Britain’s Sky News caused a bit of a stir on the blogosphere on Tuesday after it cited John Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono, as saying the Beatles back catalog was finally going for sale on iTunes: seemingly confirming a longstanding rumor that had gained momentum ahead of a widely watched Sept 9 Apple music-entertainment event.

But the report by the 24-hour news service, spotted by 9to5Mac and TechCrunch, among others, was stricken off the Sky News Web site hours later and discredited by a numner of other media outlets including Cnet. In response to Reuters’ queries, EMI, which owns the master recordings, sent us this from Ernesto Schmitt, EMI’s global catalog president:

“Conversations between Apple and EMI are ongoing and we look forward to the day when we can make the music available digitally. But it’s not tomorrow,” Schmitt said in comments first made to the Financial Times. Apple declined to comment.

Mind you, the arrival of the Fab Four on the world’s most popular online music sales portal will be no less than a seminal event. Hence the unrelenting speculation from Apple’s legions of rabid fans who stand rapt at the consumer electronics giant’s every move, and the intense interest from the band’s own not-unimpressive cohort of faithful followers.

On Sept 9, the same day Apple is expected to unveil a new line-up of iPods with digital cameras (with potentially master showman and CEO Steve Jobs set to make his first public appearance since taking leave in January to undergo a liver transplant), “The Beatles:Rock Band” video game will debut for sale from North America to Australia.

The game’s debut will mark the Fab Four’s first leap into the world of digiral music. And their launch on iTunes — currently held up by fears of digital piracy, among other issues — may indeed soon follow.

Just perhaps not on Wednesday.

$140,000,000 = Projected 2010 revenue in U.S. dollars according to Twitter February 2009 financial forecast leaked to TechCrunch. (*2)

100 million = Projected number of Twitter users in fourth quarter 2010 according to leaked spreadsheet. (*2)

75 million = Twitter members in May 2009 based on rough calculation of worldwide users, extrapolated from comScore and All Things D data (*3, *4)

$45,000,000 = Cash on hand in February 2009 raised from venture capital investors, less costs of operating the company. (*1, 2)

37,323,0000 = active Twitter users worldwide during month of May, 2009 - ComScore market research (*3)

$4,400,000 = Projected 2009 year revenue according to leaked spreadsheet. Q4 2009 revenue expected to reach $4 million. (*2)

3-4 million = Harvard Business Review study finds that 10 percent of Twitter users account for more than 90 percent of tweets (*5)

$2,100,000 = Estimated costs of running Twitter with 60 employees in Q3, 2009 according to February 2009 internal financial projection. (*2)

1 million = "There's a million ways, if you are disseminating real-time info...(Twitter) could be commercially viable" - Twitter CEO (*6)

$400,000 = Twitter's projected 2009 Q3 revenue in U.S. dollars, according to leaked spreadsheet. (*1, *2)

$1 = Cost of each user to Twitter (TechCrunch). (*1)

$0 = Twitter's internal revenue projection for first half of 2009, according to internal forecast leaked to TechCrunch. (*2)

Footnotes:

*1 TechCrunch article based on leaked Twitter corporate documents it says were sent to it this week by a hacker. The blog's publisher, Michael Arrington, notes that membership figures and other assumptions are already out of date:

Twitter has told us that this was never an official document and it certainly is no longer accurate. But it gives an interesting glimpse into the company’s financial targets nonetheless.

Twitter confirmed some corporate documents were lost after an administrative employee's account was hacked. It has not confirmed any leaked details.

*2 Screenshot of Twitter February 2009 internal Financial Forecast spreadsheet document leaked to TechCrunch.

*3 37.3 mln users worldwide - ComScore data May 2009. This includes 16 million U.s. users. Using different measurement methods, Compete.com estimated that Twitter had 23 million U.S. users in June.

*4 A poll for the All Things D conference in May found 51 percent of U.S. Twitter users sign on less than once a month. Since comScore data only counts visitors older than 15 years old on a monthly basis, one can extrapolate that the 37.3 figure represents only the 49 percent of active users. The 75 million estimate combines active and inactive members who have signed up for an account but rarely or never visit Twitter. The poll surveyed 1,005 members of the U.S. general public and was conducted by by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates.

*5 Harvard Business Review May 2009 study of 300,000 Twitter users:

At the same time there is a small contingent of users who are very active. Specifically, the top 10% of prolific Twitter users accounted for over 90% of tweets. On a typical online social network, the top 10% of users account for 30% of all production ... The pattern of contributions on Twitter is more concentrated among the few top users than is the case on Wikipedia, even though Wikipedia is clearly not a communications tool. This implies that Twitter's resembles more of a one-way, one-to-many publishing service more than a two-way, peer-to-peer communication network.

