“The company is taking this action in a careful manner to ensure that there is no impact on the improved customer experience that has been reflected in much higher levels of satisfaction in customer surveys and in independent performance tests,” Sprint said in a statement. “Sprint has pledged to not waver on the company’s commitment to quality service and products….The impact on geographic locations will vary, and many impacted positions will be eliminated by Dec. 31, 2009.”

Nice. Just in time for the holidays, too.

• A delayed EC review process of the current proposed acquisition, which may end in a rejection left unchallenged by Oracle
• A renegotiated deal with Oracle, which would likely exclude MySQL and therefore involve a renegotiated deal price
• An offer by IBM (IBM) to buy Sun at a discount to the Oracle offer following a rejection by the EC of the current Oracle deal
• A scrapping of the deal by Oracle

Interestingly, Reid feels this last possibility isn’t as disastrous as it might sound. Sun has $1.8 billion in cash, and while its latest results weren’t at all pretty, they did feature improving gross margins.

“Our current thesis on [Sun] assumes the announced [Oracle] acquisition will close, but risks have increased,” Reid wrote. “There remains a risk that the European Commission will provide a ’statement of objections’ to [Oracle’s] planned acquisition of [Sun] based on concerns regarding [Oracle’s] plans for the MySQL database which [Sun] currently owns. The deadline for such a decision is January 19, 2010 but it is possible that the EC will state objections before the end of the year.”

Elaborating, Reid notes that “Although [Oracle] could likely reduce the risk of a statement of objection–and thus of a delayed or perhaps failed bid for [Sun]–by supplying to the EC an argument to explain why the [Oracle-Sun] deal will not adversely impact competition in the database market, our assumptions around [Sun’s] valuation include increased risk regarding the completion of the [Oracle-Sun] transaction at $9.50….While we believe the currently proposed acquisition by [Oracle] is the most likely outcome for [Sun], we believe other scenarios remain possible, although each is made more difficult by the continued uncertainty around Sun’s fate, and the resulting erosion in customer confidence in Sun.”

“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.

Though the carrier’s decision to allow Internet telephony apps on its 3G network has lead some to speculate that the company will soon allow data tethering as well, that’s not the case. Evidently, there’s still a while to wait until AT&T (T) supports that long-promised feature, which it fears might exponentially increase network traffic and undermine sales of air cards.

Asked if AT&T’s new policy on Internet telephony apps heralded the arrival of iPhone tethering, a company spokesman repeated the same tired line we’ve been hearing for months now: “Whenever we offer new features, we want to offer the best possible customer experience. For tethering, we need to do some additional fine tuning to our systems and networks so that we do deliver a great experience.

And perhaps that’s for the best given the widespread complaints over the quality of AT&T’s network prior to iPhone tethering. If it’s as poor as some claim now, how poor might it be when Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone users begin tethering their MacBooks to it?

You see, Palm (PALM) defines units sold as products sold to on-the-street customers or to resellers like Best Buy (BBY) and Amazon.com (AMZN). Which means that Palm can report a unit sold while it’s still sitting at inventory at various retail outlets. In other words, a Pre sold is not necessarily a Pre activated. As Eller notes, that’s problematic.

“We have been perplexed by a disconnect between PALM’s device units sold and our estimates of store level sell through,” Eller writes. “According to PALM’s reported sell through, inventory increased by 13k units and since the ‘vast majority’ of both the device units shipped and the device units sold were units of the Pre, there couldn’t be an inventory problem. The gap between the two is only 13k.”

Continuing, Eller adds a cautionary note: “However, since the company recognizes revenue on sell in to the channel and the company defines device units sold as units that have been shipped from Sprint (their primary customer) to either customers or second tier distributors, PALM could offer investors a high number of units shipped but still have a glut of inventory in the channel. We believe that channel inventory is currently about 11 weeks, which we believe will pressure reorder rates and make it more difficult to sell high ASP products going forward.”

An 11-week glut of inventory in the channel? If that’s the case, it’s certainly cause for concern, more so because many investors are evidently unaware that this is even a possibility. “[Palm’s definition of sold] does not appear to be understood by investors,” Eller notes. “We polled several of the investors who attended the Boston road show lunch and each was under the impression that sell through translated into customer activations. How can this be?”

Good question. Palm and Sprint (S) investors both might want to pay a bit more attention to Sprint’s 10-k in the future.

I’ve asked Palm for comment and will update this post when it responds.

UPDATE: This just in from Palm:

“The sell-through data we post reflects carriers’ sales to their customers. For example, Sprint customers include consumers who buy in a Sprint store, and Sprint retail partners such as Best Buy and RadioShack. We rely on our wireless carriers to provide us with sell-through data, and we note this fact in our 10Q.”

[Image credit: Flickr/Spintar]

“Based on our channel checks, the iPhone remains the best selling device at AT&T with both the new $200/$300 iPhone 3GS and $100 legacy iPhone selling very well,” Piper Jaffary analyst Gene Munster said in a research note today.

