“Despite increasing smartphone competition, Palm can maintain differentiation and remains well-positioned to launch its products with multiple new Tier-1 carriers in early 2010 by which time it should have a robust apps catalog,” Arya wrote. “While we expect the stock to remain volatile, the recent sell-off creates an interesting buying opportunity, in our opinion, for a company with an attractive platform, selling into a high-growth market, and at a compelling valuation.”

Interestingly, Arya notes that Palm’s webOS application ecosystem, initially something of a disappointment, is growing a bit more rapidly these days with between 50 and 100 apps being added to Palm’s App Catalog each week. He expects growth to continue with the debut of a new feature enabling customers to download apps simply by clicking on a URL. Arya believes this will dramatically improve discovery of apps and attract more attention from developers. His conclusion: With a more robust App Catalog and two attractive handsets, Palm is well-positioned to launch its webOS line with multiple new Tier-1 carriers like Verizon (VZ) in early 2010.

“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.”

Palm CEO Ed Colligan, December 2006

“Five hundred dollars? Fully subsidized? With a plan? I said that’s the most expensive phone in the world and it doesn’t appeal to business customers because it doesn’t have a keyboard, which makes it not a very good e-mail machine.”

– Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, January 2007

At 37.9 percent, Nokia’s share of the global handset market is the largest in the industry. Odd then to learn that it is not the most profitable. And odder still to learn that that honor belongs to Apple, which has been in the handset market for just two years.

According to Strategy Analytics, Apple’s third-quarter iPhone operating profit was $1.6 billion, while Nokia’s was $1.1 billion. Driving Apple’s profits: Strong sales, high wholesale prices and tight cost controls.

“We have identified at least 4 key factors underlying Apple’s success,” Strategy Analytics analyst Alexander Spektor explains. “First, Apple created a simple sub-brand–the iPhone–which was memorable and easy to remember. Second, the firm developed an attractive family of models with standout usability that enabled Apple to charge way-above-average prices to operators and consumers. Third, Apple distributed and co-marketed its handsets through top-tier carriers in numerous high-value countries. And fourth, the vendor has kept a solid grip on production costs by working with Foxconn, the world’s largest contract handset manufacturer.”

Quite an achievement for Apple (AAPL) and a major humiliation for Nokia (NOK), which has seen its dominance eroded by the likes of Apple and Research in Motion (RIMM), and not just in North America, but in Europe. Indeed, in its latest quarter Nokia’s smart-phone market share dropped by six points.

As Strategy Analytics analyst Neil Mawston noted at the time, “[Nokia has] no iPhone killer to drive a major revival in its smartphone volumes. [It] is still struggling in the U.S. smartphone market, and with competition intensifying in China as well, Nokia’s battles can only get tougher in 2010.”

“There will be no banner ads on the Google homepage or web search results pages. There will not be crazy, flashy, graphical doodads flying and popping up all over the Google site. Ever.”

– Google Vice President of Search Product and User Experience Marissa Mayer

“People wouldn’t like [ads on the homepage]. We prioritize the end user over the advertiser.”

– Google CEO Eric Schmidt, August 2009

Well, this is a first, I think: Google is promoting a consumer electronics device on its front page. Surf over to Google.com right now and you’ll find this pitch plugging Droid, Motorola’s (MOT) new Android smart phone: “The Droid is on sale now. Learn more.”

The text is simple and at just 42 characters, it jibes well with Google’s (GOOG) minimalist design ethic. Click on that “learn more” link and you’re taken to a mobile partners page that touts Droid’s Google-enabled search prowess. Only then are you presented with a big “Get the Verizon Droid Now” button that takes you to Verizon Wireless (VZ), where you can purchase the device.

So is it an ad? Google will almost certainly argue that it is not. But clearly, it commercializes the page. Droid is a consumer product sold by another company and Google is branding it on its most prominent page. Wonder how much that spot is worth.

Furthermore, it’s interesting to see Google leveraging search–a product in which it enjoys a de facto monopoly–to promote a second product that isn’t yet dominant (Android). More so, given this remark from CEO Eric Schmidt, made just yesterday:

“Hopefully, we won’t repeat the mistakes that Microsoft made 10 years ago that ultimately led to all these things that happened to them.”

I’ve asked Google for comment and will update this post if and when I receive a reply.

UPDATE Here’s Google’s comment on the Droid promotion via company spokesperson Gabriel Stricker:

We are currently running a homepage promotion for Droid. From time to time we include a link on the Google home page that points users to exciting and important information, whether it be relief opportunities in the wake of a tsunami or hurricane, awareness about an important cause, or information about a new product. The Droid is a hardware collaboration that we’ve been very active and involved with, so it makes sense that Google has an interest in getting the word out.