*6 Twitter Co-founders Evan Williams and Biz Stone interviewed at All Things D conference, May 2009.

Reuters story on document leak
Reuters commentary: Twitter should sell if it can

Even at a difficult moment, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone managed to be witty.

It fell to Stone to write about the hacker who broke in to the company’s computers and stole sensitive business information. His blog on the matter — the official statement from Twitter — was dubbed “Twitter, even more open than we wanted.”

Someone sent a trove of the Twitter documents to the Silicon Valley website TechCrunch. Stone’s blog clarified puzzling statements on TechCrunch that seemed to point toward Google Docs as the problem.  Said Stone: “This has nothing to do with any vulnerability in Google Apps which we continue to use.”

That must have come as a welcome relief at Google, which had been trying to explain the robustness of its security even as press agents for obscure security experts sent emails to suggest otherwise, so their clients would get a mention.

Stone said Twitter’s difficulties are an object lesson in the importance of having strong passwords. TechCrunch took some pleasure in asserting that the password for Twitter servers was the word “password.”

So, the public got its first titillating glance at privately held Twitter’s (out of date) cost and revenue numbers, which Stone likened to getting a look at the inside of someone’s underwear drawer, quoting someone else:

“No one’s really going to be surprised about what’s in there.”

TechCrunch, in negotiations with its lawyers and those of Twitter, has promised to put more underwear on display soon.

(Photo by Kimberly White/Reuters)

We sprinkled updates into this blog. We’re highlighting them like this.

Thanks to TechCrunch, U.S. tech reporters are about to spend another weekend working instead of playing. UPDATE: Or maybe Kara Swisher at All Things D will save them!

Two sources told proprietor Michael Arrington that Google “is in late stage negotiations to acquire Twitter.” He wrote:

We don’t know the price but can assume its well, well north of the $250 million valuation that they saw in their recent funding.

Twitter turned down an offer to be bought by Facebook just a few months ago for half a billion dollars, although that was based partially on overvalued Facebook stock. Google would be paying in cash and/or publicly valued stock, which is equivalent to cash. So whatever the final acquisition value might be, it can’t be compared apples-to-apples with the Facebook deal.

Why would Google want Twitter? We’ve been arguing for some time that Twitter’s real value is in search. It holds the keys to the best real time database and search engine on the Internet, and Google doesn’t even have a horse in the game.

Later, he updated his entry to say that another source told him talks are at an early stage and could amount to a deal to build a Google real-time search engine. Who knows how this one will shake out. Web operations like Twitter can’t get popular without people starting to fit puzzle pieces together to see which company ought to buy them. That might be why The San Francisco Business Times picked up Wired and Industry Standard founder John Battelle’s blog entry that Twitter would go to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp for $750 million. Turns out it was an April Fool’s joke.

Then Swisher at All Things D said this:

While the “news” that Google was in “late-stage” talks to acquire Twitter, which TechCrunch reported last night, certainly sounds exciting, it isn’t accurate in any way, according to a number of sources BoomTown spoke to close to the situation.

She also covered herself with a “to-be-sure graf,” as hacks like me call them:

Google or anyone else could plunk down more than $1 billion in cash and I cannot imagine Twitter’s investors would or could resist. Nor should they. And, what if, for example, Microsoft (MSFT) offered some huge cash payday for Twitter? In that case, I am certain Google would jump into the face-off, backing up a giant Brinks trunk to the door of Twitter’s San Francisco offices.

Afterward, everyone scratched their heads and ruminated mightily about this very important situation. TechCrunch, meanwhile, stands by its story, a blogger there told us.

Will Google announce plans to buy Twitter in 2009?

