“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.

“Eventually we’d like to make money out of it.”

– Google CEO Eric Schmidt on YouTube

It’s been well over two years since the $1.65 billion acquisition and Google has yet to truly monetize YouTube. And while the company persists in claiming it has the “luxury of time” to develop the business model through which it will recoup its investment in the popular video site, it’s clear that time is running out. To wit, a report this week from Credit Suisse that predicts YouTube will earn $240 million in revenue in 2009. Which wouldn’t be half bad were it not for the fact that YouTube is on track to lose $470 million in 2009. The research house figures YouTube will rack up about $711 million in operating expenses this year–$360 million on bandwidth alone.

An unfortunate disparity, that. Is it one that can be corrected? Credit Suisse seems to think so. “In our view, the issue for YouTube going forward is to increase the percentage of its videos that can be monetized (likely through more deals with content companies) and to drive more advertiser demand through standardization of ad formats and improved ad effectiveness,” it explained in a research note. Of course, this is exactly what YouTube is doing. On Monday the company said it has agreed to an ad revenue-sharing partnership with Disney (DIS) that will see it putting ABC and ESPN videos on YouTube. A small first step, but one that could portend a trend. Especially, if as Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt says, the company hopes to eventually make money out of it.

Indeed, just this morning, Heard on the Street’s Martin Peers suggested EA would be a good acquisition, particularly for an entertainment company. “Any entertainment company could be interested in EA, given continued growth in videogame sales, the potential for cross-fertilization with TV and film storylines and advertisers’ interest in buying space in games,” Peers wrote. “Disney makes the most sense. EA’s biggest assets include its sports games, such as ‘Madden NFL,’ which would fit with Disney’s ESPN cable network. Disney could also save at least part of the roughly $200 million it spends annually to develop its own games.”

An interesting theory. Ironic too, since before EA was in the news for its current ill fortune, it was making headlines for its dogged pursuit of Take-Two Interactive. That said, with only $2.6 billion in cash on its books, Disney would have to borrow quite a bit to push such a deal through, which seems unlikely in the current market.

It’s a savvy acquisition for Yahoo, one that delivers a pre-existing and very local audience to Yahoo Sports, which is battling it out with ESPN.com and other rivals for the desirable college-sports-fan demographic. And of course, it helps that Rivals.com is actually making money–about $22 million or so a year. That said, it’s not really the sort of major acquisition (read: Facebook) that might make up for the two big bungled acquisition chances–YouTube and DoubleClick–that allowed Google to take such a commanding business lead.

I’m not sure that the driving reason to get a DVR in the first place is just to skip commercials. I don’t fundamentally believe that. People can understand in order to have convenience and on-demand (options), that you can’t skip commercials.”

– ABC President of Advertising Sales Mike Shaw, July 2006

Looks like Walt Disney has finally come up with a theory to explain plummeting ratings at ABC and ESPN–as well as a plan to fix them. The company’s two big TV networks have struck a deal with Cox Communications to offer free on-demand broadcast of hit shows and sporting events, as long as Cox disables its fast-forward feature that lets viewers skip advertisements.

To Disney, the price of free entertainment is suffering through inescapable advertising, and its DVR-empowered viewership hasn’t been holding up its part of the deal. And so, beginning this fall, Cox will offer episodes of four ABC prime-time series, along with select ESPN on ABC college football games in the FreeZone section of its on-demand service. They will be available the day after their original broadcast, and Cox will disable its on-demand fast-forward option.

Will viewers accustomed to fast-forwarding through advertisements watch on-demand programming with unavoidable ads? And, more to the point, if they so clearly dislike watching advertisements, why would they watch programming like this at all? Why wouldn’t they use their DVRs to record the same shows as they air live and use that device’s fast-forward function to skip the ads? Cox President Pat Esser says viewers will understand the transaction it’s proposing. “People want their content, and they want it for free, but I think they realize that there is a business model to keep intact for them to get it that way,” he told The Wall Street Journal.

We’ll see, I guess. But I hope for Esser’s sake that Cox and other cable operators like it are investigating other ways of solving this problem. Like figuring out how to take advantage of the attention fast-forwarding requires. Because while DVR users often fast-forward through commercials, the very act of paying attention to what they’re forwarding through vastly increases ad recall. “There’s a pretty good basis for thinking that the active attention required to fast-forward could reinforce brand awareness,” said Kenneth Wilbur, associate professor of marketing at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business. “There can be a real effect on purchasing behavior due to the attention required. … You could see extensive changes coming to creative formats and a great deal of research into how creative can best be adapted to fast-forwarding.”