“In July, our checks had indicated store managers were strongly recommending the legacy iPhone,” Munster notes, “as we believe this was partially driven by store representatives hoping to make the sale with the 3GS stocked out combined with efforts to reduce existing inventory levels of the legacy iPhone. However, in August, our checks indicate store managers are increasingly recommending the 3GS, and we believe this is driven by improved availability of the 3GS at most AT&T stores.”

Munster summarizes: “Overall, the iPhone remains the best selling device and our August checks indicate the iPhone took share from BlackBerry, the Nokia E71x, and most other competitor products. Finally, in our checks at Best Buy, store managers indicated the iPhone was their best selling device with stores selling out of stock as soon as they received the Apple smartphones.”

A bullish assessment, with an even more bullish conclusion: Munster says he expects Apple (AAPL) to ship seven million iPhones in the quarter. If that’s truly the case, Apple should have no trouble beating Wall Street’s expectations for its current quarter despite the gloomy economy.

One last point worth noting here: Munster is not bullish on Apple’s event tomorrow. He describes it as a “non-event,” though he seems convinced Steve Jobs will host it. “We expect Steve Jobs to introduce a new iPod lineup with a new iPod touch, new nanos, and a new classic, with cameras in the new models,” he notes. “We expect the stock to trade off on a lack of surprising announcements.”

Indeed it is: The Internet phone service provider reported a second-quarter profit of $2.3 million, or a penny a share. Wall Street had been expecting a loss of three cents a share. Great news.

Sadly for Vonage, however, the news was tainted by an increase in subscriber defections. The company lost 89,000 net subscribers during the quarter as churn rose to 3.2 percent from three percent. It ended the quarter with just 2.5 million lines.

“While our financial performance was strong, our subscriber base did not grow at expected levels due in part to the challenges of the current economy and the increasing impact of wireless substitution,” said Vonage Chief Executive Marc Lefar. “During the quarter, we launched our new marketing campaign, which we anticipate will drive new customer acquisition over time.”

“Anticipate” seems a generous word here. “Hope” is perhaps a better one. To lose almost 90,000 subscribers in a single quarter at time when the lousy economy should be inspiring cost-conscious consumers to sign up for Vonage’s discount service seems rather bleak. That better be some marketing campaign.

Under the terms of the deal, the retailer will acquire all outstanding Zappos shares in exchange for roughly 10 million shares of Amazon common stock, valued at about $807 million, and some $40 million in cash and restricted stock. Amazon (AMZN) says the deal should be completed by fall.

“This morning, our board approved and we signed what’s known as a ‘definitive agreement,’ in which all of the existing shareholders and investors of Zappos (there are over 100) will be exchanging their Zappos stock for Amazon stock,” Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh said in a post to the company blog. “Once the exchange is done, Amazon will become the only shareholder of Zappos stock….

“We think that there is a huge opportunity for us to really accelerate the growth of the Zappos brand and culture,” Hsieh continued, “and we believe that Amazon is the best partner to help us get there faster. Amazon supports us in continuing to grow our vision as an independent entity, under the Zappos brand and with our unique culture.”

“Zappos is a customer focused company,” said Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in a statement. “We see great opportunities for both companies to learn from each other and create even better experiences for our customers.”

If the shoe fits, right?

Below, Bezos announces the acquisition in person.

To see Peter Kafka’s liveblog of Apple’s Q3 Earnings Call, click here.

The economy is in recession, consumer spending is down and the PC market is in the worst decline since the Great Dark Times of 2001.

And Apple is doing just fine.

After market close Tuesday, the company reported earnings that crushed the Street’s estimates into a fine iPod-white dust. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters estimated that Apple (AAPL) would earn $1.16 per share on $8.16 billion in sales. Instead, it earned $1.35 on $8.34 billion for a profit of $1.23 billion.

Apple shipped 2.6 million Macs in the quarter just as NPD forecast and it sold 5.2 million iPhones. iPod sales were down seven percent to 10.2 million. Gross margin was 36.3 percent, up 34.8 percent year-over-year, and international sales accounted for 44 percent of revenue during the period. For its fourth quarter, Apple expects to earn $1.18 to $1.23 per share on revenue of $8.7 billion to $8.9 billion.

“We’re making our most innovative products ever and our customers are responding,” Apple CEO Steve Jobs said in a statement. “We’re thrilled to have sold over 5.2 million iPhones during the quarter and users have downloaded more than 1.5 billion applications from our App Store in its first year.”

Clearly, business is good in Cupertino, recession be damned. Apple shares rose two percent to 154.68 in after-hours trading on the news.

Now, a one percent increase in market share isn’t a spectacular achievement, but it is meaningful growth. More so since Google posted a slight decline in share in June, its third in as many months.

Google still rules search in the U.S., but Bing appears to be making some modest headway. “Steady if not spectacular might be the best way to describe performance to date,” said Aodhan Cullen, CEO of StatCounter.

Which is fine. Particularly when you’re coming from as far behind as Microsoft (MSFT). Of course, as I’ve said before, early successes like these are driven as much by marketing as by technological prowess and positive user experience. And right now, Bing’s got between $80 million and $100 million dollars behind it. But those dollars will only last so long.

