An astonishing spike. And it’s even more astonishing when you break it down by sector. In the global home or consumer market, the Mac posted shipment growth of 17.1 percent, while the broader market posted a decline of .6 percent. In the business market, Mac shipments grew 65.4 percent compared to the market growth rate of 9.7 percent. And in government, they grew 549.5 percent compared to the broader market’s 8.4 percent. Of course, government sales represent only 1 percent of total Mac sales, so that spike appears more dramatic than it really is, but still…

So what’s the engine for all this growth? Needham analyst Charlie Wolf thinks it’s a halo effect from Apple’s iOS device trinity–the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad–particularly, the latter two, which are gaining lots of traction in both the home and business markets (Oddly, Apple suffered a decline in the education segment, where it has traditionally been pretty strong).

“The surge in Mac sales in the business market coincided with the introduction of the iPad in the second quarter of 2010,” says Wolf. “It would be foolish to assign a cause and effect connection between the two events. However, in less than a year, the iPad has been deployed or piloted in 80 of the Fortune 100 companies, and it’s reasonable to assume the device has invaded smaller businesses at a similar pace. It’s likely, then, that the halo effect emanating from the iPad will be far stronger than the iPhone halo effect in the business market if only because the iPad is a kissing cousin of Apple’s family of notebook computers.”

With tablets running the Google mobile OS beginning to proliferate now, those days of Apple’s easy dominace of the market are winding down. Shipments of Android devices in the quarter, for example, leapt to 2.1 million units from about 100,000. “Apple’s volumes will continue to go up, but market share will inevitably go down,” Strategy Analytics’ director Neil Mawston told Bloomberg . “Even at $500 retail, based on some of the research we’ve done, that’s probably two or three times more than what most mass market consumers are expecting to pay….If you were to ask me in two years time will Apple have less than 50 percent of the global tablet market, I think that’s a certainty.”

Perhaps. Depends on how the competition shakes out, I suppose. And just how high Apple raises the bar for its rivals with the iPad 2.

UPDATE: It also depends on the manner in which the competition reports sales numbers. To wit, it turns out that those 2 million Galaxy Tabs Samsung sold were actually sold into the channel and not necessarily to consumers, suggesting that this spike in Android growth may not be quite what it seems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we didn’t know, until now, is how greatly other link services would benefit from news of the closure.

Late last week, Delicious competitor Pinboard tweeted a link to a screenshot of its traffic graph from the couple of days following the Yahoo leak, overlaid on more-typical traffic from previous days.

The sea-foam green area is Pinboard traffic after the leak, in number of server requests per minute (not unique or new visitors, which would undoubtedly be far lower).

The tiny blue and purple areas beneath represent typical request rates.

You can click on the graph to see it in full size, though the sense of scale speaks for itself.

The retail behemoth’s stock price slipped some 3 percent after hours, evidently because of a disappointing forecast for fourth quarter operating margin. Amazon expects it to be between 3 percent and 4.2 percent. Wall Street had been hoping for 5 percent. And the difference between those two outlooks seems to have overshadowed the 51 cents a share on revenue of $7.56 billion that Amazon reported, which handily exceeded the 48 cents a share on revenue of $7.37 billion analysts had been looking for.

In August, the Worcester, Mass., paper put up a Times-style pay wall: Visitors can read 10 “local” articles a month for free, but after that they need to pay up. It’s not a coincidence that the Telegram is using the same idea that the Times will try in a few months–the paper is one of several local titles owned by the Times itself.

So. How’s that Telegram doing since the wall went up?

Just great, Times CEO Janet Robinson said during the paper’s earnings call today: The Telegram’s metrics are “on plan,” and traffic hasn’t suffered.

In fact, Robinson said, the Times was pleasantly surprised to see that the Telegram’s unique visitors number had increased since the wall went up.

What’s that? I asked the Times for numbers to flesh that one out, but it declined. ComScore, though, does back Robinson up: The Web traffic counter says 281,000 U.S. unique visitors came by the Telegram in August, and that number crept up to 294,000 in September.

That’s a tiny bump, though comScore often has a difficult time measuring smaller sites. For comparison’s sake, note that the Telegram tells advertisers it reaches 700,000 uniques a month.

Still, a bump is a bump. And it’s certainly not the plummet that many people would expect. When the London Times put up a pay wall this summer, for instance, it saw traffic drop a reported 90 percent. (News Corp. owns both the London Times and this site.)

So how do we explain the Telegram’s increase? In the absence of input from the Times or the Telegram (I’ve asked both for comment), we have to speculate. Feel free to add your own in, but I can start with a few theories:

• Maybe the Telegram had some particularly blog-friendly, Facebook-friendly or Google-friendly stories in September. If that’s the case, the metered model would work well for the site, since it encourages casual visitors to show up via referral, without having to pay up. For a relatively modest site like the Telegram, you wouldn’t need many high-traffic stories to push up its base number.
• Or maybe it’s just as simple as a seasonal spike: Traffic numbers often droop in the summer, when people have better things to do than sit in front of their browsers, and then spike back up in the fall.

