“We are very impressed by Apple’s ability to post a record profit quarter during difficult macro spending conditions,” Canaccord Adams analyst Peter Misek said in a note to clients this morning. “A host of new product introductions and continued traction with the iPhone give us confidence in the sustainability of Apple’s operating model.”

Suffice it to say, Misek wasn’t the only the analyst lauding Apple’s (AAPL) fourth-quarter performance. Below a selection of commentary from other Apple watchers:

Gene Munster, Piper Jaffray
“September results were strong despite headwinds of iPhone production constraints and a Mac desktop offering in need of a refresh. We expect these headwinds to become tailwinds in the December quarter, which we believe will be positive for AAPL shares in the coming months.”

Mike Abramsky, RBC Capital Markets
“With strong financial performance and product uptake amidst recession, and further catalysts (iPhone in China, Tablet, refreshed iMacs, iPhone share gains/momentum), we foresee further upside for the shares.”

Maynard Um, UBS
“Upside to virtually every metric in the qtr backs our positive view on Apple. We continue expect greater “recurring” iPhone hardware revenue (growing installed base & stickiness of the App Store), which should drive more visibility into iPhone sales (20%+ of our FY10 iPhone shipments), as well as iPhone expansion driven by new partnerships (& end of exclusivities). Longer term, we believe a service to provide seamless access & mobility of digital content across all products may be the draw (halo) that drives additional future Apple product sales.”

Tavis McCourt, Morgan Keegan
“Overall, Q4:09 was a strong quarter for Apple, as the Mac is nearly becoming the de facto computer for the back-to-school season. Additionally, iPhone trends remain remarkably strong, with unit economics holding up at unheard of levels in the wireless industry.”

Yair Rainer, Oppenheimer
“As usual, Apple appears to be leaving plenty of room for upside surprises to both revenue and margins. On the revenue side, Apple should benefit from continued Mac momentum (particularly in Europe), higher recognized iPhone revenue, and some channel fill for both Mac and iPhone. Gross margin upside is likely to come from a higher proportion of recognized, high-margin iPhone revenue.”

Seems the Street would have much preferred the “boatloads of money” Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz once said she’d demand for a search deal, than the “boatloads of value” she claims to have given them this morning. As I write this, Yahoo (YHOO) shares are trading down more than 12 percent at $15.14. Microsoft (MSFT) shares are up 1.41 percent at $23.80.

Below, a roundup of analyst notes that have been issued on the deal.

Jeff Lindsay, Bernstein Research: We believe Yahoo!’s search deal represents a significant positive for the company’s economics, as both Yahoo! and MSFT were too subscale to compete effectively versus Google. Although the combined 30% search share is still less than half the size of Google, both Yahoo! and MSFT will realize significant cost savings from combining their search technologies. In addition, the greater scale should increase the effectiveness of the search engine, driving revenue synergies through improved search monetization.

Sarah Friar, Goldman Sachs: We view the deal as positive for Microsoft as terms are better for the company than had been speculated (no upfront fee; 88% TAC) and the combined market share provides scale to drive efficiency and legitimacy/relevancy for Microsoft’s online investments. Yahoo!’s $3.0 bn/year search sales translates to $360 mn/year for Microsoft in revenues. Microsoft will incur incremental expenses when the deal closes (expected early CY10), but limited (if any) impact on FY10E and while investments will continue into FY11, our model already assumes sizable expenses.

Douglas Anmuth, Barclays: YHOO-MSFT terms not nearly as favorable as anticipated, but we believe deal is neutral to the co’s L-T positioning. We would have liked to have seen an upfront payment, higher TAC, & rev share on Bing.com searches among other things, but we like that YHOO maintains ability to sell search adv, & therefore relationship with its largest advertisers. It’s unclear how favorable the deal will be to YHOO over time, but our fundamental reasons for owning shares remain the same. We expect better execution on the audience & content biz & specifically within display adv., & we believe YHOO will be able to take out a meaningful amount of costs from the biz aside from search tech. over the next couple yrs.