UPDATE Turns out this is not the first Google has promoted a handset on its homepage. Last October it plugged another Android device there, the T-Mobile G1.

“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.

According to News.com, 100 people or so lined up outside Verizon’s midtown Manhattan store last night prior to its midnight opening. And various reports posted to Twitter suggest there were queues at other outlets as well, though quite a bit shorter (see below; click to enlarge).

In any event, the fact that there are lines at all must be a welcome sight for Verizon (VZ), which has been looking for a strong rival to Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone, and for Motorola (MOT), which hopes Droid will revive its much-diminished post-Razr cellphone business. As one Verizon subscriber eager to trade up to Droid told me, “it’s the best smart phone not made by Apple.”

With endorsements like this, Motorola should be working a bit harder on branding the device as its own. Right now, the Droid marketing push from Verizon Wireless is so overwhelming that you’d think CEO Lowell McAdam designed it himself. Why aren’t we hearing from Motorola as well?

“Droid is potentially a game changer for Motorola,” iSuppli analyst Tina Teng said in a recent research note. “Motorola now is no longer just emphasizing slick form factors, such as it did with its RAZR handset. The company now has focused on the hottest segment of the global mobile handset market–providing compelling smartphone products that are usable and expandable through third-party applications.”

That being the case, Motorola might want to do a bit more to get its name out there.

There is “no sign of the sort of sellout reception that greeted the smart phone at its introduction in other countries,” The Wall Street Journal reported, adding that there were no lines for the iPhone at the Apple store in Beijing, the company’s only location in China.

Sounds like a lackluster launch, and with Apple (AAPL) and China Unicom, the only carrier authorized to sell the device in the country, declining to disclose sales figures, it’s difficult to argue that it was otherwise. It clearly wasn’t the rousing success to which we’ve become accustomed. That said, it probably wasn’t quite the bust it’s been made out to be, either.

Why? Well, consider this: There were launch ceremonies in 30 provinces. To date, we’ve heard anecdotal reports from–as best I can tell–one of them. And while it’s admittedly concerning to learn that a China Unicom store in Beijing sold just 10 iPhones last Saturday, that’s just one store. The device was on sale in many, many others (1000, according to Apple COO Tim Cook) across 30 provinces and 285 Chinese cities in a nation with 710 million mobile-phone subscribers.

Finally, while it’s true that the prices Apple and China Unicom are charging for the iPhone are heady, they’re not quite as bad as we’ve been led to believe. “I think the western media has misconstrued the iPhone pricing in China,” Dan Butterfield, editor of iPhonAsia told me.

“Nine out of 10 reports that I’ve seen have simply repeated the ‘too expensive’ mantra,” Butterfield explained. “They then quote the contract free price point–4,999 yuan ($730) to 6,999 yuan ($1,025) for the iPhone 3GS. They argue that you can buy a gray-market iPhone cheaper and it has WiFi….The truth…the gray-market price is marginally cheaper for those who want to go ‘prepaid.’ But when you examine the full matrix of China Unicom price/plans, you quickly realize that you can save big by going on contract vs. prepaid (pay as you go). There are even four price/plans where your iPhone if free. The iPhone subsidy increases for those who opt for more expensive monthly plans.”

Butterfield elaborates: “Moreover, if you want to access ‘3G,’ there is no good carrier option other than China Unicom. You can run at 2G speeds on China Mobile or China Telecom. But neither of these two networks support the chipset in iPhone. China Mobile runs TDSCDMA 3G and China Telecom runs CDMA2000 3G. So you are left with China Unicom’s WCDMA 3G–a world-standard 3G protocol fully supported by iPhone 3G/3GS. Why not go on contract and get a subsidized iPhone that is well below the ‘too expensive’ (contract free) prices that the media is shouting about?”

And in the end, does it even matter? As Butterfield noted, an iPhone sale is an iPhone sale–whether it’s made by a gray-market vendor or an authorized one. And either way, it’s good for Apple.

So was the iPhone’s launch in China really a bust? “Probably not,” said Butterfield. “Was it a rousing success? Probably not. The truth is somewhere in the middle.”

UPDATE: Well what do you know: China Unicom just coughed up some first weekend sales numbers for the iPhone and … well, they’re not much to look. The carrier sold just 5,000.

Google is moving into your market.