Keep an eye on:

• MediaNews Group, the Denver-based newspaper publisher run by legendary hyper-acquirer “Lean Dean” Singleton, worked out a deal with creditors on paying off its heavy debt that Singleton put on the company as he bought and bought and bought newspapers (before slashing and slashing their budgets and staff). And he said bankruptcy wasn’t an issue. (The New York Times)
• Some people who work with him have told me that New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller comes off as arrogant, but he’s actually shy. This is the same shy man who at Stanford University on Thursday said CNN’s reporting has been replaced by juries of commentators who work on a set that looks like a parody of a Daily Show parody of a news set. He also said saving The New York Times ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause. From my own interactions with Keller, I would conclude that he’s a deadpan comic, not shy. (Politico)
• TMZ.com is devoting more money to reporting gossip from Washington, D.C. Why flack this now? Is it because parent company Time Warner is geeking out at the cable show in DC this week? Maybe TMZ’s Harvey Levin bunked up with Time Warner Chief Executive Jeff Bewkes to save money in the downturn. OK, maybe not. (Reuters)
• In case you didn’t know already, you should not get news for free online. Rupert said so. (Please ignore this free blog entry on this free website). It shouldn’t work for online TV either, said Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav. (PaidContent)

(Photo: Reuters)

We’ve had two months to ruminate, speculate and analyze about who will take over as Yahoo chief executive after co-founder Jerry Yang who decided 18 months in the hotseat was enough for him.

Carol Bartz, former chief executive of Autodesk, was appointed CEO on Tuesday after her name had been floated ”on sources” a few days earlier in various reports.

Yahoo shares were flat on Wednesday morning and most Wall Street analysts viewed the appointment as a positive as it clears the way for Yahoo to do some sort of merger/outsourcing deal with Microsoft.

Bartz, a director at Cisco, also got a glowing endorsement from Cisco chief John Chambers, according to the New York Times:

“She’s the best player in the draft,” said John Chambers, the chief executive of Cisco Systems, where Ms. Bartz has served as a board member since 1996. Mr. Chambers said Ms. Bartz often challenged him on strategic decisions, like mergers and acquisitions, to make sure they had been thought through well. And Ms. Bartz is not afraid to speak her mind, he said.

“You always know where she stands,” Mr. Chambers said. “You may not always like it.”

But more importantly what does the blogosphere think of Bartz?

From AllThings Digital:

Yahoo, “frankly, could use a little management.” Uttering those words Tuesday afternoon during a conference call to discuss her appointment as CEO of Yahoo (YHOO), Carol Bartz ushered in a new era at the company.

Known for occasionally opening Autodesk executive staff meetings with a “Tell me why I shouldn’t fire the whole lot of you,” she’s no milquetoast. She’s a cancer survivor. And she’s the person who rebuilt Autodesk, after putting down a rebellion of programmers bent on undermining her.

TechCrunch:

Bartz is a capable manager. She led Autodesk for 14 years between 1992 and 2006, keeping it from the PC software graveyard by focusing on CAD software for architects and builders. Autodesk, however, is an old-school software company. It is not exactly a great training ground for running an online advertising business attached to the most popular destinations on the Web. And as far as applications go, they are all Web apps and Yahoo gives them away for free. Bartz is most definitely an ally of founder and outgoing CEO Jerry Yang. They both sit on Cisco’s board. But it gets better. She also sits on Intel’s board with [outgoing] Yahoo president Susan Decker. In other words, she is has close ties with existing management. (Decker, though, wanted the CEO job as well).

Silicon Alley Insider:

The more we learn about Yahoo’s new CEO Carol Bartz, the more we like. Based on anecdotes we’ve heard from Valley execs and Autodesk investors, Carol’s own introduction on yesterday’s conference call, and stories in the press, she appears to have exactly the philosophy that Yahoo needs right now.

Carol’s biggest weakness is still a lack of experience in the consumer Internet business. But if she gives the job 100% of her attention, she’ll get up to speed fast.

Keep an eye on:

• EchoStar welcomes U.S. Patent Office decision to rexamine patent infringement claim involving TiVo’s software (Reuters).
• AT&T Wireless upsets some customers by sending mass text messages for American Idol, which it sponsors (New York Times)
• A task force created by 49 state attorneys general finds that the online threat to children is overblown (New York Times)

Have you ever watched pigeons almost take flight as someone approaches, but after a brief flapping of wings decide to sit tight? That was the sense we got from reading the stories that knocked down the latest rumor about who will buy Internet search company Yahoo.

Here’s the story, posted by Michael Arrington’s TechCrunch blog:

Interest in troubled Internet giant Yahoo has not waned, it just took a break for the holidays.

A group of well known Silicon Valley executives and top investment bankers are putting together a Yahoo takeover deal that would be financed largely from debt supplied by Microsoft, we’ve learned from sources with knowledge of the proposed transaction.

Under the terms of the proposed deal, the investment group would make a takeover bid for Yahoo at a relatively low premium of around 20% to its current price of around $13 per share, valuing the company at just over $20 billion.

