This morning, Nokia (NYSE: NOK) announced that first-quarter net profit plunged 82% to 122 million euros, which works out to 0.03 euro per share. Taking one-time items out of the picture, the mobile phone firm tallied adjusted earnings of 0.10 euro per share. While the results were far worse than a year ago, Nokia matched the consensus estimate for earnings of 0.10 euro per share.

The company wasn't as fortunate as far as sales are concerned. The European mobile phone manufacturer saw quarterly sales drop to 9.3 billion euros, 27% worse than a year ago. Not only were sales worse than a year ago, but they also fell short of the consensus estimate for sales of 9.7 billion euros. Nokia reported that it shipped 93.2 million new phones during the quarter, which was 19% less than a year ago and 18% lower than the previous quarter.

When Best Buy (NYSE: BBY) blew through analyst estimates earlier this week and made a larger-than-expected profit, many industry watchers probably wondered what Best Buy is doing right that fellow retailer Circuit City (NYSE: CC) is doing wrong. Now we know: Circuit City saw sales plummeted 3.1% as Peter reported this morning in another quarterly loss as it continued losing market share to its much larger rival.

Best Buy is probably not only taking market share away from Wal-Mart -- the world's largest retailer -- but it's stomping Circuit City into the ground as well. Circuit City CEO Phil Schoonover said his company's poor performance in its most recent quarter was due to the fact management "underestimated the financial impact from the disruption of our transformation work." What else is the company transforming? From a slightly-bad retailer to a completely inept one?

I'm not so sure how Schoonover has kept his job with three consecutive quarterly disappointments, but perhaps 2008 will see a brighter future for the retailer. Best Buy has its success formula pretty much down perfect, and the immense challenge Circuit City will face should be quite formidable next year.

But, there may be signs of things to come. Take this: Best Buy's quarterly report this week said sales surged on flat-panel televisions (hopefully, profitable sales), which Circuit City continues to say -- every quarter -- that flat-panel television pricing depression is contributing to its financial woes. How can these types of sales be diametrically opposed at the two retailers? Something's fishy there.

Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) will be rolling out new tools and services soon to encourage more internet advertisers and producers to create better online ad campaigns, the software giant said this week. Naturally, the new tools will work with Microsoft's adCenter and Live Search environments. With competitor Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) collecting the lion's share of online advertising revenue, will these newer tools make a dent in that empire?

Perhaps a little. Nothing new here -- Google and Yahoo (NASDAQ: YHOO) tools are designed to work with their own search engines and related properties as part of an advertising customer recruitment and retention strategy. But, from looking at these tools, I'd hardly call them revolutionary.

One of the newer tools, which is being described as an "adCenter Add-in for Excel 2007," allows search ad customers to research the effectiveness of ad keywords by reach and targeting efficacy. If this just imports adCenter data into Excel, then this is a non-product. If the product imports adCenter data into Excel and performs a huge massaging of data to give specific suggestions to the Excel-using adCenter customer, then this is a good thing.

But it will take more than that for Microsoft to burst through the 10.3% market share stat it gleaned in September, compared to 57% for Google.

[Disclosure: I own MSFT shares as of 12-4-07]

Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) has never been shy about announcing grand plans. But in the arena of online advertising, that plan may simply be to move into second place.

Reuters reports that "the plan, which represents Microsoft's aspirations over the next three to five years, calls on Microsoft to increase the company's share in web search, page views, percentage of time on the internet and percentage of advertising dollars." The world's largest software company is clearly way behind Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) in online dollars, and also trails Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO).

The cornerstone of Microsoft's plan is to get its share of the online search market from 10% to 30%. Those that think that number is crazy get a gold star.

For Microsoft to presume that it can triple its share of search means that Google would have to lose at least 10 points of its market share and Yahoo!'s piece of the market would be cut in half. There is absolutely no evidence that the Microsoft search product is anywhere close to Google's in quality of results. And, internet search habits for most users are probably fixed and would be hard to change.

