Now this is just getting silly.

Pali Research says sales of the Palm Pre are slowing. RBC’s Mike Abramsky says they aren’t and claims 325,000 to 375,000 have been sold to date, ahead of his expectations.

Citing some decidedly unscientific poll data, Jesup and Lamont analyst Kevin Dede suggests the device is plagued by build-quality issues and a high exchange/return rate, potentially 40 percent. Abramsky says it’s between two and three percent and calls BS on the build-quality issue.

“Most buyers appear delighted with their new Pre user experience,” Abramsky said in a research note Friday. “Pre satisfaction appears higher than legacy Palm devices (e.g., Treo), affirming improved execution from the ‘New’ Palm, including engineering, manufacturing, quality and process improvements.”

So, Pre sales are slowing. Or, they’re not.

And exchange/return rates are high.

Unless they’re not.

And these analysts are on point.

Unless, of course, they’re not. Too bad it’s impossible to tell without official numbers from Palm (PALM) or Sprint (S).

“When I look at netbooks, I see cramped keyboards, terrible software, junky hardware, very small screens,” he explained, noting that it’s “a stretch” to call a netbook a personal computer. “It’s just not a good consumer experience and not something we would put the Mac brand on….it’s not a space as it exists today that we are interested in, nor do we believe that customers in the long term would be interested in. It’s a segment we would choose not to play in. That said, we do look at the space and are interested to see our customers’ respond to it. People that want a small computer so to speak that does browsing and e-mail, might want to buy an iPod Touch or they might want to buy an iPhone. And so, we have other products to accomplish some of what people are buying netbooks for and so, in that particular way we play in an indirect basis.”

Turns out, Research in Motion co-CEO Jim Balsillie feels pretty much the same way. In a recent interview with Reuters, he said the company has no interest in adding a netbook to RIM’s product line. The only netbook Balsillie is interested in is one “you can hold up to your ear and clip onto your belt.” In other words, a BlackBerry. Anything larger just won’t cut it, as a parade of discontinued nonphone portable hardware has already shown us. “These devices don’t work,” Balsillie said. “At the end of the day what we’ve really found is that if [customers] can do it on a BlackBerry that’s what they’ll want.”

Interesting to hear these two companies come out so strongly against netbooks given the current buzz around them. Demand for netbooks is reportedly surging, so much so, it’s singlehandedly bolstering PC sales slowed by the econalypse. Nokia (NOK) is considering entering the netbook market according to Chief Executive Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo. So why are Apple (AAPL) and Research in Motion (RIMM) thumbing their noses at it? Perhaps because they view the netbook as an interim product, a placeholder. Perhaps because they know that the handset is the next computer?

Apple certainly does. The iPhone already runs a spartan version of the company’s OS X operating system. How long will it be before the device is outfitted with a more powerful processor–perhaps one designed by PA Semi–capable of running OS X SL? How long before the iPhone (or its dock) is outfitted with the Mini DisplayPort that will connect it to a monitor? How long before we no longer need netbooks or notebooks because our handsets do it all?

Shares of the deteriorating Internet company slipped on news of the impending announcement, falling more than two percent to $11.96. Earlier in the day, they’d been trading at $12.79.

Clearly, Bartz’s appointment doesn’t appear to be inspiring much confidence in investors–at least at the outset. Perhaps all her enterprise experience is proving a bit of a turnoff. Ten years as vice president at Sun Microsystems (JAVA). Board seats at Intel (INTC), Cisco Systems (CSCO), and NetApp (NTAP). Where’s the Internet experience? Where’s Steve Jobs? Surely he could right this sinking ship.

“She was an inoffensive, but largely unexciting candidate–someone who would be a steady hand at the wheel–but investors were hoping for a lot more than that,” Jeff Lindsay, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein in New York, told Bloomberg. “She’s undoubtedly a competent and able executive. The problem is, is she the right fit for the job?”

Likely a better fit than Jerry Yang. And that’s a start, right? Oh, there’s this as well: When Bartz started at Autodesk it had revenues of $285 million. Today it generates about $1.5 billion.

Says Needham analyst Mark May:

If the reports are accurate, our initial reaction is that we view Bartz as a good choice because:

Of course, there is more we’d like to see/hear before making our final determination, such as i) what’s Bartz’s strategy/vision; ii) will current President Sue Decker resign; iii) will Bartz hire a strong #2 w/ new media experience; and, iv) will Chairman Roy Bostock resign. That said, our initial reaction to the possibility of Bartz being named Yahoo!’s new CEO is favorable.