Nuh-uh, says Kara Swisher of Dow Jones’s All Things D blog:

[When] you actually talk to sources at the wallet itself-that would be the money-laden Microsoft — they scoff at the notion that they would help others buy Yahoo (YHOO), in order to get at its search business.

“We can deal directly with Yahoo, which is moving through a process to get a new CEO, and when the time is right, we will deal with their leadership,” said a source close to Microsoft’s thinking. “Getting involved in some convoluted deal with others in control…it’s idiotic.”

Why pigeons? Usually, upon stimulus, all those birds will fly away at once. When a plausible story looks like it’s ready to break, reporters will start flying around in a bunch too. In this case, Bloomberg flew, but it looks like the rest of the flock held off:

Microsoft Corp. isn’t holding talks to finance a new bid for Yahoo! Inc., a person familiar with Microsoft’s plans said, responding to a blog report.

Now for more literary imagery: Swisher elsewhere in her blog entry on the TechCrunch story recalled how at The Washington Post (and at most other news outlets), this is what they call a trial balloon. Float the balloon, see how many people shoot at it, then decide on further action based on the public opinion. Since this balloon lasted mere minutes, expect to see more of them dotting the horizon soon; someone seems to be trying to figure out what to do with a reasonable amount of cash and a canister full of helium.

Keep an eye on

• The Boston Globe is a New York Times newspaper (for now). That means it does what the Times does. This week, that means running ads on its front page to bring in a few more ducats. (The Boston Globe)
• Disney’s ABC outsources some of its overseas news reporting to the BBC because that kind of coverage is expensive. The Hollywood Reporter tactfully calls this an expanded “news partnership.” (The Hollywood Reporter)
• Disney likes boys. (The Wall Street Journal)

(Photo: Reuters)

TechCrunch publisher and lead writer Michael Arrington got a jump on other April Fool’s pranksters with a Monday, March 31 post entitled “Why We’re Suing Facebook for $25 million in Statutory Damages”

But Arrington gave away the punchline at a news conference at Facebook offices in mid-March, when he surprised other reporters by volunteering how he and his lawyer had thought of suing Facebook for violations to Arrington’s privacy. It was all a big joke, Arrington, formerly a Sillicon Valley lawyer, said at the time.

His Monday post says TechCrunch is filing a lawsuit against Facebook on April 1 seeking $25 million in damages, along with a related civil case for assault and battery and infliction of emotional distress.

“In a round of negotiations over the lawsuit with Facebook led by Chief Privacy Officer Chris Kelly, things got out of hand. When our team of lawyers offered to settle for a mere $50 million, Kelly told me Facebook would “bury you and bury your crappy blog” if we filed the suit. He then threw his steaming hot triple soy latte espresso at me, which caused extensive second degree burns over the top half of my body. Later on, he also unfriended me.”

For the record, here is a transcript of the actual March 18 conversation that grew out of a discussion over the controversy on Facebook’s Beacon:

Arrington: “Is there anyway for users to say I don’t not want my image to promote social ads?”

Facebook VP of Product Management Matt Cohler: “There is a social add shut-off. It is an opt-out (privacy setting).”

Arrington: “Okay, so I can now stop endorsing BlockBuster movie clips, if I choose to? … It is an opt-out, not an opt-in?”

(Another reporter jumped in with a related question, then Arrington continued).

Arrington: “Do you feel as though you are on sort of on very poor legal ground with this?” referring to Beacon.

Cohler: “No, I don’t. I feel like we are on fine legal ground. To be perfectly frank.”

Arrington: “This is awesome. Actually, it’s something that is going to cost too much. My attorney wanted to sue you guys. And we are not going to sue you because I think you would (fight) it.”

Cohler: “Well, thank you.”

Arrington: “What we (Michael and his lawyer) talked about was … creating sort of a fake lawsuit (and posting it on TechCrunch). But it was going to cost too much. It was going to cost about $15 grand. But he’s like, ‘It’s an open shut case…’”

Facebook privacy officer and legal counsel Chris Kelly cut in: “Under what legal theory?”

Arrington: “California and New York privacy rights, where you are using my image and name without my permission.”

Kelly: “The terms of services are very clear on that….We have the permission that is required under those laws.”
…
Cohler later asked Arrington: “Is TechCrunch not working out too well for you?”

Asked by Reuters to comment via e-mail on Arrington’s post, Kelly replied: “I’ve invited him over for coffee ;)”

(Photos: TechCrunch, Facebook, Arrington’s Facebook profile photo)