Late yesterday, I saw a tweet from Asymco that read:

Nomura Securities analyst Michael McCormack: the iPhone has "really been a wealth transfer from AT&T shareholders to Apple shareholders."

What? You don't believe me? I screen cap'd it and everything!

This struck me as non-sensical. It's not like there's a set amount of wealth. That if Apple gains wealth, or in this case a big whole pile of wealth, that someone else must lose wealth.

Particularly when talking about iPhone which was, we all admit, a revolutionary device that effectively created the worldwide smartphone market. At least, as we now define smartphones.

I was about to forget this statement than realized that Asymco was quoting an "analyst". Meaning, if iPhone really did transfer wealth from ATT to Apple, as plainly and boldly as the analyst emphatically states, it ought to be, you know, verifiable.

Using math!

Only, I'm not so sure it is. Smartphones are but one business line for both Apple and for ATT. ATT could have, in theory, revolutionized the nation's television infrastructure in the four or so years since the iPhone's birth. ATT, which has significant links into and within the government, might have gone through a major change in its financial structure. Or acquired T-Mobile. Or been more severly impacted by a global recession. Or lost money or gained money by offering Android smartphones.

In other words, the analyst statement is mostly bullshit.

But I thought, since ATT has had iPhone from the beginning, and Verizon less than a year, let's simply compare ATT and Verizon. If the immense amount of wealth that iPhone has generated has really been extracted from ATT than there should be a massive difference in the fortunes of the two carriers.

Spoiler alert:

There's not.

From the launch of iPhone with ATT on 29 June 2007 until 6 Jan 2012. Apple is that line that, well, you know. Verizon and ATT are the other lines.

Let's hope they can actually meet demand.

Without gouging us.

Verizon throws down. And it's funny, too.

I am fairly confident that at the grocery store I saw a container of bleach, fucking bleach, in a green colored plastic container. 

Profoundly sad. Like marketing cigarettes.

Here's hoping that AT&T isn't just blowing smoke. The video is well done.

In related news, Greenpeace has just released their annual "Guide to Greener Electronics". Nokia and Apple score well, though nothing special. The guide, unfortunately, does not break out ratings by smartphone maker, but rather lumps in makers of PCs, smartphones and televisions. That said, it's Greenpeace, so this will get fairly widespread coverage in the mainstream media and hopefully put more pressure on manufacturers and consumers to do a better job on the environmental front.

I think we already knew this, but AllThingsD says:

It’s been about five months since Apple’s iPhone debuted on Verizon’s network and already it’s the carrier’s top-selling handset. This according to BTIG Research (registration required), which spent the past three weeks asking 250 Verizon and AT&T stores across the United States to name their number one smartphone.

Of the Verizon stores surveyed, 51 percent said the iPhone was their top-seller and an additional 38 percent said it was tied for first with a rival Android device, typically the Samsung Droid Charge or the HTC Thunderbolt.

At AT&T stores, the iPhone was even more dominant — 65 percent of them named it as their top selling phone. Another 31 percent said it was an Android device.

[28 April 2011: Brian: I am re-posting this. Reader IPHONED estimated the product mix from America's largest carriers, A&T and Verizion, following their Q1 2011 earnings report. They are the best estimates I've seen. My only caveat, which I placed at the bottom of the original post, was that perhaps he was undercounting Android and overcounting Blackberry -- at a meager 20% share.

I now suspect this is so. $RIMM just got decimated after telling Wall Street that Q2 sales, revenues, units sold and APRU would be lower than expected.]

Thankfully, both Verizon Wireless and AT&T want us both to know that they are selling lots of iPhones. That existing AT&T iPhone customers aren't rushing into the arms of the better, faster Verizon. That AT&T's ads reminding us that we can't talk and surf at the same time aren't going to prevent Verizon from (soon) taking the iPhone crown.

Other numbers, however, we do not have. What, exactly, is the mix of smartphones that Verizon, now with iPhone, and AT&T, no longer with iPhone exclusivity are selling?