In any case, this should give the Times a bit of confidence about its strategy for the flagship paper, which it promises to tell us more about soon.

UPDATE: Some readers are having a hard time accepting Robinson’s assertions and comScore’s numbers.

I have no reason to think that Robinson, the Times or the Telegram made the data up. If you’re a conspiracist who thinks otherwise, you should note that the NYT wasn’t boasting about the data during the call, though Robinson did take time to read off a whole laundry list of digital accomplishments. It only came up in response to a question about the Telegram’s performance.

But different third-party analytics companies often reach different conclusions. So if you do want to look at a different data set, here’s one from Compete, via Jonathan Mendez. As you can see, it tells a very different story–a 20 percent drop from August to September (click to enlarge):

Because if you’re trying to handicap the way the copyright lawsuit pans out, today’s document dump won’t do much to help you. There are revelations here, but they’re of the minor and historical variety, and I’ll get to some of them later.

No smoking gun, though. Just a lot of chest-beating and desk-thumping as both sides talk past each other.

Still, it does make for fun reading if you’re of a certain troubled mindset. If you’re not, here’s a summary:

Viacom’s case: YouTube was full of content that wasn’t supposed to be there, and both YouTube and Google knew it.

Of course they knew it! Anyone who visited the site in 2005 and 2006 knew it. The problem was what to do about it.

And that’s the most interesting part of the emails and IM exchanges Viacom has dug up: They let you watch YouTube’s co-founders, and later, Google executives, argue over the best way to keep the site growing like a weed while fending off the lawyers.

Actually, they knew the lawyers would show up eventually. “Ok man, save your meal money for some lawsuits! ;) no really, I guess we’ll just see what happens,” co-founder Chad Hurley tells partners Steve Chen and Jawed Karim via email in July 2005, as the three men decide to leave some copyrighted stuff on the site.

As as YouTube boomed, Google (GOOG) was trying to figure out how its lackluster Google Video site could compete. The big debate, according to former executive David Eun: “Whether we should relax enforcement of our copyright policies in an effort to stimulate traffic growth, despite the inevitable damage it would cause to relationships with content owners.”

Google’s eventual answer, of course, was to buy YouTube. But it went in with open eyes. A due diligence report estimated that just 10 percent of the “premium” stuff on the site was authorized.

Google’s case: Viacom–which talked about buying YouTube–was perfectly happy to use our site to market its movies and TV shows. Until it wasn’t.

Of course it was! In 2005 and 2006, all of the entertainment companies were desperately trying to get their clips in front of the site’s huge audience. Even more so at Viacom (VIA), whose youthful audience was spending lots of time on YouTube.

And the fact that Viacom executives, who had lost MySpace to Rupert Murdoch (remember when MySpace was a world-beater?), were thinking about buying YouTube–in part so Murdoch wouldn’t get it–shouldn’t be surprising, either.

Google makes a lot of the fact that Viacom “secretly” uploaded videos to YouTube, either via its employees or from marketing shops it hired. But I don’t get the impression that the “secret” uploads were supposed to dupe YouTube. I get the impression they were trying to dupe YouTube users into thinking the videos were edgy and cool.

“The goal is to make it look “hijacked,” an executive at Viacom’s Spike network told the producers of a mixed martial arts show, describing a video he gave them so that they could seed it on YouTube. The idea was to make the clip “look as though it was leaked out by production.”

Viacom’s embrace of YouTube does bolster Google’s case in one way. Google shows, fairly effectively, that Viacom’s lawyers have had a hard time figuring out which YouTube clips the company authorized. If Viacom can’t figure out what’s supposed to be on the site, Google argues, how do you expect YouTube employees to know?

So. Strip out all of the depositions, documents and emails, and we’re back to where we started. This case will hinge on the way the court decides to interpret federal copyright law.

Viacom argues that YouTube is a video version of Napster or Grokster–designed to profit from intellectual property it knows is stolen. And Google argues that it’s doing exactly what the Digital Millennium Copyright Act tells it do–asking its users to behave, hoping they do, and taking down offending clips when their owners ask them to.

So pay attention to that ruling–it’s going to be really important. But unless you’re paid to keep an eye on digital media, you can ignore most of today’s paperwork.

[Image credit: Michele Hubacek]

Google also offers up this graph, below (click to enlarge), to give you a sense of the traffic spike it got from Jackson-searchers. It’s impressive, but without metrics it’s sort of hard to gauge what it really means–just like the chart that Google (GOOG) provided about query volume during Barack Obama’s inauguration.

