That’s one conclusion you can draw from a new survey showing that people who own Apple (AAPL) handsets are more willing to pay for stuff than the average Internet surfer.

It’s a U.K. survey, conducted by the Olswang media law firm, but my hunch is that you’d see similar results in the U.S. And given that consumers look much less likely to pay for stuff than publishers and distributors would like, it’s worth chewing on. Guardian:

The survey showed that 58% of people would pay to access online a film just released in cinemas, 52% would pay for access to a film that will not be on DVD for at least two months and 40% would pay to access a film which is already on DVD or pay-TV. Looking at solely iPhone users, however, those figures jump to 73%, 67% and 54% respectively….

News content, however, remains a tough online sell. The survey asked how willing consumers would be to buy a newspaper article or column which could be read on a computer or portable device such as a phone or e-reader. Only 19% of respondents expressed any willingness to pay–though that did increase to 30% among iPhone users.

I’ve repeatedly been skeptical that consumers will pay for something solely because it’s on a mobile device–this is the key idea behind the magazine industry’s digital plans–but I do think there are some cases where this might work.

My own anecdotal confirmation: My household just dropped $6 for three Pixar shorts for an iPhone 3G in a desperate attempt to provide some electronic babysitting/soothing. This, despite the fact that everything we bought is also available for free on YouTube. When you need the stuff, you can’t be dependent on a wireless connection.

Here’s one of the clips we spent $1.99 on:

But Spotify has yet to make a key expansion: To the U.S., where the big music labels worry that consumers will love everything about the site except paying for it. That’s bad, since Spotify is supposed to work best as a subscription service.

Most Americans have never heard of Symbian, though it remains the biggest player in the global smartphone market (as long as you use a broad definition of smartphone). But it’s telling that Spotify made a point of making its service compatible with Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone and Google’s (GOOG) Android handsets first.

In any event, Spotify is only available via mobile to paying subscribers, who shell out around $16 a month in the U.K. (and less in some countries). They key question for the music business is how many subscribers there are.

Spotify won’t release statistics, but one number that I’ve heard from people close to the company is 100,000, which works out to less than two percent of the company’s overall user base (free users can listen to the service only on their PCs and have to endure a small smattering of ads). But U.S. music industry executives worry that the subscription number may be even lower than that.

The two sides continue to chat, and conventional wisdom is that the service will indeed get to the U.S. one day. But at one point, Spotify was talking about coming to America in 2009, but that looks just about impossible. Now, CEO Daniel Ek is talking about the first half of 2010.

Someone named Justin Bieber, who apparently is a teenage singer, was supposed to appear at the Roosevelt Field mall on Friday, but stayed away because the crowd had become too unruly. Police asked a record label executive to help disperse the horde using the messaging service, and claim he didn’t cooperate. More from Newsday:

Police arrested a senior vice president from Bieber’s label, Island Def Jam Records, James A. Roppo, 44, of Hoboken, N.J., saying he hindered their crowd-control efforts by not cooperating.

He was in custody Friday night, pending charges that could include criminal nuisance, endangering the welfare of a minor and obstructing government administration, Smith said.

“We asked for his help in getting the crowd to go away by sending out a Twitter message,” Smith said. “By not cooperating with us we feel he put lives in danger and the public at risk.”

Slightly confusing, because Bieber’s Twitter account–presumably the one the cops wanted Roppo to use–does indeed show that he asked his fans to leave at 4:30 pm Eastern:

But apparently that was too late:

Here’s what a mall full of unruly Justin Bieber fans looks like, by the way. Not sure how helpful Twitter would have in the face of this:

Condé has a demo video it has been showing to advertisers, employees and plenty of other people, including me. The demo gives you a pretty good overview of what the publisher and Adobe (ADBE), which is building the software to produce and view the magazines, have in mind. But the publisher has turned down my request to show the clip to my readers.

This doesn’t mean you can’t see it, though. If you’re in New York City, you can troop down to the promotional “store” Wired magazine sponsors each year, located this time in the Meatpacking District (keep an eye peeled for the Betaworks guys). The publisher is showing off at least part of the clip there, and you can see some of it in this YouTube clip below (thanks to Brian Chen for spotting):

Obviously, it’s a much better experience if you can watch the video directly, instead of through someone else’s video camera. Also, I think you’d prefer to see it outside of the store, where you’re not subjected to slit-your-wrists techno music. So perhaps this will prompt the Condé folks to put the entire clip out in public.