Peter Misek, Cannacord Adams: We are relieved that Microsoft did not have to provide an upfront payment as part of this deal while effectively garnering more scale. This deal provides Microsoft with a much needed boost in competing with Google (GOOG : NASDAQ : US$435.00 | BUY) as its search algorithm, Bing, is being catapulted to greater market share. In addition, utilizing Yahoo!’s sales force for premium search will allow Microsoft to lower expenses over the duration of the partnership while attempting to attract a greater level of advertisers for the combined platforms. We believe this is a much needed relief for Microsoft, but is one step in a greater battle. In the end this doesn not solve Microsoft’s competitive disadvantage with Google. Rather we think it accelerates Microsoft’s desire to think outside the box and come up with a non-linear way to catch Google.

Heath Terry and Andrew Thomas, FBR Capital Markets: The lack of an up-front payment, no minimum revenue guarantee, and a revenue share that, while above average, is slightly below the +90% that larger deals command make for a lackluster deal for Yahoo!, in our opinion. The lack of any display component to the deal also seems like a missed opportunity for the company. As we see it, the only financial benefit to Yahoo! is the ability to shed the not insignificant technology costs associated with running a search engine. According to the company, this should result in an annual benefit to GAAP operating income of $500M….Restructuring these two businesses and untangling them from their existing partnerships and internal ties will be a massive organizational challenge for both companies.

Mark Mahaney, Citi Investment Research: Implications For YHOO – Positives: 1) YHOO believes deal would generate incremental $250MM in annual cash flow (17% accretive to our ’09 est)–assumptions very hard to test, but magnitude is reasonably conservative; 2) 88% TAC is higher than industry average, but as expected given deal size. Challenges: 1) No upfront payment to YHOO is a negative vs. expectations, tho guaranteed RPS provides significant backstop; 2) Lack of display advertising deal is a negative vs. expectations; & 3) Acknowledgment of YHOO’s Search technology limitations.

Todd Greenwald, Signal Hill Capital Group: The deal announced today will take a very long time to come to fruition we think, and will face several challenges–it will face regulatory hurdles given Microsoft’s antitrust history (though we’d expect it to ultimately get through given Google’s dominance). Additionally, it seems hard to fathom operationally, as it will require Yahoo’s salespeople to be selling Microsoft’s technology. Advertisers will want one point of contact (which would be Yahoo), though that point of contact won’t be entirely responsible for what they are selling–instead of bringing in an engineer from within the same building, the Yahoo salesperson may have to coordinate with a Microsoft employee up in Redmond. Not impossible, just tricky. And considering how smooth and automated the process of buying ads is on Google’s platform, this could prove to be a competitive disadvantage.

Mark May, Needham & Company: Search advertising is not a zero sum game, in our opinion. If Microsoft is able to make Yahoo! (and Microsoft) search more effective through this deal/combination, then we believe is will result in advertising spending more on the new search platform but not less on the Google platform. A more effect Yahoo!/Microsoft search platform does not mean Google search becomes less effective, and we believe there is more demand than supply for effective search marketing. The dollars will likely come from other, less effective, buckets.

Business 101 convincingly argues that most large M&A deals and partnerships are not successful. And, most large-scale Internet media M&A deals and partnerships have tended to under-perform their original promise (e.g., AOL Time Warner, Google/MySpace, etc.). Moreover, in the case of Yahoo!/Microsoft Search, you have two very different cultures and an expected 24 month transition process. The odds are stacked against this deal having a meaningfully impact on Google. And, over the next 2+ years while Yahoo! and Microsoft are trying to transition, Google will be innovating.

In a research note issued this week, Canaccord analyst Peter Misek speculates that Apple (AAPL), which recently debuted an iPhone capable of shooting and editing video, plans to bring the same functionality to the iPod.

“We believe Apple is now targeting to enter the low-end camcorder market by adding this functionality into its iPod lineup,” he writes. “…We believe Apple will unveil various iPod versions with camcorder functionality. We believe this will drive sales not only for traditional MP3 players, but as a new competitive dynamic to the lower end camcorder market that is now dominated by Flip line of digital camcorders.”