Microsoft having 30% of the search market is not unlike it taking a third of the market for music players from the Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) iPod. The big software company has tried that with the Zune and the results have been embarrassing.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

One of the reasons I don't get that excited about numbers from market research groups is due to the fact that so much of the data collection methodology and the slivers of detail that can make or refute a single number are never publicly mentioned anywhere. This includes NPD, Forrester, IDC and other well-respected research groups.

But, as an investor, I want to know extreme detail about everything -- as to make the best and most informed decision. This article over at Roughly Drafted gives a pretty concise but detailed example between two market scenarios that are sometimes compared but should not be: the PC vs. Mac fight from the late 80s and into the 90s and the iPod vs. Zune fight going on right now between the same two companies -- Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT).

The vivid picture painted here is that numbers and very true (but not all-inclusive) statistics can allow either company (or any company in any industry) to cherry-pick market share and installed base numbers to the benefit of product marketing, but which may only explain a sliver of the overall strategy and success or possible failure of a product (or an entire industry section of products).

Lately, YouTube has been getting tons of buzz. But, according to the latest stats from ComScore, MySpace is the dominant site for video.

Is that right? Video?

Yes.

In August, MySpace generated about 1.4 billion video streams, which accounts for 20.1% of the overall US market.

So, the #2 must be YouTube? No, it is actually Yahoo! It's market share was 11.8%. In fact, Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ:YHOO) was #1 for the number of users who streamed at least one video.

Rather, YouTube is #3 on the list, with a market share of 9.9%.

Basically, ComScore thinks it is critical to focus on streams (not unique visitors). After all, advertisers want to place ads in streams.

No doubt, the online video space has grown much faster than expected. And, as a result, the metrics that may apply to the traditional online world may not necessarily work with video.

Despite this, the fact remains that YouTube is a major video property. But, at least according to ComScore, MySpace looks like the dominant player. And, while Google spent $1.6 billion for YouTube, News Corp spent "only" $580 million for MySpace.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including the Complete M&A Handbook and operates InvestorOffering.com.

Last night's earnings warning from Dell bodes ill for Microsoft and Intel.

Having finished teaching Competitive Strategy and Environment last night to 36 MBA candidates, I am in a state of heightened awareness about the profound strategic implications of the Dell announcement. Here are four important concepts and the implications for Microsoft and Intel:

• Complementary goods. When people buy a new house, they also buy furniture and appliances. The furniture and appliances are complementary goods. When they buy a PC, they've got to purchase software. And when they buy Dell, they inevitably buy Microsoft software. As Dell's growth falters, Microsoft sales will be hurt as well unless Dell's competitors can take up the slack.
• Industry structure. There are very few industries where suppliers are able to negotiate the lion's share of the profits. The PC industry is one of the exceptions. Here, Microsoft and Intel have used what was a virtual monopoly to extract high profits from PC-makers. But this supplier power may be eroding -- due to the rise of AMD as a real competitive threat -- as Intel's latest earnings disappointment reveals.
• Generic strategy. During the 1990s when its market share climb was at its most aggressive, Dell was the low cost producer. As my Computerworld analysis reveals, in 1996 Dell enjoyed a 13.6% cost advantage over its biggest competitor at the time, Compaq. Dell passed much of this cost advantage on to its customers in the form of lower prices -- thus gaining market share. The loss of Dell's advantage suggests that Microsoft and Intel may want to find other horses to ride.
• Sustainable competitive advantage. Fast forward 10 years and suddenly Dell's cost advantage has been eroded by competition from Taiwan-based contract manufacturers to whom Dell -- and competitors such as HP -- outsource the manufacture of notebook computers. By depending on Taiwanese manufacturers, Dell eroded its competitive advantage since no barriers prevented these competitors from doing the same. Should Microsoft and Intel be dealing directly with the contract manufacturers?