Super Bowl XLIII is nearly upon us, multimillion dollar ads in tow, and since there’s never been as much video, connectivity or interactivity as there is right now, the whole thing is shaping up to be quite the Web 2.0 extravaganza.

From YouTube to Twitter to Facebook and beyond, here’s your guide to all the digital venues available to view, vote on and even interact with in this year’s lineup of ad campaigns.

There is no shortage of sites on which to watch (and rewatch, again and again) the ads: NBC, the game’s official broadcaster, Spike, YouTube, and Hulu, to name just a few (see below for a list). Many of these sites have already aggregated a number of previews and will allow you to vote for your favorite commercials or rank them.

Speaking of Hulu, the video site has created a customizable Super Bowl ad widget that will allow you to display and vote on the ads and can be embedded into Web sites or blogs. The Hulu folks have also been spreading some talk about how they will “reveal the secret behind Hulu” during Super Bowl Sunday. Really, Hulu? We are sweating in anticipation (not).

Many of the companies whose ads will be featured during the game also have content on their corporate Web sites. Some–like the Orlando Sentinel–are playing coy, releasing only teaser clips about their actual ad–essentially creating a commercial about a commercial. It has something to do with a kid in a cape, accompanied by some very somber background piano music.

Others have already released full versions of their ads online. Internet domain company Go Daddy has put two titillating ads up on its site starring sexy race car driver Danica Patrick, fresh from her big debut last year. The company will also feature Internet-only ads with a more salacious spin on the made-for-TV ones.

Meanwhile, sites like Spotbowl and Superbowl-Ads have aggregated lots of information about the commercials. Spotbowl has collected industry rumors and reports and boasts a fairly detailed list of all of this year’s ad sponsors, noting the type of commercial(s) each will play and behind-the-scenes information on many of them.

Superbowl-Ads presents perhaps the most complete Web 2.0 package, which will not only feature the commercials online, but has established a Facebook and Twitter presence as well. Its Facebook site features much of the same content as the site, but also has a video viewer, news tracker apps and discussion board.

And you can even befriend the famous Etrade Baby, who will make another appearance this year. Find him on Twitter under “etradebaby,” although he hasn’t had much to say so far. At the time of this writing, his most recent, and rather cryptic, message was, “I have very little time or patience for clowns.”

You can also follow Superbowl-Ads on Twitter under “superbowlad,” or search #superads09 and #sb43ads for a constant stream of relevant links, information and chatter leading up to and going into the big game.

Meanwhile, Forrester analyst Jeremiah Owyang will be conducting a “TwitterBowl” experiment during the game whereby you can send in your votes to @superbowlads (with an “s” at the end), commenting on the ads and giving each a rating of up to five stars.

Even iTunes is in on the party this year, as you’ll be able to download original music from Pepsi’s SoBe Lifewater ad. Said commercial is one of the few that will be shown in 3-D, provided that you’ve picked up your new 3-D glasses, since the old red-and-blues won’t do the trick, apparently.

So digitally speaking, you’re all ready for the big game. That is, unless, you were looking for actual information about that big game, in which case you’d probably do better somewhere else.

Super Bowl ad watch sites:

NBC
Hulu
Spike
Superbowl-ads
Spotbowl
NFL
Fanhouse
Myspace
Youtube
Adweek

As I noted that day, the timing of the rumor seemed a bit suspicious. With little in the way of news during the holiday week, Jobs’s decision to bail on the Macworld keynote issue still fresh in our minds and his health an obvious shareholder concern, it seemed a bit like an AAPL manipulator’s perfect storm.

Apparently, there may be a bit more to that armchair theory than I thought. Over at Traderhood, writers with far more stock analysis acumen than I, suggest that Apple shares were poised for a huge breakout in price the afternoon of Dec. 30, bolstered by a general upward trend in the market and their own ascending triangle (click on chart below) when they very suspiciously had the wind knocked out of them. “Amazingly at the very point where AAPL’s spike at the tip of the ascending triangle should happen, rumor was introduced and killed the setup completely,” Traderhood blogger Conschmillo explains. “I mean you can have things to happen unexpectedly. It happens all the time, it is a stock market, but to have them placed this [precisely] when everything else is taking off, AAPL included, makes me believe, there is more than meets the eye to why AAPL price is down. If this rumor was not introduced, AAPL would be somewhere around $93.”

So, a favorable technical set-up was thwarted at the moment the odds favored the opposite happening. Coincidence?

UPDATE: Apparently, it was a coincidence. Brian Lam, Editorial Director of Gizmodo, which published the rumor, tells me the site was tipped off well before Dec. 30.

[Image credit: Tin foil hat courtesy Patrick Daley]

(Thanks Barry )