Misek sees such a move giving a nice boost to iPod sales, which, as Apple revealed earlier this week, have been declining a bit. “On anticipation of this we have markedly raised our iPod growth assumptions and have raised our iPod shipment forecast from 50 million to 65 million units.”

And what of Cisco (CSCO)? What would the transformation of the iPod into a point-and-shoot camcorder mean for the Flip? Certainly not good things. Who’d want to carry two devices for music and video capture when they could carry just one?

As I write this, Palm is trading at $6.10–up an astonishing 85 percent since its big announcement. And it seems destined to go higher still, given the enthusiastic reception analysts have given it.

Deutsche Bank’s Jonathan Goldberg raised his rating on Palm (PALM) to Hold from Sell saying this morning that he is impressed with the Pre and the direction in which the company is now heading.

“Our thesis on Palm has been that its future is a binary outcome,” he wrote in a note to clients. “We are favorably impressed with the new device and more importantly with the new WebOS. We think the focus has now shifted from their mere survival to execution. The earnings model has the potential for significant earnings leverage, but our outlook is tempered by Palm’s history of missteps. We think they can ship 1m units FY09 and 4m in FY10. The stock has run significantly over the past two days reflecting this, but as we learn more about the popularity of the OS and the potential for them to actually ship a UMTS version of the Pre this year we will revisit our thesis.”

Obviously, there are a few noteworthy caveats in there. Still, Goldberg’s note is vastly different from the funereal notes analysts were writing about the company less than a month ago. Indeed, on Dec. 18, Canaccord Adams analyst Peter Misek essentially dismissed the company. “Due to increased competition in the industry, Palm has lost its place as a leading smartphone manufacturer and has gradually become less relevant as more competitors have introduced more innovative smartphone devices,” Misek said. “The company is financially distressed and lacks any viable future catalysts which could help restore profitability…. We believe that Palm has become largely irrelevant in the smartphone space due to a series of strategic errors and poor execution.”

Clearly, Palm’s situation has changed for the better. Now, let’s see for how long.

We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”

– In 2006, Palm CEO Ed Colligan utters the words he’d be choking down two years later.

The invitation-only event Palm plans to hold during the 2009 Consumer Electronics Show in early January promises “all that Palm New-ness you’ve been waiting for”–“new-ness” presumably referring to the company’s new Nova operating system and the first line of products to run on it. And after five straight quarterly losses and a year in which it lost two-thirds of its market value, Palm (PALM) best deliver on that promise. Because Wall Street is fast losing its patience with the much diminished handset maker, which, according to Gartner (IT), holds a paltry 2.1 percent of the smartphone market. Indeed, Canaccord Adams analyst Peter Misek essentially threw in the towel on the company Wednesday slapping Palm with a Sell rating at a target price of zero.

“Due to increased competition in the industry, Palm has lost its place as a leading smartphone manufacturer and has gradually become less relevant as more competitors have introduced more innovative smartphone devices,” Misek explained. “The company is financially distressed and lacks any viable future catalysts which could help restore profitability…. We believe that Palm has become largely irrelevant in the smartphone space due to a series of strategic errors and poor execution. With very little balance sheet flexibility to mount a comeback, we believe that Palm shares remain a very risky bet, even at current valuation levels.”

Ouch.

Clearly, Misek doesn’t put much faith in the Palm New-ness that will be on display at CES next month. But there are others who do. Said Mike Bell, a 16-year Apple (AAPL) veteran who joined Palm last year: “I’m fundamentally convinced we’re onto something huge. Some of the stuff we’re working on here is mind-blowing–better than anything I’ve seen before.”

Hard to believe, given what we’ve seen from Palm these past few years. But perhaps Bell’s right. We’ll find out next month.

Really? Leaving aside for a moment the fact that Microsoft already has a mobile OS in Windows Mobile and the fact that RIM’s client architecture is, you know, based on Linux, wouldn’t a merger between two of the largest players in the smartphone market invite antitrust scrutiny?