Good day everyone … and thank you for joining us. For the past few years, we have been very open in outlining the major steps for AMD’s transformation into a processing powerhouse:

• From the acquisition of ATI Technologies;
• To the formation of GLOBALFOUNDRIES; and
• The creation of AMD-The Product Company,
  o with a single business unit,
  o a reinvigorated roadmap,
  o a new business model,
  o And a close relationship with a world-class leading-
  edge foundry.

Today, I am pleased to announce the last major component of that transformation–in the form of a transparent and public agreement with Intel to create a level playing field in the x86 processor industry–taking us one big step closer to achieving our bold vision.
There are three key components to the agreement:

• First, Intel has agreed to an important set of ground rules that we hope will define the path to a free and open market in the microprocessor industry;
• Second, we have agreed to a new patent cross-license agreement that gives AMD broad rights and the freedom to operate a business utilizing multiple foundries,
• And third, GLOBALFOUNDRIES has agreed to terms that allow them the freedom to operate as an independent world-class leading-edge foundry company, going forward, without being a subsidiary of AMD.

In addition, Intel has agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion.

Today marks the beginning of a new era… one that confirms that the game has changed for AMD. It is an important milestone for us, for our customers, our partners, and most important–for consumers and businesses worldwide. In addition, it represents the culmination many years of litigation and regulatory engagement.

And we are optimistic that it will usher a new era for our industry. We recognize that it will take time for people to understand how operating conditions in the processor business have changed–but make no mistake–they have changed.

I would like to thank the regulatory agencies around the world for their diligence and consistency. Their work has enabled us to achieve this milestone. We are optimistic they will continue their vigilance in maintaining a level playing field, especially with respect to exclusionary practices in our industry.

Looking forward to three keys to our continued success: Compelling offerings; Access to customers and channels, And a winning business model.

We are optimistic this agreement addresses concerns about customer and channel access and our business model. We look forward to healthy competition with the mutual respect one would expect between world-class competitors.

No wonder it was a blowout quarter.

After market close Monday, Apple reported a fiscal fourth-quarter profit of $1.67 billion, or $1.82 a share, on revenue of $9.87 billion. That topped the estimates of analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters, who’d expected the company to earn $1.42 a share on revenue of $9.2 billion.

The company sold 3.05 million Macs during the quarter, a 17 percent increase over last year. It sold 10.2 million iPods, an eight percent decline from the year-ago quarter.

And iPhones? Apple (AAPL) sold 7.4 million of those–seven percent more than during the same period last year. So much for those supply-chain issues that some analysts warned might undermine iPhone sales.

“We are thrilled to have sold more Macs and iPhones than in any previous quarter,” said CEO Jobs. “We’ve got a very strong lineup for the holiday season and some really great new products in the pipeline for 2010.” [Editor's Note: "...really great new products"--is that code for a tablet?]

Apple shares, which closed at $189.86 today, are spiking as I write this. At $203.90, they’re up more than seven percent in extended trading.

Looking ahead to its fiscal first quarter, Apple estimates it will earn between $1.70 and $1.78 a share on revenue in a range of $11.3 billion to $11.6 billion. That’s comically lower than the $1.91 a share on $11.45 billion in sales that analysts are forecasting. But as today’s results clearly demonstrate, Apple subscribes to the underpromise-and-over-deliver school of guidance theory, so there’s likely little cause for concern.

So, to recap: Apple sold more Macs and more iPhones than in any previous quarter in the company’s history. Before the holiday quarter. And in midst of the worst economy we’ve seen in 50 years.

Notes From the Earnings Call:

• Apple COO Tim Cook and CFO Peter Oppenheimer are handling the earnings call. CEO Steve Jobs will not be attending.
• Oppenheimer says this was Apple’s second-highest quarterly revenue ever. Highest-ever operating margin. “We are thrilled with these record-breaking results, particularly given the economic environment around us.” Obviously.
• Macs are showing “fantastic momentum,” says Oppenheimer. Sales have outpaced the market in 19 of the past 20 quarters. Quarterly sales were up 17 percent; portable sales, 35 percent. Interesting: 42 percent growth in Asia.
• Moving on to iPods: Sales were down to 10.2 million from 11 million a year ago. But iPod touch sales doubled. MP3 market share in the U.S. is now more than 70 percent (according to NPD, I think).
• iPhone sales were up seven percent. Apple will begin selling iPhones in China later this month. More than 85,000 apps in App Store. Two billion downloads.
• Apple opened 15 new stores during the quarter. Now has 273. Will soon open first two stores in France, including one at the Louvre.
• Moving on to the Q&A. Asked about those iPhone 3GS supply issues I mentioned earlier, Cook acknowledges that demand did outstrip supply in a number of countries. But the situation improved “markedly” in September. How are things looking for China? Cook: “I would have liked to have had more, honestly, because we were still short in some countries at the end of the quarter.”
• Apple is obviously very excited about the iPhone’s impending debut in China. “There’s a good opportunity, and we’re really excited to get started,” says Cook. “It’s the largest market in the world in terms of total phones.”
• No comment on the broader economy. “We just spend our time projecting our business and leave the economy to the economists.”
• Does Apple worry about iPhone rivals? Android? Not really, says Cook. “We feel very good about suiting up and competing against anyone.” Our competitors are still trying to catch up with the first iPhone, he adds.
• Snow Leopard? Cook says the company’s been “pleasantly surprised” by sales of Apple’s latest OS.
• How does Apple benefit from carrier-exclusivity iPhone deals? Cook says carriers with exclusivity deals are willing to invest more in the platform and that means greater innovation. Visual voicemail is an example of that. That said, he adds, “We’ve found no lack of people wanting to sell iPhones, frankly.”
• International store revenue up more than 20 percent, on average.
• More on iPhone supply issues. Cook insists this is not a component issue, though he notes that silicon can sometimes be hard to get. “We feel good about our position now.”
• And still more on iPhone supply issues: How many iPhones would Apple have sold if it had an adequate supply? Impossible to say, really, Cook says, adding that 3GS units were in short supply virtually everywhere in September.
• Enterprise demand for the iPhone is very strong. It’s either being deployed or already in use at some 50 percent of Fortune 100 companies. Same with Europe and the FT 100. Widely used in higher ed and government as well.
• But perhaps not widely enough. Asked about institutional sales, Cook says Apple isn’t seeing much stimulus funding. The company’s worried about state spending. Says Cook, “We may see more this quarter, but it’s too early to tell.”

And once Acer does that, Hewlett-Packard (HPQ)–the world’s largest PC maker by shipments–best start watching its back. Said Lanci: “I would expect not only to pass Dell very soon, but also to breach the gap with HP.”

Have Acer’s buyouts of Gateway and Packard Bell gone to Lanci’s head? Perhaps just a little. That said, the company has seen quite a bit of growth thanks to the netbook phenomenon, which shows no signs of abating.

Seems AT&T (T) feels that Google’s Google Voice Internet call-forwarding service violates federal rules designed to ensure that phone companies connect all calls. From the company’s letter:

Numerous press reports indicate that Google is systematically blocking telephone calls from consumers that use Google Voice to call telephone numbers in certain rural communities. By blocking these calls, Google is able to reduce its access expenses. Other providers, including those with which Google Voice competes, are banned from call blocking because in June 2007, the Wireline Competition Bureau emphatically declared that all carriers are prohibited from pursuing “self help actions such as call blocking.” The Bureau expressed concern that call blocking “may degrade the reliability of the nation’s telecommunications network.” Google Voice thus has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services. Google casually dismisses the Bureau’s Order, claiming that Google Voice “isn’t a traditional phone service and shouldn’t be regulated like other common carriers.” But in reality, “Google Voice” appears to be nothing more than a creatively packaged assortment of services that are already quite familiar to the Commission….

[The FCC] cannot, through inaction or otherwise, give Google a special privilege to play by its own rules while the rest of the industry, including those who compete with Google, must instead adhere to [FCC] regulations.

AT&T’s letter comes just days after FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed six Net neutrality regulations that will apply to both wireline and wireless platforms. Interestingly, it also follows an FCC investigation into the rejection/delay of Google Voice for the iPhone.

UPDATE:

Google’s responded to AT&T’s letter in a post to the company blog, pointing out the differences between Google Voice and traditional phone service and questioning AT&T’s motives for appealing to the FCC.