And as Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt likes to point out, you really can’t expect to buy your way into the search market. “You don’t just buy it with ads,” Schmidt told Fox Business earlier this week. “You earn it, and you earn it customer by customer, search by search, answer by answer.”

Perhaps that’s exactly what Microsoft is doing here with Bing.

“We think the Palm Pre is by far the best product we’ve ever shipped and I am very happy with how we are managing the launch,” CEO Jon Rubinstein said on an earnings call Thursday, though he refused to disclose actual sales numbers. “We are successfully ramping supply to meet demand that is strong and growing.”

Rubinstein gave strong emphasis to Palm’s new operating system. “The most important indicator of our success is that customer response has been simply great, especially to Palm webOS. Just as Palm pioneered PDAs in the 90s, we believe it has now pioneered the mobile operating platform for the next 10 years and beyond. WebOS integrates information and services from the cloud and offers a true multi-tasking environment. We feel it takes better advantage of the benefits of Web 3.0 than any other mobile platform available today.”

Quite a claim, especially given the incumbents in the market and Palm’s history. The company has never been strong on execution, and while it’s done a great job of bringing the Pre and webOS to market, it has clearly stumbled a bit. Thanks to supply constraints, Palm may be leaving some sales on the table. And it hasn’t done itself any favors by delaying the release of the webOS software development kit.

WebOS won’t be the “the mobile operating platform for the next 10 years and beyond” unless developers are actually, you know, writing applications for it. And there are far too few of them doing that right now because Palm has, so far, restricted access to the SDK.

Rubinstein says that will soon change, though. “We are eager to expand access to our SDK but we need to do so in a measured and methodical fashion, so we can be sure we are providing a great development experience,” he said Thursday. “Over the next few weeks, we expect the program to grow from hundreds to thousands of developers and our goal from there is to make our SDK available to everyone by the end of this summer.”

OK. So Palm would rather do things right than too quickly. That’s understandable–especially if it has more products in the pipeline, as it most certainly does. Given the rivals against which it must compete, the company cannot afford even a single misstep. If it is to truly to revitalize its brand, it must execute, as Rubinstein well knows.

“My highest priority is execution,” he said. “That means delivering world-class products and customer support. Operational excellence in our supply chain management. Strong carrier relationships. Great sales and marketing. Strong back-office functions….Palm already has a foundation in all of these areas. We’ve been in this business for years. We have long-established industry relationships and we’ve successfully brought mobile products to market for over a decade. This footing can create a real advantage.”

But only if it’s managed well. So far, so good. We’ll find out how Palm’s really doing next quarter, which will more fully reflect the impact of the Pre.

You’ll find more notes from yesterday’s call here.

Shares in the company dropped more than 27 percent percent to $6.48 in premarket trading following reports that Sun’s board rejected a formal acquisition offer by IBM (IBM). After weeks of negotiations, the two companies were thought to be finalizing a deal for about $7 billion. But IBM lowered its offer over the weekend and then withdrew it after Sun balked at the price and terms of the sale. IBM is believed to have originally offered $10 and $11 a share for Sun, but subsequently reduced that bid to $9.40 a share, which was a bit too low for the fading company’s taste.

Seems Sun (JAVA) has quite a bit more in common with Yahoo (YHOO), which notoriously balked at a $44 billion buyout offer from Microsoft (MSFT) last year, than you’d think.

Whether the deal is dead is unclear, but things certainly aren’t looking good–for future negotiations and for Sun, as Sanford Bernstein & Co. analyst Toni Sacconaghi suggested in a research note to clients this morning. “While press reports suggest that the fall-out in discussions may be attributable to brinkmanship, we do think that a collapse in the talks has considerably weakened Sun’s hand, as we see no other likely suitors, and a considerably higher potential for weakened (fiscal year third quarter) results,” he wrote. “… Given the size of the premium and the fact that Sun’s board has presided over a decline in the company’s stock price over the last eight years from over $250/share to less than $5 prior to the acquisition talks being leaked, we believe that (Sun Microsystems) is likely to face significant shareholder unrest, similar to what occurred when Yahoo declined Microsoft’s offer.”

Which means things are about to get ugly–really ugly–for Sun, which doesn’t appear to have any other likely suitors and will almost certainly see its third-quarter results weakened by the doubt it has just instilled in potential customers.

Not much of an improvement over “BlackBerry Application Center,” but an improvement nonetheless. A placeholder page for the yet-to-be launched mobile application storefront went live last night, along with a developer FAQ that reveals the store’s tiered pricing model. Like Apple’s App Store, BlackBerry App World will offer some apps for free, but it’s set the minimum price for paid apps at $2.99. That’s a $2 departure from Apple’s 99-cent minimum price and it has generated no end of jawing among tech observers. But does anyone really believe that RIM’s business customers will balk at a $2.99 minimum price point? And in the end, isn’t a higher minimum price point better for developers? At worst, it might potentially discourage the development of smaller throwaway apps. But it might also make App World a bit more financially intriguing to iPhone-obsessed developers. And that certainly can’t hurt.