In the meantime, here’s a gallery of “Saturday Night Live” cast members and other sort-of-famous people checking out last year’s store.

Call me Professor Positive if you must, but I don’t think that’s terrible: It means that 60 percent of phone users are okay with ads. And I suspect the number will be higher once the ads move from the theoretical/novelty realm into something you see whenever you use your phone or in exchange for getting something of value.

(And yes, I understand that a vocal minority absolutely hates advertising of all sorts and is reading this story on a computer that runs ad-blocking software. Good for you! Please let me know how you’d like to pay for this stuff and everything else you consume on the Web).

Here’s the research from Parks Associates, via Mediapost (click to enlarge):

Remember that even if mobile ads do take off as expected, it’s still going to be a relatively small business for some time. Bernstein Research figures mobile ads may generate $2.2 billion by 2013, which is nothing to sneeze at, but still a small fraction of the $32 billion Web ad market. Most of the mobile ad dollars, of course, are expected to flow to Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO).

As many readers noted, one big problem–potentially–with the plan is that Adobe (ADBE) and Apple (AAPL) generally don’t play well together. And in the case of Apple’s iPhone, they don’t play at all: Adobe’s flash platform doesn’t work in the iPhone, which is why many video sites, which depend on flash, don’t work well on the gadget.

So what if this happens again with Apple’s tablet, if and when the thing finally arrives?

I noted this yesterday, but didn’t get to talk to Adobe and Condé about it until later. Now I have their responses. The short version: They sure hope it works out.

The longer version is that both Condé and Adobe plan on running on all sorts of devices. And there’s not a lot they can do to satisfy Apple’s (AAPL) tablet requirements in advance, since Apple won’t discuss the tablet or even acknowledge that the tablet is in the works.

Here’s Adobe’s official line, provided by Senior Experience Design Manager Jeremy Clark:

Adobe has taken initial steps to prepare Adobe AIR to support mobile with performance improvements (reductions in memory usage, runtime size, JavaScript CPU consumption, and reduced CPU usage for background applications), and support multi-touch input used by mobile phones and presumably a new generation of slate devices. In fact we just announced a beta for AIR 2.0 that incorporates many of these features.

Our job at Adobe is to help create a great digital publishing platform. If publishers like Conde Nast and NY Times are delivering brand-name content via Adobe AIR, we believe that the devices that will win in the marketplace, will be the ones that support this open format. It should also be noted that Adobe recently announced plans to enable Flash applications to be brought to iPhone and indeed several are available on the iTunes store.

So we’ll continue to look for ways to enable publishers to deliver their content to the widest possible range of platforms, even on platforms that don’t yet support our runtimes.

It’s a reasonable enough response, given the alternative, which is to wait around for Apple to bring forth the wondergadget–or not. And in the meantime, the companies would miss an opportunity to help set standards for other guys’ gadgets.

On the other hand, there’s the less politic response, which you’re not going to hear from either company on the record: “Boy oh boy, are we screwed if our stuff doesn’t work with the market leader.”

But here’s one version of that take, from Time Inc.’s Josh Quittner, who is working on producing tablet-ready magazines for the Time Warner (TWX) publishing unit:

I am a hyperbolic guy, not to mention a purple writer, but I think it’s conservative to say that in the miserable publishing business, there is no greater hope for salvation that the iThing. With visions of giant iPhones dancing in our heads, all of us are working on prototypes of magazines and newspapers that will work on 9.7-inch, multi-touch screens linked wirelessly to stores. And, while there are at least a dozen manufacturers heatedly working on their own iterations, we all await the iThing because history has shown us that Steve Jobs leads the parade. Chaos will ensue, with many idiotic and competing platforms drawing precious resources from content makers who have to try just about everything until a frontrunner emerges.

Oh. One more quick item: As Quittner says, there are lots of publishers working on this stuff, and I look forward to seeing all of their efforts. And in case anyone gets the idea that I’m only paying attention to the biggest dogs, here’s what FastCompany.com’s Noah Robischon has to say about his company’s digital plans:

We’re working on delivering the magazine in several different digital formats right now, including to e-readers. Assuming the iTablet is a real product, and it uses any of these formats–and I’ve got no inside knowledge, it’s all based on rumor and guesswork–then we’ll be on the device too.

