Wealthfront, the Silicon Valley start-up with more than $10 million in its own kitty, finally officially launched its long-planned Online Financial Advisor product today, with a focus on attracting techies interested in more easily managing their money.

The Palo Alto, Calif.-based company, which started off as a social investing site called kaChing, shifted over to the new plan just over a year ago. Its aim now is to try to solve the thorny problem of delivering actionable and easy-to-use tools for making investments online, for those who have some money but little time or expertise.

A lot of companies offer similar tools, of course, including big ones such as Fidelity and Schwab, as well as bigger money-management firms. But Wealthfront’s CEO Andy Rachleff and founder Dan Carroll are promising lower fees and more accurate determination of risk via all kinds of online bells and whistles (see below).

Wealthfront is not charging advisory fees on a customer’s first $25,000 under management, with a fee of 0.25% on assets exceeding that.

Wealthfront is backed by DAG Ventures and well-known investors, including Marc Andreessen and Jeff Jordan.

Here’s a video Wealthfront posted about the service, as well as its official press release:

Wealthfront Unveils Automated Online Financial Advisor Service for Silicon Valley and High-Tech Hubs

Highly Sophisticated Investing Advice Finally Made Available through Simple and Low Cost Web Service

PALO ALTO, Calif., December 1, 2011 – The ability for the savvy tech community to easily access high quality, affordable financial advice is now available with the launch of the Wealthfront Online Financial Advisor. Before Wealthfront, sophisticated investment advice was available only to the wealthy, by expensive financial advisors who often can’t relate to today’s tech-savvy generation who want sound financial advice, made easy and convenient. Wealthfront’s Online Financial Advisor appeals to investors from booming tech communities who favor doing everything online, and are looking for ways to have their new wealth managed for far lower fees.

At the core of Wealthfront’s web service is the industry-standard Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT). Until now, the widely adopted investing model has been kept out of consumers’ reach, and was only accessible via expensive financial advisors. Wealthfront automates the application of this intricate investment model, putting the power of MPT directly into the hands of investors online. Moreover, Wealthfront’s pricing structure trumps all traditional financial advisor models. The online service makes it possible to receive a sophisticated, meticulously managed investment plan at a price that is 75% lower than traditional financial advisors. There are no advisory fees on a customer’s first $25,000 under management, and only a fee of 0.25% on assets exceeding $25,000.

“This is exactly what most people in the technology industry need. It’s the kind of advice you’d get if you had Goldman Sachs manage your money and it does away with the hidden fees we in tech despise,” said Piaw Na, a long time, former employee of Google and popular blogger on the topic of investing. “What’s more, the recommendation on the investment mix is provided with a full explanation of what was picked and why, making the whole experience a massive and much needed shift that is especially appealing now.”

Wealthfront’s high quality investing advice is powered by its Precision-Investing Platform™, the breakthrough software behind the service. The Platform uniquely assesses a customer’s true risk tolerance, recommends an optimized portfolio of carefully selected Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) spanning six asset classes, and monitors and periodically rebalances the investment mix to maintain a customer’s desired risk tolerance.

Wealthfront is backed by Silicon Valley luminaries including DAG Ventures and individual investors including Marc Andreessen, Jeff Jordan, former OpenTable CEO and President of PayPal now at venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, and partners from Benchmark Capital, Index Ventures and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

“The financial advisor world has long recognized that one day the Internet and software would pose a credible threat to their hold on the sub $5 million category of individual investors,” said Paul Pfleiderer, C.O.G. Miller Distinguished Professor of Finance at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Wealthfront advisor. “Wealthfront has made accessible what historically had been out of reach or prohibitively costly for a large class of investors. By using a simple, yet powerful engine for accurately assessing risk and return in the MPT context, Wealthfront has established a new standard for quality financial advisement on the web.”

“With the biggest names in venture capital and the brightest minds in software development, we’re ushering in a financial advisor service that’s capable of precisely managing a customer’s investments from $5,000 to tens of millions with a pricing approach unheard of in the financial services industry,” said Andy Rachleff, CEO of Wealthfront. “Wealthfront emerges at a time when many tech companies are enjoying record earnings, initial public offerings, and strong acquisitions. This creates masses of people in tech looking to invest for the first time and who want to manage their finances in the same manner they’ve organized every other aspect of their lives, online.”

“The promise of the Internet is to disrupt incumbent providers, enabling new companies to provide high quality services at substantial savings through the innovative use of software,” said Jeff Jordan, Wealthfront board member, former CEO OpenTable and President of PayPal and now General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz. “Wealthfront embodies this promise, democratizing access to high quality financial advice. I believe this will appeal strongly to a generation that has grown up with the Net and use it to manage all facets of their life.”

For more information on Wealthfront Online Financial Advisor, or to create a free account, visit www.wealthfront.com.

And, it’s a lot like CityVille.

Empires & Allies is Zynga’s latest social game, which officially launches tomorrow.

As the dominant social games company over the past two years, this is Zynga’s biggest endeavor yet.

And the timing couldn’t be better.

After a five-month hiatus from releasing a new game, the drought is ending as the company gets closer to filing for an initial public offering.

The game is the first title produced by Zynga’s Los Angeles studio, developed by former Electronics Arts employee Amer Ajami. After less than a year in development, Ajami said the goal was to make the game more complex than before by adding combat, without sacrificing the appeal for a very large audience.

Walking that tightrope is why Zynga believes it has a massive opportunity in front of it.

