company owns with GE’s (GE) NBC and Disney’s (DIS) ABC.

“Part of the reason that we find their demands outrageous is because the content is available for free online,” Dudley says. “And if it goes on, we plan to show our customers how to connect their PCs to a TV using an S cable.”

Dudley won’t spell it out, but he’s essentially repeating one of the cable industry’s main criticisms of Hulu: Handing out free TV on the Web devalues the stuff programmers try to sell to the cable guys.

We’ll see. I think that if push really does come to shove, casual Hulu users might discover that the site is no longer the treasure chest of free TV they thought it was.

For starters, there’s broadcast stuff that never gets to Hulu in the first place–like live events. In Fox’s case, that’s a very big deal, since its January schedule includes both NFL football playoffs and the start of “American Idol.”

And when it comes to cable programming like “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” or “Nip/Tuck”–stuff that Time Warner Cable is already paying for–Hulu’s owners have been careful not to put much on the Web in the first place. Go try to watch “Sons of Anarchy,” the FX biker show on Hulu and you’ll end up pretty frustrated.

So here’s a question for Time Warner Cable: Do you really want to send angry customers to Hulu–and then have to deal with them a second time, when they find they still can’t watch their favorite shows, S cable and all?

Another thought: What if Fox simply yanked the programming it supplies to Hulu from Time Warner Cable users? Is that doable–either technically or contractually? I’m lobbing the question to News Corp. and will let you know if I get a response.

Best bet: Just like last year, this year’s fight will likely go up until the Dec. 31 deadline. And then it will get resolved, with the cable guys paying more than they wanted and the network getting less.

Then again, there is dark muttering that is really different this time because both sides have important precedents at stake, etc. I wouldn’t put much stock in that yet–what else are they going to say?–but if it pans out, it will be interesting to see what role Hulu ends up playing.

TweetDeck, a one-man company that makes a very helpful piece of free software that organizes your Twitter streams, is raising an angel round led by Betaworks, the investment company with a hankering for all things Twitter. The round, which hasn’t closed yet, will eventually end up somewhere south of $500,000, I’m told.

When it does, the financing will make 34-year-old programmer Iain Dodsworth a paper millionaire. Nice work for a Brit who built TweetDeck just last June because he was following 30 people on Twitter and wanted a better way to organize their Tweets.

Dodsworth says TweetDeck has been downloaded 250,000 times since then and that users are sending out 120,000 messages a day using the software. That places it above other free Twitter clients like Twitterific and twhirl, both of which are cranking out 80,000 to 85,000 messages a day, according to tracking service TweetRush.

All of them are part of the burgeoning ecosystem that revolves around Twitter, which powers all of their companies by letting them plug into its data stream. In exchange, all of these companies make Twitter more successful, by bolting on frills and features to its bare-bones service.

And no money changes hands at any point: Twitter doesn’t charge for use of its data, and its partners do all their development work for free. That could change at some point. As Twitter casts about for a business model to support its service–it is, famously, just about revenue-free at this point–an obvious solution would be to start charging a fee to the likes of TweetDeck.

No problem, says Dodsworth, who says he’d be happy to pay Twitter, particularly if it gave him even more access in exchange. Oh. And what about his business model? It’s coming, Dodsworth says–he’d like to start selling a pro version of his software, targeting power users and corporations.

That strikes me as a fairly small market, but then again TweetDeck is a very small operation. Dodsworth says he doesn’t plan on hiring any additional help in the near future, even as he preps new features like a version for Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone.

I’ll let him explain himself, via a short video interview I taped with him yesterday–just as soon as the Internet cooperates and lets me post the clip. In the meantime, you can also track Dodsworth on Twitter here or here.

Every time I start the computer it says: Configurating updates: stage 3 of 3 – 0% complete. And then reboots, and reboots, and reboots. … I had it rebooting for over an hour before I stopped the madness.”

–A Vista user encounters Windows Vista Endless Reboot Pack 1

Microsoft has “isolated” another problem with Windows Vista Service Pack 1. Responding to complaints of endlessly rebooting PCs, the software giant has temporarily suspended the automatic distribution of a Windows Vista Service Pack 1 prerequisite.

“Immediately after receiving reports of this error, we made the decision to temporarily suspend automatic distribution of the update to avoid further customer impact while we investigate possible causes,” Nick White, a Vista program manager, wrote in a post to the company’s blog. “So far, we’ve been able to determine that this problem only affects a small number of customers in unique circumstances. We are working to identify possible solutions and will make the update available again shortly after we address the issue.”

Every time I start the computer it says: Configurating updates: stage 3 of 3 – 0% complete. And then reboots, and reboots, and reboots. … I had it rebooting for over an hour before I stopped the madness.”

–A Vista user encounters Windows Vista Endless Reboot Pack 1

Microsoft has “isolated” another problem with Windows Vista Service Pack 1. Responding to complaints of endlessly rebooting PCs, the software giant has temporarily suspended the automatic distribution of a Windows Vista Service Pack 1 prerequisite.

“Immediately after receiving reports of this error, we made the decision to temporarily suspend automatic distribution of the update to avoid further customer impact while we investigate possible causes,” Nick White, a Vista program manager, wrote in a post to the company’s blog. “So far, we’ve been able to determine that this problem only affects a small number of customers in unique circumstances. We are working to identify possible solutions and will make the update available again shortly after we address the issue.”

A 23-year-old programmer is facing three years in prison after he Google-bombed the Web site of Polish President Lech Kaczy?ski, making it Google Polska’s top result for a search on “kutas,” the Polish word for penis. Said the programmer, “I just wanted to verify my skills and check if the software works.”

A sophomoric prank to be sure, but one that did not go over well with an administration that views insults to a head of state as a prosecutable offense. “This is not a matter of freedom of speech,” said Andrzej Holdys, a regional prosecutor in the southern town of Cieszyn, where the programmer lives. “If somebody uses a derogatory word to libel the head of state, then it’s a clear insult which violates the law.”