We’ve been approached by a few different companies working on e-reader formats for magazine publishers, as well as a couple that want to create digital versions of the magazine pages for online display. So we’re evaluating our options now. This space has become very active in the last 6 months, and it’s great to have so many options.

So there you go. Next?

[Image credit: clarity]

But Condé, like other publishers, says Apple (AAPL) won’t actually talk to the company about its plans for the device, or even acknowledge that it has plans.*

Condé’s plan, meanwhile, is to create digital versions of its magazines that will work on all the upcoming tablets, using new software from Adobe (ADBE). Those tablets aren’t actually on the market yet, but the publisher says it’s confident that we’ll soon see multiple versions of machines featuring large color touchscreens and wireless connections.

So who’s going to make those gadgets? Condé Nast CEO Chuck Townsend says his company is working closely with Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) and that it has also been communicating its plans to Apple. But Townsend made a point of saying that Apple executives themselves refuse to acknowledge that they’re actually planning a tablet: “They’re not talking to anybody openly,” he says.

Adobe is creating a publishing tool for the new format, as well as magazine-reader software that may come pre-installed on the devices or may require a download. The software company says it is working exclusively with Condé now, but will offer its tools to other publishers next year.

[Important technical point several readers have brought up: Adobe says its new reader software will run using its AIR platform, which works on multiple operating systems, including Apple's desktop system. But neither AIR nor Adobe's flash software works on Apple's iPhone, so if the new mystery device runs on that operating system, there's a problem. I'm following up with Adobe to see what it has to say. UPDATE: Here's Adobe's response.]

Condé says its work with Adobe won’t preclude the company from joining the “Hulu for magazines” storefront/distribution joint venture it has been discussing with Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. and other publishers. “Those discussions are ongoing and important and imminent,” Townsend says.

Okay. So what will Condé’s magazines look like once the tablets appear? The publisher has been showing a demo video to advertisers, industry executives and employees, and I’m trying to convince the company to show it to the rest of the world. (UPDATE: Here’s a partial, low-quality version of the video).

But until then, you can get a sense of it by checking out the publisher’s first attempt to port a magazine to the iPhone, which was released today at the iTunes App Store.

Like the iPhone version of GQ’s December issue, Condé says its tablet magazines will feature the same content found in the print versions, including original advertising, with the ability to view pages in their original form or in formats designed specifically for the device. They will also import multimedia content, like videos, and offer the ability to synch up with social networks and other Web sites.

Condé also thinks the business model for its tablet mags will mirror that of its iPhone app. The company intends to charge readers for each title, and it plans to convince the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the magazine industry’s standards board, that its online sales are equivalent to newsstand sales. That will allow Condé to charge advertisers the same rate as for print ads.

If all of this works, it’s a dream scenario for Condé and other publishers. The magazine industry gets to keep the revenue streams its print publications generate without having to make the “analog dollars for digital pennies” discount that the Web requires. Meanwhile, Condé gets to bask in the benefits of digital–lower distribution costs, more engagement with readers.

Or put another way: Publishers hope the new devices will repair all the value destruction the Web has wrought.

But all of this assumes that consumers, who’ve shown no inclination to pay for this stuff on the Web, will be willing to pay for it once it appears on devices no one owns yet. We’ll find out soon enough.

*One possible exception is the New York Times (NYT), where editor Bill Keller refuses to talk about possible talks with Steve Jobs and company.

But will they actually pay up? Here, the conventional wisdom is not so helpful. Nor are studies predicting consumer behavior. To wit:

• Nearly 50 percent of U.S. Web users are willing to pay for online news, says the Boston Consulting Group.
• Not a chance, says Forrester (FORR): Try 20 percent.

For what it’s worth, my money’s on the Forrester number, or one that’s even lower. My gut says people love consuming news, but only in the broadest sense–Obama doesn’t really Twitter! What was Belichick thinking?–and that sort of stuff, which appeals to a very large audience, will always be free, and you’ll get it from Google (GOOG) or something like Yahoo (YHOO). Which leaves you with a small audience willing to pay for everything else.

But! We should note that people are indeed paying for “content” right now. In fact, they’re paying for a lot of it: $115 a month, up seven percent from last year, says NPD Group. The breakdown:

As of August 2009, 81 percent of U.S. households subscribed to a television service (satellite TV, basic/premium cable, or fiber-optic television service). A similar percentage of households (76 percent) paid for Internet subscriptions. Seventeen percent subscribed to an online music service or satellite radio; and 14 percent subscribed to online gaming subscription services.