It can’t just build games for “gamers” to be big. Rather, it wants to be the “play” of the Internet, much like Amazon is the “shop” of the Internet. At least that’s the way Zynga CEO Mark Pincus explains it.

Zynga’s initial games, such as Poker, Mafia Wars and FarmVille, filled that niche nicely.

Available to Facebook’s dominant audience, the games were enjoyed by a nontraditional demographic, comprised of mothers, females and children. It also could appeal to the hardcore gamer demographic, characterized as males between the ages of 18 and 34.

Much of the game will be familiar to players of other Zynga games, while some things will be new.

The general storyline: Players must rebuild a destroyed island nation by beefing up army units and recruiting friends to battle villains. The quest ends when the final villain is beaten.

Much like older titles, players must build huts, cottages and houses to collect rent to fund expanding empires. They also must collect resources to build battleships and other items.

What’s different is the combat element.

Players must create resources, like cannons and fighter planes and battleships, to fight villains. If you outlast a villain during battle, you win–but you can also lose.

Losing is entirely new. So is the ability to do evil. Instead of visiting a friend’s islands to do altruistic things–like helping collect rent–you can now also launch an invasion.

“The question of losing is a little new to a Zynga game, but if you track the progression of releases, you’ll note that with each successive release, they increase in complexity and depth,” Ajami said. “This is the natural successor to that line of progression.”

Even though it sounds a bit ominous, it’s all pretty harmless–much like how Wile E. Coyote is constantly risking his life to catch Road Runner. There’s a family-friendly feeling with bubbly and cute characters and bright colors.

“We didn’t set out to make a game that was dark and gloomy,” he said. “It provides mass appeal with characters that are fun to look at. Even though it has combat, it doesn’t have to be a niche audience or look a certain way. It has broad appeal.”

There’s also a component of strategy.

Similar to The Settlers of Catan, which is one of Pincus’ favorite games, players must have enough resources, like oil, in order to build ships and other materials. Players can either swap with friends in order to complete certain missions, or buy the resources with cash.

Zynga is not the only one recognizing that social games must evolve as players mature.

There are other companies focused on making even more hardcore social games. Just last week, Kabam raised $85 million in capital and Finland-based Supercell raised $12 million.

No doubt Empires & Allies will do well. With roughly 30 million people playing FarmVille and CityVille, Zynga has an impressive marketing machine that allows one game to feed another.

It also won’t hurt that it will be the largest international release for a game yet. Starting tomorrow, it will be available in a dozen languages, including English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Indonesian, Turkish and Traditional Chinese–and for the first time, Malay, Korean and Norwegian.

Ajami said despite the inclination to compare how well Empires & Allies does with CityVille, which hit 14 million players after 30 days, that’s not the goal.

“We don’t really target any of our previous games to beat them,” he said. “But we were really impressed with CityVille’s growth, and have high expectations of all our games.”

Just to be clear, while there’s an end to this game, it’s only the end of the first chapter–meaning this fairy tale could go on and on in perpetuity. “There’s not an end….We are already working on chapter two and beyond,” Ajami promised.

It’s as though this week was tailor-made for Bartkiewicz (pictured), who argues that companies in the cloud business–and their customers, too–are in denial about risk. And by risk I mean not the technological possibility that a service may fail to work as advertised, but in the financial liability sense.

In Amazon’s case, there’s not been any real discussion of financial liability. Even though several companies effectively had to pause operations during the period of its outage last week, the only compensation they seem to be getting, at least for the moment, is a credit on their bill for the time that affected systems were offline and an apology. Apologies and billing credits won’t work for large companies. In a case like that, someone, somewhere has to be on the hook financially in the case of failure.

Handing your data over to someone is in a way comparable to handing goods over to a shipping company who promises to get it safely from one place to the other. Something bad can happen along the way, and often does. Trains derail, ships sink or get attacked by pirates. This is why the insurance industry exists. Yes, data is slightly different because it can be copied, but you get the idea.

Anyway, as if on cue, I found in my in-box today a report from Bartkiewicz’s company, CyberFactors, which specializes in risk analysis related to cloud services. It made for very interesting reading: It has estimated the financial costs associated with the Epsilon breach, and the findings should get your attention. The security breach and release of customer data at the email marketing provider has exposed the company to liabilities that could be as high as $225 million. According to CyberFactor’s research, as many as 75 other companies were involved and the total number of affected email addresses may be as high as 60 million.

Dealing with the repercussions of the breach–informing customers about it, making changes to marketing strategies, and so on–could eventually cost those at the affected companies, which included household names like Best Buy, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citibank, Walgreen’s and the Walt Disney Company, as much as $412 million, pushing the aggregate cost of the incident to $637 million. Think about that. The exposure of an email database could wind up costing more than half a billion dollars.

Yet even that isn’t the worst of it. Once you take into account down-the-line costs, such as fines, forensic audits, litigation and loss of business, the total cost could exceed $3 billion. Roughly half of the total costs to the affected companies will occur in the first year after the breach, and the rest will come in the second and third years. Security breaches have a way of costing long after the incident itself fades from the headlines. Cloud companies, CyberFactors argues, are going to have to start thinking more like banks, insurance companies and hedge funds. The cloud is going to have to grow up.

It hasn’t happened yet, but Drew Bartkiewicz read it and became rather taken by the idea–so much so that he registered the Web domain name cloudcatastrophe.com. Once a regional sales manager for Salesforce.com, he had already drunk deep of the Cloud Kool-Aid. By the time he registered the domain, though, he was working in the insurance industry underwriting insurance policies for technology companies as vice president for cyber and information security risks at The Hartford.

