A savvy move for Amex, too. Though Revolution competes against entrenched credit-card companies and PayPal, among others, its alternative payment system, which reduces costs for accepting credit cards by up to 75 percent, is quite attractive to merchants who’ve shouldered those costs for so long.

Says JP Morgan analyst Imran Khan: “While it is hard to know precisely what direction AmEx plans to take the Revolution assets, we think the acquisition suggests the company is trying to be more aggressive in the online payments arena. We think PayPal’s existing account base and international footprint have given it a network advantage in the C2C space that is hard to dislodge. On the other hand, we believe significant room exists for market share gains in Online Payments by companies that offer innovative solutions, and this acquisition gives Revolution Money a stronger backer.”

Cuts at Adobe (ADBE) will occur worldwide and are intended to bring costs in line with its 2010 budget and “the realities of the business environment,” the company said in a statement. They follow a similar round of cuts made in 2008 that claimed the livelihoods of about 600 people.

“EA is performing well, with quality, sales and segment share up so far this year,” EA CEO John Riccitiello said in a statement. “We are making tough calls to cut costs in targeted areas and investing more in our biggest games and digital businesses.”

“The cost of smart phones is considerably higher than feature phones for which the early termination fees were created years ago at $175,” said Verizon spokesman Jim Gerace. He added that the new $350 ETF declines by $10 per month through the life of the contract and customers can avoid it by buying their devices off contract and paying full retail price.

An interesting move for Verizon (VZ), which just last year agreed to pay $21 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by California consumers over the very early-termination fees it is now increasing. The plaintiffs in the suit alleged that Verizon’s ETFs were illegal under California law and that they were designed to unfairly lock consumers into long-term contracts and prevent them from switching carriers. When Verizon settled the suit, it denied any wrongdoing, insisting that early-termination fees are simply a means of recovering legitimate costs. And to some extent Verizon does have a point.

Full retail price for the Motorola’s (MOT) new Droid is $559.99. With a two-year contract, Verizon sells the handset for $199.99. Theoretically, that’s a $359.99 subsidy (I have no idea at what price Verizon purchases Droid from Motorola). So if Verizon allowed subscribers to break their contract after a month without paying an early-termination fee, the company would stand to lose money. And subscribers who did so could subsequently sell the device online and potentially make a profit, though a small one.

So it’s certainly understandable that Verizon and other carriers want to protect the subsidies they dole out for these new smart phones. And as noted earlier, Verizon’s new ETF drops by $10 each month a subscriber remains under contract. But at this rate, subscribers are still bound to pay a $110 termination fee in the 23rd month of a two-year contract. The contract is nearly over, the subscriber obligation to Verizon almost fulfilled, yet the company can still slap its customers with nearly a third of the full ETF if they break it at that time.

By month 23 of a two-year contract, does Verizon really stand to lose $110 if subscribers decide to switch carriers? Doesn’t seem likely if subscribers can walk away just a month later without consequence, taking their handsets with them.

Since Verizon is pro-rating the ETF, why isn’t it doing so in such a way that it zeroes out by the end of the contract?

And isn’t the fast pace of innovation in the smart-phone sector such that prices–for both component and device–are dropping so quickly that high ETFs aren’t really justified? Remember, you can get Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone for $99 today. When the iPhone debuted in 2007, it commanded a price of $499/$599, depending on model.

I’ve put those same questions to Verizon and will update here when I hear back. In the meantime, here’s what Consumers Union policy analyst Joel Kelsey has to say on the matter: “When people want to switch wireless services, the biggest cost they face is early termination fees. These fees are designed to lock people into long-term contracts and stop them from getting better deals. Early-termination fees make the marketplace less competitive. Verizon’s move is painful proof that it’s time for lawmakers to crack down on these fees.”

UPDATE: Verizon Wireless spokesperson Nancy Stark offers the following answers to the questions I posed above:

Your first question regarding the balance at month 23 or 24 assumes that, at that point, we have recovered all of our subsidy and up-front costs for every device. That simply is not so.