More traditional forms of entertainment subscriptions, however, did not fare so well. The number of people subscribing to newspapers fell by 2 percentage points to reach 29 percent in August 2009. Forty-one percent of consumers subscribed to magazines this year, compared to 43 percent who did so last year.

According to NPD, an influx of new smartphone owners has led to an increase in mobile data-plan subscriptions: 9 percent of U.S. consumers had mobile data subscriptions this year, versus just 6 percent last year. Fourteen percent of consumers subscribed to a home-video subscription service, like Netflix, this year, which is 2 percentage points higher than last year.

Ah, see? Problem solved: If you want Americans to pony up for stuff on the Web, just link it to something they’re already paying for, like their cable or Internet subscription.

This is what smart guys like John Malone have been talking about for a while, and it’s also the core of the strategy behind the Time Warner (TWX)/Comcast (CMCSA)/everyone else “TV Everywhere” gambit. But it’s also what many people have been trying to do for a very long time–ask the music industry–with limited success.

It’s not clear if News Corp. (NWS) will end up investing in the joint venture, which is designed to control distribution of “print” content to readers like Amazon’s (AMZN) Kindle and Apple’s (AAPL) rumored tablet, or if the company will simply agree to tailor its stuff–most notably, The Wall Street Journal–to the joint venture’s standards.

In either case, News Corp. has yet to officially sign on, sources tell me. An announcement formally acknowledging the JV itself is supposed to be a couple of weeks away, though I have been hearing this for at least six weeks.

No comment from News Corp. or Time Inc., the Time Warner (TWX) publishing unit that has been assembling the JV. Other expected partners include Hearst, Condé Nast and, perhaps, Meredith. (Disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

In some ways, News Corp. is an obvious partner for the coalition, which I like to call “Hulu for magazines.” Murdoch has been an outspoken critic of Amazon’s distribution and pricing policies; he argues that by controlling the subscription of digital newspaper and magazines delivered through its e-reader, Amazon deprives publishers of a valuable asset.

Murdoch also wants more money for the stuff it does sell: In an earnings call last week, he said that while the bookseller was now paying his company up to $6.50 a month for each $15 monthly subscription to The Wall Street Journal, that split wasn’t good enough.

The JV is supposed to solve those problems for publishers by letting them control sales, customer billing and pricing. But it is also primarily designed with magazine publishers in mind, and News Corp. isn’t in that business.

Meanwhile, New Corp.’s Dow Jones unit is proprietary about the system it has already built to handle subscriptions to the Journal’s print and online editions and its BlackBerry and iPhone apps.

While it’s possible that the JV could use the Dow Jones subscription/commerce platform as the technological base of the JV, Dow Jones could be prickly if asked to play well with others. “Newspapers and magazines, don’t mix well, for reasons that aren’t obvious to the outside world,” says a News Corp. executive briefed on some of the company’s conversations.

In any event, balancing different partners’ interests is only one of the hurdles facing the JV. Some others, from the story I published last month:

• They’ll have to convince consumers who already have billing relationships with Amazon, Apple and other vendors to sign up with yet another service.
• They’ll have to convince device makers to play along with the strategy, which runs counter to many of their own plans. Both Amazon and Apple, for instance, have intentionally created closed systems that give them control of both devices and distribution.
• They’ll have to create content consumers want to buy. The new product can’t simply be a digital version of the magazines they’re already printing: That’s already available on the Web, and consumers have shown almost no interest in paying for it, and advertisers haven’t fully embraced it either.

So what exactly will the JV be selling? That’s probably the most difficult question for publishers to answer, made even more difficult because they don’t know what capabilities the e-readers of the future will boast. Apple for instance, refuses to even acknowledge to Time Inc. executives that it plans to produce a tablet device, let alone provide them with specs.

This assertion comes from the analysts at Bernstein Research, who I think have been pretty levelheaded about this stuff over the past year or so. From the “stuff you probably already knew” file:

• The ad business is still declining–in the U.S., Web ads will be down three percent for 2009–but should start moving up again next year, when Bernstein thinks they’ll climb 7.6 percent. Remember that those numbers will be off a depressed base.
• Search is improving more quickly than display.
• Google’s (GOOG) grip on search isn’t weakening a bit–if Microsoft’s (MSFT) Bing push is having any effect, it’s at Yahoo’s (YHOO) expense.
• The mobile Web is going to be big, but not that big. Mobile ads may account for seven percent of U.S. Web spending in 2012.