His unique job history has led him to start asking fundamental questions about cloud computing and its business models that should if nothing else give some potential cloud customers pause and nudge cloud service providers–as varied as Salesforce, Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure and the like–to think about something they rarely talk about: Risk.

Don’t confuse this with security. Talk to the executive of any cloud provider, as I did recently with Adam Selipsky of Amazon, and you quickly find out that cloud providers take security seriously and they mean it, because without it they’re out of business.

Rather, the question is this: If a cloud catastrophe happens–critical, financially valuable data is breached or exposed or destroyed on a large scale–who’s financially liable for the damage to the customer’s business? Is it the cloud provider, who agreed to manage the data on behalf of the customer? Or is cloud computing still a use-at-your-own-risk sort of thing? The answer is, there is no clear answer. Bartkiewicz thinks the cloud computing industry will have to start answering it, and soon.

Bartkiewicz recently launched a new company called CyberFactors that aims to do two things. First it evaluates cloud providers for the risk they assume based on the amount of data they manage. Second, the firm helps develop warranties that cloud providers can offer to their customers and cloud policies for insurers so that both sides of the cloud relationship can be prepared for the worst. I caught up with him last week after he spoke at the Cloud Connect conference in Santa Clara, CA.

NewEnterprise: In a nutshell, what do you think is wrong with the cloud computing business models that are so popular and winning over so many customers?

Bartkiewicz: I’m an old Salesforce guy, so I was a big believer in the cloud, and then I got involved underwriting technology risk for insurance companies. I started to see some very interesting patterns emerge. The cost of failure is going up. So are the number of data breaches, and so are the laws imposing regulation on companies that handle data. Cloud computing companies are not being required to address in their models the implied financial liabilities they have on their balance sheet.

So where’s the implied risk you’re talking about?

If you take 100,000 customers of cloud computing companies, each is going to value their data in very different ways. Some use the cloud merely to track sales leads, others use it for trade secrets. Still others have identifying information on their customers. If a cloud company were to wind up suffering a catastrophic breach it would be in the long-term position of arguing with the customer over the value of the data compromised. The end result is a tremendous off-balance sheet liability, and shareholders and analysts who follow these companies aren’t connecting the dots. They need to be asking tough questions about this.

So where do you come into the picture?

Right now the thinking among the cloud companies is that any problem created by technology can be solved by more technology. They talk a lot about security, and they’re serious, but this isn’t a security issue. There’s not an industry in the world that doesn’t disperse risk through the means of insurance. I don’t mean to suggest that the cloud companies need to get insurance. What I mean is that they need to make insurance easy to get and affordable for their customers.

Wouldn’t something like risk be covered in a service-level agreement?

Right now the norm is that cloud companies cap their indemnification at the value of the contract. So if you spend $10,000 a year on a cloud application, the maximum you can get in the case of a breach is $10,000. But the data in question could be worth many times that. The average cyber-incident in our models costs $4.5 million.

And what does Cyberfactors actually do?

It’s a risk quantification tool. Companies that have cyber risk on their books today, whether or not it’s in the cloud, can make better informed transactions with cloud companies. Companies who use cloud computing need to know who absorbs the cost to fail, given the cost to fail is going up. There is a record number of class action lawsuits over privacy breaches, and regulators are imposing a lot of costs that result from a breach that have to be absorbed. This is a global problem in terms of data liability. Second, we have a platform called Cloudinsure.com that tries to “mash” cloud computing with insurance. Cloud computing needs massive risk transfer in order to save itself from itself.

So what companies are you working with?

I can’t say, but I can say we’re working with two cloud companies right now to help them design warranties. We just launched the company. And if a cloud has too much risk, and the warranty approach doesn’t make sense, we can also design insurance policies and then bring in the insurance companies to help back it.

What do the cloud companies think of this? Have you taken the idea to them?

I brought this concept to a cloud company. When I told them they need to disperse their risk, they said it would slow down the sales cycle. It was quite telling because the number one growth pattern for companies right now is denial.

Steve Case is right to point out that AOL CEO Tim Armstrong’s “one plus one equals eleven” logic didn’t pan out during the first boom, when Case was running AOL and engineered the disastrous Time Warner deal.

But here, at least, both companies are trying to do the same thing: Make a lot of Web stuff at a low price, and sell ads against it.

So maybe AOL + HuffPo won’t equal 11. And maybe 10x Huffington Post’s reported 2010 revenue is a very pre-Lehman multiple. But the broad strokes here make sense to me:

AOL is pushing its workers very hard to make more content it can sell. HuffPo is a content-making machine:

Huffington Post still has the reputation as a left-leaning political site written by Arianna Huffington’s celebrity pals. In reality, it is most concerned with attracting eyeballs anyway it can. Sometimes it’s with well-regarded investigative journalism, and much more often it’s via very aggressive, very clever aggregation. And sometimes it’s by simply paying very, very close attention to what Google wants, which leads to stories like “What Time Does The Super Bowl Start?“

However they’ve done it, it’s worked–much more efficiently than AOL, which is headed in that direction as well. AOL reaches about 112 million people in the U.S. every month with a staff of 5,000. The Huffington Post, which employed about 200 people prior to the deal, gets to about 26 million.*

AOL can start selling this stuff immediately:

HuffPo reportedly generated around $30 million in revenue last year, but that was done using a relatively small staff that sales chief Greg Coleman had just started building. AOL’s much bigger sales group, which has just about finished its lengthy reorg, should be able to boost that performance immediately.