“AT&T is trying to make this about Google’s support for an open Internet, but the comparison just doesn’t fly,” Richard Whitt, the company’s Washington telecom and media counsel, wrote. “The FCC’s open Internet principles apply only to the behavior of broadband carriers–not the creators of Web-based software applications. Even though the FCC does not have jurisdiction over how software applications function, AT&T apparently wants to use the regulatory process to undermine Web-based competition and innovation.”

That’s how Intel describes the record $1.45 billion antitrust fine levied against it by the European Union, one the company evidently believes was meted out in error.

In an appeal filed with the European Court of First Instance, Intel asks that the European Commission’s antitrust ruling against it be annulled on the grounds that the EC failed “to meet the required standard of proof.”

Seems the chip giant feels the Commission’s analysis of its discounts and rebate programs was too shoddy to be trusted–especially when it’s being used as justification for the largest single penalty imposed on a company for antitrust breaches in Europe.

“The Commission fails to prove that Intel engaged in a long-term strategy to foreclose the competitors,” Intel (INTC) argues in its appeal. “Such a finding is not supported by the evidence and is impossible to reconcile with the fragmented nature of the Commission’s allegations (in relation to both products covered and time period) in respect of each Intel customer….The applicant also submits that all or part of the Decision should be annulled on the basis that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements during the administrative procedure, which materially infringed Intel’s rights of defence.”

Clearly, former Intel general counsel Bruce Sewell, who left the company to take a job with Apple (AAPL) Tuesday, was busy right up until the time he packed up his desk.

Anyway, Intel asks the court to annul “whole or in part” the EC’s ruling and, barring that, to at least annul or reduce the fine imposed. Finally, it would also like to see the EC ordered to pay its legal expenses.

“At the end of the June quarter, Apple was having difficulty keeping the iPhone 3GS in stock; the product seems to have exceeded Apple’s internal expectations,” Munster writes in a research note today, explaining that he sees two primary reasons for the uptick in demand.

In the first place, according to Munster, “Apple’s App Store has been a huge success (65k+ apps and 1.5b+g downloads), and app developers (like Sirius/XM, ESPN, etc.) are promoting their apps, and meanwhile providing free advertising for the iPhone platform (which spurs more iPhone sales, app downloads, and the cycle continues)….”

Second, Munster continues, “The smart phone industry has effectively crowned the iPhone and its App Store the gold standard among touchscreen mobile experiences, and competitors are trying to copy the device and its software. In so doing, the iPhone’s competitors are actually promoting the iPhone, and we believe, driving sales of the device similar to the manner in which competing MP3 players drove sales of the iPod as the gold standard in 2004 by defining themselves in comparison to it.”

Hard to disagree with that assessment given that some of the handset ads we’ve seen recently, particularly from Palm (PALM) and Sprint (S)–see ad above–which, though they insist the Pre was never intended as an Apple (AAPL) iPhone killer, can’t help but compare the two devices in their marketing materials.

“Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it.”

So begins Apple’s response to the Federal Communication Commission’s inquiry into its rejection of the app and of its App Store approval process. Seems Google Voice was withheld from the App Store not because of any ill feeling toward Google or a nefarious request from AT&T, but because it too closely mimics the iPhone OS, including management of calls, voicemail and text messages. From Apple’s statement:

Question 1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store?

The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature. In addition, the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.

Question 2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?

Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter.

In a response of its own, AT&T (T) also said this was the case:

1(a). What role, if any, did AT&T play in Apple’s consideration of the Google Voice and related applications?

AT&T had no role in Apple’s consideration of Google Voice or related applications.

1(b). What role, if any, does AT&T play in consideration of iPhone applications generally?

The Apple App Store is owned, operated and controlled by Apple, not AT&T, and Apple makes the decisions regarding the specific applications that are approved for use on the iPhone or included in the Apple App Store. AT&T does not participate in Apple’s day-to-day consideration of specific applications, nor does Apple typically notify AT&T prior to including applications in the App Store. Apple also does not usually advise AT&T after specific applications have been added to the App Store, which reportedly contains more than 65,000 applications. AT&T has had discussions with Apple regarding only a handful of applications that have been submitted to Apple for review where, as described below, there were concerns that the application might create significant network congestion.