Okay. Back to work.

The deal will be structured as a joint venture, and Scripps (SNI) will kick $181 million into the new partnership; it will then issue another $878 million in debt.

Scripps itself frequently pops up as an acquisition candidate, and that chatter has only gotten louder as a new wave of consolidation appears to be in motion, prompted by Comcast’s (CMCSA) pursuit of GE’s (GE) NBC Universal.

Scripps, which had planned on announcing quarterly results this morning, is pushing back its earnings call till tomorrow morning.

Here’s the full press release:

CINCINNATI–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Scripps Networks Interactive Inc, owner and operator of the Food Network and HGTV lifestyle television networks, will enter into a joint venture with Cox Communications Inc. by which it will acquire a controlling interest in the Travel Channel.

The two companies today signed a definitive agreement that, upon completion, will result in Scripps Networks Interactive owning 65 percent of the Travel Channel and Cox Communications retaining a 35 percent minority stake in the network.

The Travel Channel transaction is expected to be completed by or before January 2010.

“Combining the Travel Channel with Food Network and HGTV will make our fast-growing, young company the undisputed global leader in lifestyle programming,” said Kenneth W. Lowe, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Scripps Networks Interactive. “This collection of popular lifestyle networks will be in great demand worldwide and promises to create substantial long-term value for all of our stakeholders.”

Launched in 1987, Travel Channel has grown to become one of America’s best known cable television networks and today reaches about 95 million U.S. television households. The television network–the cornerstone of Travel Channel Media–supports a growing range of cross-platform initiatives including Internet, mobile and social media applications.

“Adding the Travel Channel, and its related enterprises, provides us with a unique opportunity to meaningfully expand our portfolio into a lifestyle category that’s highly desirable to media consumers, advertisers and programming distributors,” Lowe said. “Our vision for Travel follows the same script that’s made Food Network and HGTV two ofthe most powerful brands in all of television. By lending our unparalleled expertise in developing successful lifestyle media businesses, we have every confidence that we can build on Travel’s strong brand identity and leverage the successes achieved to date by the top-notch team at Travel Channel and our new partners at Cox Communications.”

As proposed, the transaction is structured as a leveraged joint venture between Scripps Networks Interactive and Cox Communications.

Cox will contribute the Travel Channel, valued at $975 million, and Scripps Networks Interactive will contribute $181 million in cash to a newly created partnership. The partnership, in turn, will take on $878 million in third-party debt that will be guaranteed by Scripps and indemnified by Cox, with the proceeds to be distributed to Cox.

The transaction will result in the partnership having about $696 million in net debt.

“This solid partnership that we’re establishing today allows us to maintain an interest in Travel Channel while at the same time giving the network an opportunity to leverage the resources and expertise of a successful programmer like Scripps Networks Interactive,” said Cox Communications President Patrick Esser. “Scripps has an outstanding reputation as a company, an employer and a programmer. Over the past 15 years, Scripps Networks Interactive has built a portfolio of leading lifestyle programming brands, and we think this complementary expertise will be a boon to Travel Channel’s future growth.”

Scripps Networks Interactive will control the joint venture and the network will be run as part of the company’s growing portfolio of popular lifestyle media brands.

“The incredibly complementary nature of our lifestyle media businesses presents an abundance of opportunity to provide services for Travel Channel that will result in increased advertising and affiliate revenues and substantial cost synergies,” Lowe said. “We have extensive experience working with partners to build value over the long term. Among cable companies, Cox has an outstanding reputation for its vision and investment for the long-term success of its businesses. We look forward to partnering with them in this venture.”

Scripps Networks Interactive was advised on the transaction by Barclays Capital Inc. and Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom LLP.

And the first look at results from News Corp., which owns this Web site, seems similar. Revenue of $7.2 billion are in line with Wall Street’s expectations, and the company figured out how generate earnings of 22 cents a share, a nice bump from the 18 cents a share consensus.