AOL can afford it:

Tim Armstrong’s company ended 2010 with $725 million in cash, much of which it generated by selling off old assets. This seems like a relatively easy check to write and one that shouldn’t involve a lot of overlapping staff–AOL figures it will save $20 million annually in cost overlaps, but that it will spend about $20 million this year on restructuring charges. HuffPo is about four percent of AOL’s size, and several of its top executives are already stepping aside. (This is the second time in two years that sales boss Greg Coleman has been moved out of a job by Tim Armstrong.) The biggest risk here will be in the way that Huffington, who is now editor in chief for all of AOL’s edit staff, gets along with her new employees. On the other hand, morale is low enough at many AOL sites that it will be hard to make things worse.

AOL Gets a Really Big Brand:

There’s some downside risk to attaching Arianna Huffington’s name to a big, mainstream media brand, as her politics and/or persona might scare off some readers and/or advertisers. But two years after Armstrong arrived from Google, AOL still doesn’t have a definable identity, other than “the Web site your parents might still pay for even though there’s no reason to do so.” Being known as “the guys who own Huffington Post” is infinitely better than that.

HuffPo’s “pro” list is much shorter, but only because there’s not much to think about for them: Huffington, co-founder Kenneth Lerer and their backers get a nice return on the five years and $37 million they put into the company. And those who stay on get to leverage the benefits of a much larger acquirer–access to more eyballs and more advertisers. Easy enough to understand.

Spinal-tap-ampli
Uploaded by TZA. – Click for more funny videos.

*(Something about these numbers, culled from AOL’s and Huffington Post’s own releases, doesn’t add up, as AOL now says the combined company will have 117 million uniques. But it’s close enough for now.)

The last time Jobs went on medical leave, in January of 2009, Apple shares tanked, falling some eight percent to $78.50. But in the months that followed, they rose more than 50 percent, despite continued concerns over his health. By the end of June, Jobs was back at work. By September he was appearing onstage at Apple events.

Then came the iPad. And the iPhone 4. By October of 2010 the company’s shares had risen above $300 for the first time ever. And today they stand at $348.48.

In the end, Apple really didn’t miss a beat the last time Jobs stepped away to focus on his health, despite all the hysterical speculation that it might. And it’s not likely to this time, either — regardless of the open-ended nature of his leave and what some folks are describing as a “less optimistic” tone in his message to employees.

“Steve Jobs’s third medical leave raises the possibility, however remote, that he may not return to Apple,” Needham analyst Charlie Wolf told me this morning. “Jobs’s absence should have no measurable impact on Apple’s financial performance for several years, if ever. It took John Sculley, arguably one of the worst managers in the country’s history, three years to erase Jobs’s legacy in the 1980s. Today, starting with Tim Cook, Apple has one of the deepest and strongest managerial benches in this country. Tim Cook has matured into one of the leading managers in this country (see video below). However, no one can replace Steve Jobs, arguably the leading innovator in the past century, beginning with the Mac, then the iPod, iPhone and iPad in the past decade. What Apple loses in Jobs’s absence is the opportunity and ability to disrupt and redefine still other industries.”

Charlie’s point is a good one, though I disagree that Apple risks losing its ability to disrupt and redefine in Jobs’s absence. I think that Jobs baked those things into the company, its culture and executive leadership long ago. In fact, one could argue that it’s Apple, not the iPhone or iPad, that is Jobs’s masterpiece product, a company designed to set the bar for the industry, regardless of whether it’s him leading its day-to-day operations or not.

Below, Tim Cook speaks at Auburn University’s spring 2010 commencement.

PREVIOUSLY

• Steve Jobs Asked for Privacy–and He Deserves It This Time
• Apple Shares Down Nearly 8 Percent in Frankfurt on News of Jobs’s Medical Leave
• Citing Health, Steve Jobs Steps Away From Apple, Again
• Deutsche Bank Joins the Running of the Apple Bulls
• Jobs: “I’m Vertical, Back at Apple and Loving Every Day of It”
• Apple Investors Are Wusses
• When Steve Jobs Said “Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish,” He Did Not Mean This Foolish
• AAPL Sauce
• Apple’s Steve Jobs: “I Have Decided to Take a Medical Leave of Absence”
• The Entire Letter: Steve Jobs Explains His Health Problem: “Hormone Imbalance”–Predicts Recovery by Spring and Will Stay On as CEO
• Ain’t Nobody’s Business If Jobs Is or Isn’t

SecureWorks, which is privately held, says it has about 2,900 customers in 70 countries, and that its customers include 15 percent of the Fortune 500, as well as 1,500 banks and credit unions, though typical of a security company, it doesn’t name any of them. In 2009 it acquired the managed security business of VeriSign. It has about 700 employees and projected revenue of about $120 million.

It’s also known for its top-flight malware research team. Last year it was involved in the research and response around a banking Trojan called Origami, which originated in Russia and was designed to steal sign-in credentials.

Dell says the deal will expand its IT-as-service offerings. It also looks to be, at least in part, a reaction to Hewlett-Packard’s acquisition of security firm ArcSight in October. No financial terms are being disclosed, but Dell had been involved in a reselling partnership with SecureWorks since July of last year. It’s also Dell’s second acquisition in as many months. On Dec. 13 it spent $820 million for the health IT company Compellent.