On your second question, while the pace of innovation plays a role in prices coming down somewhat, it also plays a role in driving up costs as more and more complexity that customers want is added to phones–from premium HTML browsers to high-resolution MP cameras with optical zoom; videoplayers; music players; dual processor chipsets; WiFi; very high display resolution, operating systems such as BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, Palm, Android–ALL with the added value (vs a desktop) of mobility, and ALL in one tiny device that ALSO allows you to talk to anyone from anywhere. phew! (by comparison, I recently paid $200 for a camera and all it can do is take pictures, and it has only middle of the road capabilities.)

But getting back to ETFs specifically. The most important point is that Verizon Wireless customers do not have to have an ETF at all if they do not want to. ETFs allow customers to have it either way: They can have no ETF and pay full retail for their device. OR, they can get a greatly discounted device by having an ETF.

Earlier today, Kara Swisher reported in BoomTown that RealNetworks (RNWK) would sack four percent of its workforce–70 employees out of its 1,700-person staff.

Below, the official internal memo from RealNetworks Founder, Chairman and CEO Rob Glaser, breaking the bad news:

Team–

I’m writing to share some important and unpleasant news with all of you. Today we are implementing a reduction in force primarily within our TPS and MSS divisions, as well as in a few of our shared services groups. Approximately 70 employees around the globe are impacted, which represents about 4% of our total workforce. Of these 70 employees, 51% are located within the US and 49% came from our international locations.

These staff reductions are a result of some trends and strategic decisions in our TPS and MSS businesses. I’d bucket the reductions into three categories–efficiency gains associated with eliminating or streamlining duplication of effort, businesses that have been impacted by the recession and/or cyclical downturns where we need to lower our costs and get more efficient, and slower growth businesses in which we have decided to reduce our investments so we can instead invest in areas with better growth prospects.

As a result of these changes being made today, the TPS and MSS divisions are now better positioned to continue to weather the economic storm in the short-term and to thrive and grow in the long-term. On behalf of everyone on the senior management team I would like to extend my thanks and appreciation to everyone being affected by today’s actions for their contributions to our company. We are offering all impacted employees generous severance packages and we are working closely with the affected teams to ensure a smooth and professional transition. Additionally, we are encouraging impacted employees to look for other roles within the company, and HR will assist them in this process.

Thank for your support and understanding.

Rob

“This was a difficult but necessary decision to improve the company’s competitive position,” Dell (DELL) spokesman David Frink said. “It is not a commentary on workers in North Carolina or workers in the United States.”

Of course not. As Dell CFO Brian Gladden said during the company’s last earnings call, “Our cost reduction programs have never been more crucial than during this weaker demand environment.”

Still, it’s unfortunate to see the company forced to shift work once done in the states to lower-cost contract manufacturers abroad. This is, after all, Dell’s third big closure in recent memory. The company stopped desktop manufacturing in Lebanon, Tenn., earlier this year, and in 2008, it shuttered a desktop plant in Austin, Texas.

In an interview with BBC News, GetJar CEO Ilja Laurs said the next decade will see such massive growth in the market that apps will rival the Web in popularity. “Apps will be as big if not bigger than the Internet,” GetJar predicted.

“They will peak at around 100,000 by the end of the year. That will be a tipping point and after that there will be a gradual fall in the rate of development. The full blossom will come in ten years and mobile apps will become as popular as Web sites are today with consumers.”

A grandiose claim, to be sure, but one that strains believability a bit less than it might, now that Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes App Store has racked up 1.5 billion downloads. That said, what, exactly, does “as big as the Internet” mean? And won’t the progression toward that metric be undermined once smart phones fully support HTML5, Flash and whatnot?

Why bother developing apps for multiple platforms–iPhone OS, webOS, Android, Symbian–when one could simply develop a single Web app that will serve all of them at once?