Just as Time Warner reported this morning, News Corp.’s most valuable assets are its film studio and its cable TV business. Its broadcast TV business is wobbling, and its print business has been in decline for some time. A quick look at each sector:

• Movies: Operating income up due to yet another “Ice Age” movie, among other releases.
• TV: Fox’s local stations saw operating income drop 26 percent due to crummy advertising; the Fox broadcast network also dropped because programming costs increased and ad revenue dropped.
• Cable networks: Booming. Operating income up 41 percent, as News Corp. is able to extract increased fees from cable operators for the likes of Fox News Channel.
• Newspapers: Getting hammered. Operating income was a mere $25 million, a decrease of $109 million in the last year. You know why, but for the record: The Wall Street Journal saw ad revenue decline, though price increases boosted circulation revenue.
• MySpace/Web properties. News Corp. doesn’t offer much transparency here, but does say that “earnings contributions” from its Web unit dropped $22 million because of lower search and advertising revenue. Sure we’ll hear more about this during the call.

Beyond the macro take, News Corp. (NWS) is worth paying attention to because of Rupert Murdoch’s increasingly pugnacious stance toward what he calls the Internet’s “Philistine phase”–the one where just about everything on the Web is free. And because Murdoch almost always makes for entertaining earnings calls, where he frequently veers off script.

I’m covering the earnings call as it happens. All notes below are paraphrased unless I use quotes.

CFO David DeVoe notes the digital group (MySpace, etc.) is in “significant transition.” Revenue was down 26 percent at the unit. Says MySpace revenue goals will take longer than expected.

Rupert Murdoch:
Looking ahead, seeing “encouraging trends in most of our businesses.” Broadcast TV business appears to have hit bottom of cycle. Advertising pacing for December looks good. October flat, November up in midteens. Cable TV ads doing well. “Quite pleased” with momentum at film biz.

Cable now generates half of company’s operating income, which is “no accident.” Love those dual-revenue streams, especially when we can jack up affiliate fees.

Digital media group: Difficult to predict when we’ll see improved results, but overhaul has clearly helped it for long-term.

Newspapers: For what it’s worth, all of our newspaper and TV businesses are having a great November.

Very confident about short- and long-term future. Clearly in better shape than a year ago. But recovery is “still a little fragile.” [Note: Rupert is clearly sticking to his initial script this time.]

Q&A

Question: When will you start cutting shareholders some dividend checks?

Murdoch: Not thinking about it. We’re right to be sitting on this cash. We have a $2B debt repayment due next year, so pile isn’t as big as it looks.

Question: How does international cable market look?

Murdoch: For the most part, it’s a new growth area. Markets are relatively undeveloped. So they’re all growing double digits, 15, 18 percent on average. May start another 30 channels this year.

Next, there’s a question about retrans (getting paid for broadcast programming): How many renegotiations will we see in next few years? Murdoch offers a nonanswer, for the most part.

Question: You said affiliates fees were up 18 percent and that affiliates fees represent 70 percent of revenue. So that means cable ads are down, right?

David DeVoe: Yes, but I think they’ll be up a bit this quarter.

Question: How can MySpace search revenue be down? Isn’t Google (GOOG) kicking in a fixed amount through next year?

Murdoch: Quite simple. “We have not been making our minimum guarantees,” so our search revenue will not be what we’d expected.

Missed most of the M&A question and answer, but it Murdoch evidently said he wouldn’t rush into anything. That doesn’t mean that much.

Question: Can we get an update on The Wall Street Journal and the relationship with Amazon (AMZN) Kindle, other e-readers?

Murdoch: Oh. WSJ.com going well. Pricing up very strongly. Will be announcing some “extra developments” with it “if they haven’t been announced already, I’m not sure.” Kindle: Look, it’s a fantastic invention for reading books. It’s not great for newspapers. We’ve gotten them to charge $15/month for WSJ and give us $6.50, but that’s not a great deal for us. Half-a-dozen early-stage e-readers on market for Christmas, and we’ll be available on them provided they give us a good deal. But there’s much more advanced work going on.

Question: What’s the new strategy at MySpace?

Chase Carey: Obviously, we got spread a bit wide and thin. No focusing on heart of business being a social network focused around key content sites. “We’re not trying to beat Facebook. We’re not trying to beat Twitter.” Music, gaming, etc. Farthest along with music. “Clearly a work in progress. We’re still losing traffic.”

And now for some press Q&A. This usually makes Rupe a bit testy, which is fun:

Question: Any interest in NBC?

Murdoch: No. “When things come around, we kick the tires, but we’re not in any talks with anybody at the moment.”

Question: What’s up with MSNBC-Fox News truce, which appears to be broken? 

Murdoch: “We didn’t start this abuse, which we thought went way beyond…finally, we had to allow people to retaliate. When they stop we’ll stop.” 