For tech companies, few words are more frightening, and yesterday we saw why. The mere announcement of Google Maps Navigation sent shares of established GPS device makers like Garmin (GRMN) and TomTom into an ugly downward spiral.

Shares of Garmin lost 16 percent of their value and shares of TomTom plummeted more than 20 percent to a new 52-week low. This, despite the fact that Google’s (GOOG) new turn-by-turn mapping service is currently only available for Android 2.0 smart phones like the Droid from Motorola (MOT).

Clearly, investors already see where this is headed. Who will pay for a Garmin or TomTom unit when they’ve got an Internet-connected smart phone that offers turn-by-turn voice guidance for free? It might be a bit slow coming out of the gate given the current paucity of Android-based smart phones, but once more handsets arrive at market, Google Maps Navigation will undoubtedly have a significant impact on sales of dedicated GPS units.

And if Google brings the service to Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone, as the company hopes to, it’s going to be even worse.

“With this product, Google injects itself into a new market and has the potential to cause serious pain for the existing players, like Garmin and TomTom, while giving potential customers one more solid reason to switch to a Google-powered phone,” said Gabriel Consulting Group analyst Dan Olds. “It’s a lot easier to justify the switch to a new device if it takes the place of two devices, like a phone and a navigation device, and if it does the job better.”

Consensus seems to be that the Droid is the device that will get Motorola back into the game. Indeed, Technology Business Research’s Ken Hyers says the Droid is likely a “serious challenger to the iPhone.”

Over at RBC Capital Markets, Mark Sue says good things as well. “The Droids are coming and Motorola will be an important part of Verizon’s push for smartphone differentiation,” he wrote in a note to clients Wednesday. “In addition to compelling products, Motorola seems to have gotten back into the good graces of the North American carrier federation, which should aggressively push the new devices.”

Of course, these endorsements don’t necessarily mean that Motorola is poised to return to its past glory. And they certainly don’t guarantee the Christmas turnaround the company is clearly hoping for. After all, the smart-phone market is far more competitive now than it was when Motorola last dominated it back in 2004.

Said Morningstar analyst Joseph Beaulieu: “[I’m not sure the Droid] will be good enough to cut through the noise that you’re getting from Apple iPhone, HTC’s Hero, Research In Motion’s BlackBerry and even Palm’s Pre and upcoming Pixi.”

This according to a new survey from ChangeWave Research (see chart below; click to enlarge), which found that the iPhone now accounts for 30 percent of the smart-phone market. That’s almost double the share it held a year ago. Remarkable considering that the device is currently available from just a single carrier.

“Apple’s share keeps skyrocketing,” said ChangeWave research director Paul Carton. “Their last earnings report points that out. But these numbers show that their momentum is continuing. They’re firing on all cylinders.”

Indeed. Of consumers who plan to buy a smart phone in the next 90 days, 36 percent plan to purchase an iPhone. Meanwhile, 27 percent are considering a BlackBerry and eight percent a Palm (PALM) device.

Said Carton: “In the horserace among manufacturers, the release of the iPhone 3GS has led to a big jump in smart phone market share for Apple and has placed them within striking distance of Research In Motion–whose slew of models are still number one but have fallen to their lowest level in two years.”

[Image Credit: GadgetPhix]

“This is a decision that is exclusively in Apple’s court,” said Seidenberg. “Obviously we would be interested if they thought it would make sense for them to have us as a partner. And so we will leave it with them on that score….We want to broaden the base of choice for customers, and hopefully along the way, Apple, as well as others, will decide to jump on the bandwagon.”

Not the most aggressive price considering that Amazon (AMZN) is currently offering the Pre, the Pixi’s elder, more robust sibling, for $99 (see image below; click to enlarge) with a two-year contract as well. Remember, the Pixi has a slower processor and a smaller screen than the Pre. And it doesn’t support Wi-Fi. Has some neat back covers though!

Worse, Pixi requires $200 to get out the door, and statistically speaking, there will be quite a few people who will fail to cash in that second $100 rebate. As I noted back when the Pre launched with a similar rebate program, redemption rates for offers like these typically run around 58 percent, thanks to customers who either find the process too cumbersome or forget about it entirely.

This can end up being quite lucrative for the issuing company. Consider this: In 2004, TiVo (TIVO) promised customers a $100 mail-in rebate within six to eight weeks of the purchase of a new DVR. About 50,000 of the 104,000 eligible for that offer failed to take advantage of it. That saved TiVo about $5 million.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Palm Pre: $199 After a $100 Rebate We Hope You Lose