As Google Engineering vice president Vic Gundotra recently said, the browser is where things are headed. “What we clearly see happening is a move to incredibly powerful browsers,” he said. “Many, many applications can be delivered through the browser and what that does for our costs is stunning. We believe the web has won and over the next several years, the browser, for economic reasons almost, will become the platform that matters and certainly that’s where Google is investing.”

For Sprint, which is suffering from declining revenue and a thinning subscriber base, the move is a quick-and-dirty way of cutting costs and freeing up resources to focus on innovation and remedying the real and perceived issues with its services.

“This is about improving our customer experience,” Steve Elfman, head of Sprint’s network operations, said during a conference call this morning. “While we get the benefit of Ericsson’s expertise…we can focus our attention on bringing great devices, great services, great applications to them….We’ll benefit from the current scale and efficiency and expertise of Ericsson, and this will keep improving over time.”

“It was clear that internationally, just as in the US, MySpace’s staffing had become too big and cumbersome to be sustainable in current market conditions,” said MySpace CEO Owen Van Natta. “Today’s proposed changes are designed to transform and refine our international growth strategy.” Operations in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, India, Italy, Mexico, Russia, Sweden and Spain are “under review,” he added, and face possible closure.

The cuts follow a 30 percent reduction in headcount in the states last week and the hastening erosion of MySpace’s position in the social-networking market. MySpace lost the title of world’s most popular social network to rival Facebook last year and was overtaken by it in the U.S. last month as well.

Why the discrepancy? RampRate says Credit Suisse vastly overestimated YouTube’s bandwidth, storage, and data center costs. Worse, it failed to account for Google’s peering agreements, which significantly reduce Internet transit costs by exchanging traffic locally with other large networks. RampRate figures Google (GOOG) pays for about 27 percent of YouTube’s bandwidth. It trades for the remaining 73 percent through peering deals.

Beyond this, Google finds savings in other ways. It’s likely able to negotiate a lower rate for 27 percent of YouTube bandwidth it pays for simply by virtue of the sheer amount of business it’s able to bring to the table. And it keeps hosting costs low by maintaining servers in out-of-the-way locations. Says RampRate, “Regardless of what you may hear, YouTube costs are a fraction of any other company running similar operations. Most of Google’s bandwidth is free or near-free; its hardware is cost-optimized; and its data center costs are mostly committed or sunk.”

If that’s the case, why didn’t Google take issue with Credit Suisse’s (CS) projections? Why does it allow this perception of YouTube as money pit to persist? Well, silence is golden, is it not? “Any appearance of profits leads to more draconian revenue share demands from partners and additional lawsuits from owners of unlicensed content,” Ramprate explains. “An apparent loss deters this behavior, making it eminently advisable for Google to let rumors of YouTube’s losses grow and compound….

“The trail for this strategy was blazed long before YouTube. Apple’s poor-mouthing of iTunes served it exceptionally well for years in holding back the tide of higher revenue share demands (even as labels privately suspected the service was much more profitable than reported). The apparent stability and maturity of the business finally culminated in recent price increases. Google can only hope that its run with YouTube lasts as long as Apple’s luxury of $.99 pricing.”

And at this point, the company clearly has to do something. Its last financials were grotesque and the ones to come promise to be little different. The “transformation” Sony began four years ago is still a work in progress, arguably one that’s been stalled for some time now. Once an electronics powerhouse, Sony (SNE) is now a laggard in many of the markets it once dominated: videogame consoles, digital music players and TVs. “The prices of digital home appliances have been declining by 15% to 20% every year lately,” said Sony spokesperson Mami Imada. “Unless we cut costs we cannot hope to survive the price competition.”