Apple (AAPL) stock is clearly on a tear and will be for some time. But that doesn’t mean it is risk-free, says Bernstein Research analyst Toni Sacconaghi. In a research note issued this morning, he outlined his bear case for the stock, pointing to five potential pitfalls that might undermine it.

“These five concerns are as follows,” writes Sacconaghi. “(1) Apple’s market cap is too large for it to outperform, and its image has migrated from underdog to Silicon Valley bully, which will increasingly pit competitors against it; (2) Increased regulatory scrutiny threatens to undermine Apple’s powerful iOS ecosystem; (3) Sustained growth in iPhones will inevitably lead to margin pressure; (4) Near-term expectations for iPhone and iPad units are getting heady, risking disappointment; and (5) Apple insistence on retaining cash points to a risk of the company squandering it on a flawed acquisition.”

Sacconaghi makes a case for each, but in most instances, it’s a bit of a stretch and seems to hinge on hypothetical scenarios (what if content providers collectively choose to support a non-Apple platform) or unfavorable outcomes to developing scenarios (what if the Federal Trade Commission finds Apple’s behavior in the mobile advertising market to be anticompetitive). So much so, that in the end, the analyst concludes that none of them presents an imminent threat.

“We have articulated the bear case for Apple investors principally as a checklist of issues to monitor,” he writes. “At this point, none of the aforementioned potential pitfalls concerns us sufficiently to change our earnings estimates or price targets….We continue to view AAPL as the most secularly attractive name in our coverage universe.”

• News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch tried to lower expectations that his Fox broadcast network would hire Conan O’Brien.
• Murdoch hinted that his book publishing unit is in line to get a new deal on e-books from Amazon, just as Macmillan has demanded (as will other publishers).

On the second point, here’s my on-the-fly transcription and paraphrasing of Murdoch’s comments about Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL) and e-book pricing. It’s one of the most candid descriptions you’ll hear from a top executive about Big Media’s reluctance to embrace digital distribution at the expense of its existing system and revenue:

“We don’t like the Amazon model of $9.99….We think it really devalues books and hurts all the retailers of hardcover books. We’re not against electronic books; on the contrary, we like them very much” because they cost us less to distribute, “but we want some room to maneuver.” The Apple deal…“does allow some flexibility and higher prices” though e-books will still be lower than print versions. And now Amazon is willing to sit down with us again and renegotiate.

UPDATE: Here’s a more complete transcript from Seeking Alpha:

We don’t like the Amazon model of selling everything at $9.99. They don’t pay us that. They pay us the full wholesale price of $14 or whatever we charge. We think it really devalues books and it hurts all the retailers of the hard cover books. We are not against [inaudible] books. On the contrary we like them very much indeed. It is low cost to us and so on. But we want some room to maneuver in it. Amazon, sorry Apple in its agreement with us which has not been disclosed in detail does allow for a variety of slightly higher prices.

There will be prices very much less than the printed copies of books but still will not be fixed in a way that Amazon has been doing it. It appears that Amazon is now ready to sit down with us again and renegotiate pricing.

Again, it’s impossible to stress how scarring the music labels’ experience has been for Big Media. And they’re determined not to repeat the experience. Their takeaway, though, seems to be that they can stave off digital distribution by keeping prices high and inventory relatively scarce. Hard to believe consumers are going to go for that.

Earlier

A first glimpse at News Corp.’s fourth-quarter earnings (which, due to the company’s weird fiscal calendar, is technically the company’s Q2 for 2010): Pretty good. And much better than a year ago (thankfully). After factoring out one-time charges, the company posted earnings of 25 cents on revenue of $8.7 billion.

The Street was looking for earnings of 20 cents on revenue of $8.23 billion, and analysts were also hoping the company would boost its earnings forecast, due in part to a bump from the ginormous success of “Avatar.” No word on guidance in the earnings release, though.

I’ll pick through the release for other worthwhile nuggets for the next few minutes. And then the real show begins at 4:30 Eastern, when the company’s earnings call–easily the most entertaining one in its peer group due to the censor-free presence of CEO Rupert Murdoch–begins. We’ll be looking for commentary on his battle/negotiation with Google (GOOG), upcoming content deals with Apple and the iPad, his thoughts on paid content in general, a dash of political commentary or two, and an update on the turnaround effort at MySpace.

From the release: A pretty nice quarter at most of the conglomerate’s divisions, including the previously battered broadcast TV and newspaper groups. News Corp. says print revenue at The Wall Street Journal was up five percent and ads on the Journal’s digital network were up 17 percent.

MySpace and the company’s other digital properties, shuffled into the “other” category, don’t get much of a mention, but don’t seem to have done much, not surprisingly.

But News Corp does mention that digital media earnings were down $32 million compared with a year ago, “principally due to lower search and advertising revenue.” And the company lost $29 million on “digital media dispositions”–i.e., the fire sale/giveaways of properties like Rotten Tomatoes and Photobucket.

Here’s the breakdown by segment (click table to enlarge):

Liveblog

CFO Dave DeVoe: “Extremely pleased” with the quarter.

Movies: Revenue up due to decent DVD sales (no MGM problem here). Also high costs due to “Avatar,” but big profits from the movie will be coming in during the next couple quarters.

Broadcast TV: Local ads are improving; the telecom, fast food, finance categories are all improving.

Cable: Revenue is up 18 percent. Affiliate revenue is up 21 percent (more money for Fox News subs), and there was a “single-digit” boost in ad dollars.

