“We believe the iPhone should see continued solid growth into the December quarter with support from improved inventory in the US,” Barclay’s analyst Ben Reitzes said in a note to clients today. “Apple has now expanded distribution to Target (Target also sells the iPad) to join others including Apple stores, AT&T, Best Buy, Radio Shack and Wal-Mart. Perhaps more importantly, we believe availability is improving overseas, with the iPhone 4 set to ship for its first full quarter in China. International demand seems strong into calendar year-end.”

For the quarter ending in December, Reitzes figures Apple will sell 14.8 million iPhones, with sales ramping up after that, assuming the company moves to a multicarrier model in the states. Says Reitzes, “As we move into C1Q we continue to believe it is quite likely that we will see the iPhone introduced on Verizon in the US which should continue sales momentum. By CY-end 2011, we believe Apple will have more than 2 carriers in the US, which could help its market share vs. Android significantly.”

News International Ltd., said Tuesday that around half of the 105,000 paying readers are monthly subscribers, including those to the digital sites and to the Times iPad app and Kindle edition. The others are either single copy or pay-as-you-go customers. There are also about 100,000 joint digital and print subscribers who have activated their digital accounts to the Web sites, the iPad app, or both, since launch, the company said.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Oh dear, one endless, screwed-up global airline ride without Internet connectivity and when I finally manage to get online (looking right at the Spanish Steps in Rome. Sweeeeet!), BoomTown finds that a new round o’ MicroHoo is apparently on again.

(In the immortal words of Michael Corleone–see video below–in the otherwise awful “Godfather: Part III”: “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!”)

Except, judging from exactly how loud the loudmouthed chatter from a trio of Microsoft execs has become–the latest being COO Kevin Turner–it’s actually not.

Because if there were real and substantial talks going on right now between Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT) about a new deal to partner, of course, you likely would not hear a peep from them.

Nonetheless, Turner is the third exec from the software giant to mention that Microsoft would love to play let’s-make-a-deal with Yahoo–not to necessarily go back and swallow it whole, a deal that Yahoo would now do in a New York minute, but related to its search assets.

In an interview with the Times of London, referencing new CEO Carol Bartz:

“We’ve certainly made her aware and the Yahoo! board aware that if they are ever interested in an opportunity to partner with them on search, we’d like to sit down and at least have the conversation. It has to make economic sense to both parties.”

Turner’s words come after similar sentiments were recently expressed by both Microsoft CFO Chris Liddell and the very-on-the-topic CEO Steve Ballmer.

We’ve seen this public tactic before, of course–actually, ever since Ballmer’s ill-fated attempt to take over Yahoo ended badly. Since then, he and others at Microsoft have not failed to either insult Yahoo’s prospects or say how very much it would like to do a deal with Yahoo.

The recent carrot approach, of course, is because Microsoft is now facing three important challenges.

First, for now, it looks like Yahoo’s search share seems to have stabilized and even improved, after years of decline.

Second, for all its efforts at hiring top search guns, spending heavily and generally declaring war on market leader Google (GOOG), Microsoft’s share has remained puny and static.

And third, it is facing a much different kind of Yahoo leader, who–while not necessarily as Web savvy as she should be–is not someone who is likely to be rolled or rattled as easily as former CEO Jerry Yang.

Because, as Bartz recently quipped–this woman likes to throw out the biz bromides more than Warren Buffett–at the Morgan Stanley Technology conference:

“I said this to Mr. Ballmer, I will not negotiate with you and 30,000 of my closest friends. I will negotiate privately….If something happens, you will know about it then.”

Still, despite Bartz’s cool demeanor, she and Ballmer will surely soon–if they have not already, that is–be meeting in some “secret” airplane hangar or other remote place dealmakers like to reconnoiter.

(Here’s a we-have-a-lot-in-common opening chit-chat topic: How snarky/rude/pushy you both think bloggers like me are!)

Because in order to get some traction on Google in the search arena, Microsoft has little choice–except perhaps making a big, sloppy bid for Facebook or Twitter–but to find a way to partner with Yahoo.

Yahoo too. As much as Bartz has been bragging that she has tons of leverage (she both does and she doesn’t), she also needs a powerful and rich friend in the years ahead in the search game, which will get uglier and more expensive as growth slows and massive innovation is needed.

Already, reports of that slowdown–spurred by the economic crisis–are here. It is in these down times that doing a deal, to get ready for the inevitable revival, seem most fortuitous.

That is, if everyone can stop talking and start, well, talking.

Until then, here’s the great Al Pacino, delivering the classic line:

The New York Times (NYT) is in lousy shape, so it needs to sell off About.com, the kind-of-portal, kind-of-blog-aggregator it bought from Primedia in 2005. So says Jason Calacanis, whose Mahalo.com is a kind-of-portal, kind-of-blog-aggregator.

Not true, say two people familiar with the Times and About; they say the paper isn’t shopping the property.

Calacanis, who made the remarks during the most recent This Week In Tech podcast, doesn’t go into much detail about his claim. Gawker has a link to the audio, but here’s the relevant transcript, in its entirety:

They’re going to have sell About. They’ve been trying to sell About.com, from what I understand.”

NYT spokeswoman Catherine Mathis offered up the standard we-don’t-comment-rumors-and-speculation line.

That said, it doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen at some point in the future. The Times really does need money, and since About.com is both growing and profitable, it may be the most valuable asset the Times now owns.

But that’s exactly why the New York Times would be reluctant to part with it. Like it or not, About.com may well represent the Times’ future.

This isn’t the first time a Web reporter has suggested that About.com is on the block, by the way. I wrote the same thing earlier this year, and I was wrong then.