“We believe Wal-Mart is actively pitching Apple to carry more products,” Reitzes said in a research note this morning. “With Wal-Mart improving its retail displays, we believe that the mega-retailer could eventually earn the right to sell select Mac products without diluting Apple’s brand….Apple is very particular and exclusive with who sells its Macs and any ‘Mac experiment’ with Wal-Mart would likely start very gradually via a pilot program at first–just like Mac sales started at Best Buy….While we don’t expect an immediate impact this year and believe Apple would need to reposition its line-up first, we believe that closer ties to Wal-Mart makes sense.”

Indeed, Wal-Mart (WMT) could certainly bolster Apple’s (AAPL) distribution, particularly in areas without Apple Stores. A compelling proposition: broader access to the mass-market consumer without the infrastructure costs of a standalone boutique. And surely Apple has overcome its aversion to Wal-Mart now that the big-box retailer has been peddling its iPhones for so long.

The fourth was Yahoo’s first money-losing quarter since 2002, and the first time its revenue declined since the fourth quarter of 2001.

Said incoming CEO Carol Bartz, “The company also made important investments while aggressively managing costs, leaving us better positioned to weather the economic downturn and emerge stronger when advertiser spending improves. We have work to do, but I am excited by Yahoo!’s opportunities, and encouraged by the tremendous innovation and momentum I’ve seen since joining the company as CEO.”

Here’s the official release:

Yahoo! Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2008 Financial Results

“Despite the challenging economic environment, Yahoo! delivered adjusted operating cash flow above the midpoint of guidance for the fourth quarter,” said Yahoo! Chief Executive Officer Carol Bartz. “The company also made important investments while aggressively managing costs, leaving us better positioned to weather the economic downturn and emerge stronger when advertiser spending improves. We have work to do, but I am excited by Yahoo!’s opportunities, and encouraged by the tremendous innovation and momentum I’ve seen since joining the company as CEO.”

Fourth Quarter 2008 Financial Results

• Revenues were $1,806 million for the fourth quarter of 2008, a 1 percent decrease compared to $1,832 million for the same period of 2007.
• Marketing services revenues were $1,594 million for the fourth quarter of 2008 compared to $1,590 million for the same period of 2007.
• Marketing services revenues from Owned and Operated sites were $1,063 million for the fourth quarter of 2008, a 3 percent increase compared to $1,035 million for the same period of 2007.
• Marketing services revenues from Affiliate sites were $531 million for the fourth quarter of 2008, a 4 percent decrease compared to $555 million for the same period of 2007.
• Fees revenues were $212 million for the fourth quarter of 2008, a 12 percent decrease compared to $242 million for the same period of 2007.
• Revenues excluding traffic acquisition costs (“TAC”) were $1,375 million for the fourth quarter of 2008, a 2 percent decrease compared to $1,403 million for the same period of 2007.
• Operating loss for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $278 million compared to operating income of $191 million for the same period of 2007.
• Operating loss before depreciation, amortization, and stock-based compensation expense for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $60 million compared to operating income before depreciation, amortization, and stock-based compensation expense of $527 million for the same period of 2007.
• Adjusted operating income before depreciation, amortization, and stock-based compensation expense for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $542 million, excluding restructuring charges of $108 million for severance, facilities, and other restructuring costs; a goodwill impairment charge of $488 million related to our international segment; and incremental costs of $7 million incurred for outside advisors related to Microsoft’s proposals to acquire all or a part of the Company, other strategic alternatives, including the Google agreement, the proxy contest, and related litigation defense (collectively, the “strategic alternatives and related matters”).
• Cash flow from operating activities for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $321 million, a 48 percent decrease compared to $622 million for the same period of 2007.
• Free cash flow for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $219 million, a 34 percent decrease compared to $330 million for the same period of 2007.
• Net loss for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $303 million or $0.22 per diluted share compared to net income of $206 million or $0.15 per diluted share for the same period of 2007.
• Non-GAAP net income for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $238 million or $0.17 per diluted share compared to non-GAAP net income of $184 million or $0.13 per diluted share for the same period of 2007.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Carol Bartz: The ALL CAPS CEO
• Yahoo Investors: We Would Have Preferred Steve Jobs…