Newspapers: Journal dollars are up, operating costs down. Ad revenue got better as the quarter progressed.

Books: Revenue up, expenses down.

“Other”/MySpace: Digital media revenue down, but cost-cutting helped trim losses.

News Corp. is boosting its dividend by 25 percent.

Guidance: The company’s operating income growth rate is expected to grow from single digits to the high teens. Better than anticipated: Film group, TV and cable. But revenue goals for digital media, including MySpace, will take longer than anticipated.

Murdoch sings the praises of content. [I will not argue with him, for now]. “Avatar” is awesome, he says, a “harbinger of fundamental change in the industry.” Also really good: “Alvin and the Chipmunks.” Fun to hear Rupe say “Alvin and the Chipmunks.”

WSJ is the No.1 paper in U.S. in terms of circulation, influence, quality. WSJ.com is a “digital model for newspapers around the world.”

Fox News Channel’s audience is both “loyal and lucrative.” Roger Ailes is doing an “admirable job” [translation: Bite me, Michael Wolff--the author of a recent Murdoch biography].

Last year, Murdoch says, News Corp.’s pay-to-play ideas sounded nutty, but now “the content clan has gathered around our ideas.” Consumers must pay and will pay “to be entertained and informed.” All those awesome new gadgets being made in China and sold at the Consumer Electronics Show need content or they’re worthless. Content, content, content. Get it? Content, content, content.

Murdoch says he’ll be wringing more dollars from cable operators. And “when it comes to online news, we’ll be changing that model too,” adding that News Corp. is in “substantive conversations with device makers on developing subscription models” to deliver content. And don’t forget about 3-D!

Not performing well but “long-term growth drivers”: Sky Italia satellite service. Also Sky Deutschland. And MySpace is “not yet where we want it.” In the last quarter, however, MySpace “started to see signs of traffic stabilization.”

Shout-outs for Chase Carey and other managers (but not by name).

Q&A

Question: How big a deal is retransmission consent in coming years? $40 million a month? $100 million a month?

Chase Carey: No numbers, but it’s going to be a “transforming event.” We have two of top 10 distributors done, more coming. It’s a three- or four-year process to knock these deals out.

Q: Does this fix the broadcast model?

Carey: “Yes, I guess you could say simplistically, it fixes it.”

Q: What’s the timing on an “Avatar” DVD, and what about a sequel? Also, how do TV ads look this year?

Murdoch: For “Avatar,” we think about 60 percent of profits will be in the next six months. Which means the DVD will be coming “as soon as possible,” but the movie will stay in cinemas for a while because we’re doing huge dollars in theaters still. Sequel? “Very early talks about it. Jim has ideas for one. We haven’t come to any agreement with him….Being Jim Cameron, I wouldn’t hold your breath for an early one.” Asked about the economics of a future release (“Will you keep the same revenue split?”), Rupe sort of rumbles and growls and sort of doesn’t have much to say. “Ask anybody; it is very easy to drop a $100 million in a hurry on a film, and we’d like to lay off some of the risk.”

Carey: TV trends for this year are “positive.”

Murdoch: TV stations will be up 18 or 19 percent, but last year was terrible. We’re still down compared with two years ago. Hard to see more than a quarter in advance. In newspapers, it’s hard to see more than a few weeks.

[Missed a question on Sky Italia here.]

Q: What are growth prospects for cable networks? They’ve been driven a lot recently by new subscriber fees. How much longer can you get those boosts?

Murdoch: Overall, “we think we have great potential for growth. Quite a long way to go yet.” Look at how NBCU’s USA is growing.

Carey: In the U.S., we’re moving to “quality over quantity”–we can wring more out of foreign exchange, etc. Fox News is only getting more powerful; it has “great upside.”

Q: Regarding newspapers, what growth came from organic increase versus currency fluctuations?

The majority is from foreign exchange.

Q: Does your guidance assume that the “Avatar” DVD is coming in the next two quarters?

Murdoch: “Yes, but it won’t be 3-D” [which I don't think the analyst was asking about].

Q: Back to retransmission consent: You’ve been getting more and more money from cable guys. Why can’t you get $4 or $5 per subscription for Fox broadcast subs?

Murdoch: “We’re modest people.”

Carey: Hyuk, hyuk. Real answer: It takes time. “We try to approach this constructively. We’ve built businesses with [cable guys], we’ve built valuable cable channels” [translation: patience!]. We want to extract more without killing the cable guys.

Murdoch: That said, we’re asking for the same thing [for broadcast channels] that the cable networks are getting, which “certainly won’t kill the cable companies.”

Q: Please talk about value of film libraries (i.e., MGM). They’re generating big operating profits for cable now. How long will this last?

Murdoch: Regarding the MGM auction, “you can count us out of that one altogether” because others will pay more than we’re willing. And we’re not pursuing the Miramax catalog at all.

Carey: A film library by itself, without new stuff coming through, is a “depreciating asset.”

Q: On guidance: You say the ad market getting better, etc., but it sounds like you’re saying Ebidta growth is slowing.

Murdoch: “We honestly do not have any visibility about the last quarter.”

Q: On books/e-books/Apple, what’s going on with that?

Murdoch: We don’t like the Amazon model of $9.99….We think it really devalues books and hurts all the retailers of hardcover books. We’re not against electronic books; on the contrary, we like them very much, lower costs to us, but we want some room to maneuver. The Apple deal does allow “some flexibility and higher prices” though e-books will still be lower than print. And now Amazon is willing to sit down with us again.