Question: And is it good for you to have antagonistic relationship with the White House?

Murdoch: No.

Question: Bidding on Travel Channel?

Carey: We’re not going to comment on any specific properties [mumbles].

Question: How will Comcast-NBCU deal affect way you deal with Comcast (CMCSA)?

Murdoch: It won’t. We’ll be competitors with NBC as broadcasters and partners with Comcast when it comes to cable.

Question: What’s up with plans to erect some sort of paywall at all News Corp. newspaper sites in 2010?

Murdoch: “We’re all working very hard on this, but I wouldn’t promise that we’re going to meet that date…it’s a work in progress, and there’s a huge amount of work going on.”

Question: Is WSJ profitable?

Murdoch: “Yes. Barely. But Yes.” How did you do that? “We produced a better newspaper.”

Question: Please talk about digital/MySpace some more.

Carey: Going to repeat what I said already, basically. “We’re in state of transition…work in progress.” Can’t tell you what it will look like in 12 months because I don’t know. “Work in progress.” “Work in progress.”

Question: Google promised you $900 over three years. How far short will you fall?

Murdoch: “I don’t know. But it will be a real figure….It will certainly drop by $300M.” Carey or DeVoe corrects Murdoch, noting that it will be closer to 10 percent. I’ll ask News Corp. PR for a ruling and get back to you. UPDATE: Ruling from News Corp. PR–MySpace will be about $100M short on its Google payment for this year.

The pitch is straightforward: The newsletter will bring you one cool and/or useful online site, service, app, etc., per day. The alpha versions I’ve seen suggest that subscribers try out the likes of Gazelle, Zeni Optical, and Hazelmail.

If the concept sounds familiar, it should. There are several popular Web sites, like Gawker Media’s Lifehacker, that tread similar thematic ground.

And there are many variants in newsletter industry. Very Short List, the newsletter started by IAC (IACI) and now owned by the Observer Media Group, offers up a cool book, movie, video, etc., per day; DailyCandy, now owned by Comcast (CMCSA), tells its subscribers about cool sample sales and boutiques; Thrillist*, the DailyCandy for dudes, informs dudes about cool restaurants, bars, etc.

One other commonality: This newsletter business, like many others, is getting a boost from Bob Pittman’s Pilot Group. The investment fund, which has invested in newsletters, including Daily Candy and Thrillist, owns a piece of Recognition Media, the New York company that produces the annual Webby awards, among other silly/serious events.

*Your story is coming, Ben. Patience!

[Image credit: polmuadi]

Spring sued Barnes & Noble yesterday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., accusing the bookseller of turning its “Alex” design into the Nook. I have embedded a copy of the complaint below, but here’s the short version:

• The Nook, which is on sale now and is supposed to ship this month, runs on Google’s Android (GOOG) platform and sports a large monochrome screen and a smaller color screen. The Alex, which doesn’t appear to be in production yet, is also supposed to run on Android and will feature two screens.
• Spring signed an NDA with Barnes & Noble (BKS) on Feb. 12 this year and says it first met with the company to show off its design for a dual-screen e-reader shortly after that.
• By May, Spring was showing the design to B&N.com president William Lynch. Spring says Lynch warned it not to work with Amazon (AMZN) because that company would “steal Spring’s unique idea.”
• The two companies talked a few more times during the summer.
• Spring says that “up until B&N’s Nook announcement on October 20…it believed that it was disclosing the confidential features of its Alex device in exchange for B&N’s implicit promise that it would seriously consider acquiring Spring’s product.”

Happy to hear from experts who know consumer electronics and/or trade-secret law, but I can’t say I’m convinced by Spring’s argument.

For one thing, Barnes & Noble would have had to work very fast to copy Spring’s design and get it to market in less than a year. Another problem with Spring’s case: As far as I can tell–based on its own complaint–Spring only showed Barnes & Noble some PowerPoint slides, which means there wasn’t much for it to copy.

Eric Kmiec, Spring’s VP of sales and marketing, told me last month that he and CEO Priscilla Lu were brought in this summer to “focus” the Cupertino, Calif.-based firm, which had previously been “playing around in R&D” and had “no real market focus.” It’s hard to believe that the bookseller had made a promise–even an “implicit” one–to buy something that didn’t exist.

Anyone have a different take? Please let me know via email or in comments, below.

nook suit –