And what is Google’s (GOOG) public reply to the whole affair? Nada. The company had more to say to the government, via a response to FCC queries. But in the copy of the document that’s been released for public consumption, the most interesting stuff has been redacted. To wit: “What explanation was given (if any) for Apple’s rejection of the Google Voice application?…Please describe any communications between Google and AT&T or Apple on this topic and a summary of any meetings or discussion.” (Click on text below to enlarge.)

Now that’s a little odd, isn’t it? Why would Google ask the FCC to redact portions of its statement? Says Google: “[Because the redacted] information relates specifically to private business discussions between Apple and Google and, as such, it constitutes commercial data ‘which would customarily be guarded from competitors.’”

That satisfy your curiosity? Doesn’t satisfy mine, either.

(Peter Kafka contributed to this post.)

UPDATE: AT&T may not participate in “Apple’s day-to-day consideration of specific applications,” but its presence is still felt during the approval process. From Apple’s (AAPL) response:

There is a provision in Apple’s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T’s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP (voice over Internet Protocol) session without obtaining AT&T’s permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T’s customer terms of service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T’s cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.

UPDATE: An interesting nugget from AT&T’s statement:

It is widely recognized by economists and jurists that parties to strategic alliances in competitive markets may enter into contracts to promote and protect their respective business interests and to refrain from taking actions adverse to those interests.12 Consistent with such lawful, economically efficient practices common among parties to strategic alliances, including participants in the mobile wireless marketplace,13 AT&T and Apple agreed that Apple would not take affirmative steps to enable an iPhone to use AT&T’s wireless service (including 2G, 3G and Wi-Fi) to make VoIP calls without first obtaining AT&T’s consent. AT&T and Apple also agreed, however, that if a third party enables an iPhone to make VoIP calls using AT&T’s wireless service, Apple would have no obligation to take action against that third party….AT&T indicated to Apple that it does not object to Apple enabling VoIP applications for the iPhone that use Wi-Fi connectivity (including connectivity at more than 20,000 Wi-Fi hotspots operated by AT&T that may be used by iPhone customers for no additional charge) rather than AT&T’s 2G or 3G wireless data services….we plan to take a fresh look at possibly authorizing VoIP capabilities on the iPhone for use on AT&T’s 3G network.

What has become of the Sony known for its technology? I hope it will solve its problems soon to quickly recover its brand image reputed for technological prowess.”

– Japanese Economy, Trade and Industry Minister and former Sony employee Akira Amari, October 2006

Now that Sony’s old guard has taken what was once a strong electronics and gaming brand and run it into the ground, the company’s new guard is circling back to resurrect it. This morning the company announced a management overhaul that will see CEO Howard Stringer succeed Ryoji Chubachi as president and assume responsibility for Sony’s key electronics division. It will also see the creation of two new business groups: The first, Networked Products & Services Group, will consolidate Sony Computer Entertainment, the company’s Vaio division and its mobile and Walkman unit. The second, the New Consumer Products Group, will include Sony’s TV, digital imaging, home audio and video businesses. Spanning the two groups will be a cross-divisional software and technology unit charged with ensuring compatibility among their products.

Sony (SNE) says its new structure is aimed at giving the company the agility it has so sorely lacked for so long and to “speed up the transformation of Sony that was started four years ago,” which has all but stalled, if the company’s recent financial performance is any indication. “Have I broken down all the silo walls? No,” Stringer told the New York Times. “Are they very strong and very thick? Yes. But we’ve broken down a lot of them. Our goal is to continue to do that. We have two distinct challenges facing us. The first is the global slowdown, which forces us to make significant adjustments. The second challenge is the evolution of our competitive environment. New competitors springing out everywhere.”

The event may explain as well the “future product transition” that compelled Apple to forecast a nearly 5 percent drop in gross profit margin for the final quarter of the 2008 fiscal year. Apple offered few details of that transition, though CFO Peter Oppenheimer said during a July earnings call that it will involve “state-of-the-art new products that our competitors just aren’t going to be able to match.”

“One of the investments we make is to introduce new products that initially cost more because they deliver an entirely new level of value to the customer,” Apple COO Tim Cook said during the same call. “Then we ride the cost curves down with value engineering and volume manufacturing, leaving us far ahead of our competitors. We have some of these types of investments in front of us that I can’t discuss.”

Until Tuesday, Oct. 14, that is.