Press Q&A

Q: What’s up with plans to charge for newspapers on the Web?

Murdoch: “Not ready to announce yet [long pause]. We won’t be ready yet to make an announcement.” A “lot of talks with a lot of people.” There will be more to say within the next two months, Murdoch adds.

Q: Are you still going to fall $100 million short on the Google deal?

Murdoch: Yes. People using social networks don’t use search a great deal. Facebook has seen this, too. It’s “really too early to make confident predictions…but from going down, we’re beginning to go up.”

Q: Can we get some details about Time Warner Cable (TWC) deal?

Nope.

What about Conan O’Brien on late night?

Murdoch: If the programming people can show us we can do it and make a profit on it, we’ll do it in a flash. I’m sure there have been conversations with Conan, but “if you mean real negotiations, no.”

[Missed two questions here.]

Q: Another late-night question: If you do go into negotiations with Conan, how do you placate your affiliates?

Murdoch: It’s a different deal than NBC. They screwed up 10 pm, which reduced the lead-in to local news. Our affiliates run syndicated programming at 11:30, though, so it will take time to adjust there.

Call ended. This one seemed short to me.

More or less redundant disclosure: News Corp. (NWS) owns this Web site.

“There have been some suggestions that the decision was based on allegations and not facts,” said Jonathan Todd, a commission spokesman. “With the publication of this decision, you can see precisely the details of the facts and how Intel broke the law.”

Below, a few of those details:

From a series of 2006 Lenovo e-mails:
“As you know I have been negotiating a special deal with Intel. The net is that Intel has made us a very attractive offer that we will end up taking. Our part of this deal is that we will award all business of shipments for the rest of this calendar year to Intel. In exchange, Intel will give us a special deal for both [geographical area] and [geographical area]. The deal is worth millions of dollars.”

“[two Lenovo executives] had a dinner with [an Intel executive] tonight (…). […] When we asked Intel what level of support we will get on NB [notebook] in next quarter, [he] told us (…) the deal is base[d] [sic] on our assumption to not launch AMD NB [notebook] platform. (…) Intel deal will not allow us to launch AMD.”

From a 2002 HP e-mail concerning the company’s negotiation of a rebate agreement with Intel:
“PLEASE DO NOT… communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to 5 percent AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement.”

From a 2004 HP e-mail:
“You can NOT use the commercial AMD line in the channel in any country, it must be done direct. “If you do and we get caught (and we will) the Intel moneys (each month) is gone (they would terminate the deal). The risk is too high.”

From a 2004 Dell e-mail:
“[Intel senior executives] are prepared for [all-out war] if Dell joins the AMD exodus. We get ZERO MCP for at least one quarter while Intel ‘investigates the details’ (…) We’ll also have to bite and scratch to even hold 50%, including a commitment to NOT ship in Corporate. If we go in Opti [Optiplex corporate desktop line], they cut it to <20% and use the added MCP to compete against us" and "It looks 100% certain that Intel will take MCP to ZERO for at least one quarter while they 'review all of the numbers and implications.' (...) Appears likely that Intel would take MCP to <25% of current levels UNLESS we agree up front not to ship into [Product line]. If we do that, we're in 'détente' mode and can keep MPC [sic] at 50%. However, we don't meet [AMD Senior Executive]'s T&Cs [Terms and Conditions]. So, I would plan on MCP at <20% levels if we execute AMD across [Product line]and [Product line] as AMD wants."

Sounds pretty damning, no? Well, Intel doesn’t think so. In a hastily issued response, the company dismissed the EC’s release of the documents saying, “there’s nothing new here.”

“This Decision reflects the underlying bias we have come to expect from the case team that ran this investigation,” Intel said. “The Commission relied heavily on speculation found in e-mails from lower level employees that did not participate in the negotiation of the relevant agreements. At the same time, they ignored or minimized hard evidence of what actually happened, including highly authoritative documents, written declarations and testimony given under oath by senior individuals who negotiated the transactions at issue.”

“There have been some suggestions that the decision was based on allegations and not facts,” said Jonathan Todd, a commission spokesman. “With the publication of this decision, you can see precisely the details of the facts and how Intel broke the law.”

Below, a few of those details:

From a series of 2006 Lenovo e-mails:
“As you know I have been negotiating a special deal with Intel. The net is that Intel has made us a very attractive offer that we will end up taking. Our part of this deal is that we will award all business of shipments for the rest of this calendar year to Intel. In exchange, Intel will give us a special deal for both [geographical area] and [geographical area]. The deal is worth millions of dollars.”

“[two Lenovo executives] had a dinner with [an Intel executive] tonight (…). […] When we asked Intel what level of support we will get on NB [notebook] in next quarter, [he] told us (…) the deal is base[d] [sic] on our assumption to not launch AMD NB [notebook] platform. (…) Intel deal will not allow us to launch AMD.”

From a 2002 HP e-mail concerning the company’s negotiation of a rebate agreement with Intel:
“PLEASE DO NOT… communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to 5 percent AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement.”

From a 2004 HP e-mail:
“You can NOT use the commercial AMD line in the channel in any country, it must be done direct. “If you do and we get caught (and we will) the Intel moneys (each month) is gone (they would terminate the deal). The risk is too high.”

From a 2004 Dell e-mail:
“[Intel senior executives] are prepared for [all-out war] if Dell joins the AMD exodus. We get ZERO MCP for at least one quarter while Intel ‘investigates the details’ (…) We’ll also have to bite and scratch to even hold 50%, including a commitment to NOT ship in Corporate. If we go in Opti [Optiplex corporate desktop line], they cut it to <20% and use the added MCP to compete against us" and "It looks 100% certain that Intel will take MCP to ZERO for at least one quarter while they 'review all of the numbers and implications.' (...) Appears likely that Intel would take MCP to <25% of current levels UNLESS we agree up front not to ship into [Product line]. If we do that, we're in 'détente' mode and can keep MPC [sic] at 50%. However, we don't meet [AMD Senior Executive]'s T&Cs [Terms and Conditions]. So, I would plan on MCP at <20% levels if we execute AMD across [Product line]and [Product line] as AMD wants."

Sounds pretty damning, no? Well, Intel doesn’t think so. In a hastily issued response, the company dismissed the EC’s release of the documents saying, “there’s nothing new here.”

“This Decision reflects the underlying bias we have come to expect from the case team that ran this investigation,” Intel said. “The Commission relied heavily on speculation found in e-mails from lower level employees that did not participate in the negotiation of the relevant agreements. At the same time, they ignored or minimized hard evidence of what actually happened, including highly authoritative documents, written declarations and testimony given under oath by senior individuals who negotiated the transactions at issue.”

The buzzy microblogging service has just grabbed its highest-profile Google (GOOG) exec to date: Alexander Macgillivray, a deputy general counsel at the search firm, is coming aboard as Twitter’s top lawyer.

Macgillivray is best known as the lead Google attorney on high-profile intellectual property cases like its fights with book publishers, the Associated Press and Viacom (VIA). Twitter has yet to find itself mired in that sort of thing, but give it time.

Macgillivray is just the latest Googler to land at Twitter. Earlier this year, the start-up nabbed Doug Bowman, the search giant’s lead designer, to join the ranks of several other Googleplex veterans, including, of course, co-founders Ev Williams and Biz Stone.

There are lots of reasons to leave a big company for a scrappy start-up, but just to spell out one obvious one: If you’re into risk, there is a whole lot more upside at Twitter these days.

The company’s last funding round pegged its value at $240 million, and if it ends up being acquired in the next few years, that number could be much higher. But Google shares stalled long before last fall’s stock market collapse (click chart to enlarge):

[Image credit: Doc Searls]

“The majority of all internet traffic is file sharing, which is why nothing other than the new IPRED law can explain this major drop in traffic,” Anti-piracy Agency lawyer Henrik Pontén told Metro. “This sends a very strong signal that the legislation works.” Christian Engstrom, vice chairman of the Pirate Party, a group seeking copyright law reform, agreed, but said the decline is likely to be only temporary. Once the public realizes that the odds of being busted for file-sharing are low, Internet traffic will return to normal levels again. “Today, there is a very drastic reduction in internet traffic,” Engstrom told The BBC. “But experience from other countries suggests that while file-sharing drops on the day a law is passed, it starts climbing again. One of the reasons is that it takes people a few weeks to figure out how to change their security settings so that can share files anonymously. We estimate there are two million file-sharing [computers] in Sweden, so even if they prosecuted a 1,000 people to make an example of them, for an individual user it is still a very small risk.”

[Image credit: Chart courtesy Royal Pingdom]

Not according to Sweden’s Youth Care Foundation, which has just finished a report that pegs WoW as the single most dangerous game on the market and the one with the highest risk of addiction. “There is not a single case of game addiction that we have worked with in which World of Warcraft has not played a part,” hyperbolized the report’s author, Sven Rollenhagen. “It is the crack cocaine of the computer game world. Some will play it till they drop.”

And indeed, some will. Last year, a 15-year-old Swedish boy did just that after a 20-hour marathon. But it seems a bit heavy handed to tar WoW for the incident. It’s not as if the boy suffered a temporary state of full-blown paranoid psychosis or ended up in a red-light district tricking for game time. He passed out. Had his dealersparents stepped in, the incident might never have occurred. WoW does offer a pretty robust set of parental controls.

For Q3, the company posted revenue of $252.4 million, above the Street at $248 million. But profits of 41 cents a share were 13 cents short of the Street consensus of 54 cents.

The shocker is the guidance: For Q4, the company now sees revenue of $70 to $85 million, just a fraction of the Street consensus of $270.1 million. For the full year, the company now sees revenue of $650 million to $750 million, well below the Street at $901.9 million.

In a statement, the company said that “given the uncertainty of project and customers’ financing coupled with softening solar market demand in Europe and USA at the year-end, the company has shifted its short-term operational emphasis to preserving cash and minimizing risk from the credit environment.”

Read the rest of this post

WaMu’s failure is historic–the largest bank bust on record. The company’s assets are equivalent to about two-thirds of those held by the 747 insolvent thrift institutions and sold off by the Resolution Trust during the S&L crisis.

With more than 20 percent of global technology spending coming from the financial industry, WaMu’s failure and the collapse of other institutions are certain to have repercussions in tech. “This is game-changing,” Gartner (IT) analyst Joanne Correia said of the economic crisis recently. “People are going to stop new software deployments. They’ll cut in the applications space. In PCs and servers, everyone will stop putting in new hardware.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Lehman Brothers: $2.5 Billion for a Bankruptcy Well Done
• Here’s $39 Billion in Recognition for Your Hard Work on the Forthcoming Financial Crisis
• Weekend at Bernanke’s II
• Weekend at Bernankes

[Image Credit: Ape Lad/Flickr]