Answer: I don't know. But, reader iPhoned (the original) looks at the Q1 earnings report from both carriers and offers the best breakdown I've seen:

1. Looks like iPhone was 65% of total smartphone ATT sales in Q1. (3.6m out of 5.5m). 
2. They didn't report total Android, but assuming Blackberry was 20%, Android was probably around 0.8m or 15%.
3. It looks like iPhone was 45% of total ATT phone sales for the quarter. It is unclear if that percentage is growing substantially or stabilized.
4. Verizon, I think actually did better then ATT with iPhone on a pro-forma basis. 2.2 iphones were sold in 7 weeks technically, but in reality more like in 6 weeks, because it took a while to get full distribution in place. So even discounting out the one-time-pent-up-surge, Verizon iPhone run-rate sales are probably above ATT's.
5. Verizon said half of their phone sales were smartphone. Assuming quarterly sales of about 8m phones, that give about 4m smartphones. Of which 2.2 were iPhones - 55% share based on a less then full-quarter sales.
6. If Blackberry about 20%, then this leaves 25% for Android or 1m units - a drastic drop in Android sales and marketshare on Verizon from the quarter before.
7. The only two numbers that are "estimates" are Blackberry sales and total phone sales for Verizon and ATT. But ATT reported total phone sales of 8m in Q3 last year, so the Q1 total phone sales are probably not that much different. 
8. Also, Verizon total phone sales are about same as ATT so I used 8m total phone sales for Verizon as well. The margin for error on both is probably +1m.

What do I think?

I think that's a damn fine job. With one caveat: I think Blackberry's market share -- in the US, with the biggest carriers -- is falling much faster than I had expected. And even lower than iPhoned's 20% benchmark.

About a month ago, BGR ran a post suggesting that

HTC’s latest beastly smartphone for Verizon Wireless [Thunderbolt] is going toe to toe with the iPhone 4, and is even outselling Apple’s iPhone at many Verizon Wireless store locations. 

And I, in that way of mine, said, no. Not happening. Analyst doesn't know what he's talking bout.

The quarter is up, the numbers are out, and now we can determine who was right.

Please. Course it was me.

Not that I can take too much credit. Stating the obvious should never be rewarded. Of course, making someone have to state the obvious ought to deserve punishment. Wonder what BGR has in store for their quoted analyst? Or has it already been forgotten?

I periodically update my SMARTPHONE RANKINGS. There are numerous Android-based devices that are worth consideration. Though I don't regard the HTC Thunderbolt as highly as others, the many options include the new Sidekick 4G. Everyone's favorite iPhone clone, the Samsung Galaxy. Various Droids. The newest LG device. And, of course, Blackberry. Oh, and something from Windows Phone. Oh, and HP Palm. Oh, and Nokia.

Well, not in America.

Still, users have options. Lots of options.

It's just that, *no* device, none, is capable of going head-to-head, mano-a-mano with iPhone 4. None. Not even the newest baddest Android 4G devices heavily promoted on "4G" networks, like Verizon. Isn't gonna happen. 

If, for example, you wish to go with a carrier that doesn't carry iPhone, fair enough. Or, if work is footing the bill for that Blackberry, understood. Perhaps you just want to save some coin and choose one of the many low-cost Android options. That only makes sense.

But, let's not mislead ourselves or anyone else. If your device is priced the same, and on the same carrier plan as iPhone, it will lose out. Period. It's not as good. My smartphone rankings show this. The carrier numbers show this. Let's take a look at the numbers, then, shall we, starting with Verizon:

• 130,000 Thunderbolt's (4G) per week vs 314,000 'old' iPhone 4's per week (during the weeks of the quarter iPhone and Thunderbolt was available)
• 2.2 million iPhones over 7 weeks of Q1 vs "more than 260,000 'activated' HTC Thunderbolts and a total of 500,000" 4G devices over the entire quarter

Stating the obvious: The top-of-the-line 4G Android devices, on Verizon, the carrier that went aggressively all in on Android nearly from the very beginning -- in hopes of taking down iPhone -- couldn't match iPhone? iPhone 4, which had been on sell on AT&T since mid-2010, did 4X better than than the 4G Androids. Not even close.

Imagine what happens when Verizon gets iPhone 5 -- from day one. As Verizon's CFO noted on the Q1 earnings call, "the next iPhone on Verizon will work worldwide."  The older, hobbled iPhone still beat the best Android could throw at it. In an Android friendly environment.

Will any Android device ever prove superior to the latest iPhone? I have my doubts. What could fell iPhone, of course, is if carriers balk at supporting the device. And paying that big iPhone subsidy. Looking at the quarterly numbers from both AT&T and Verizon make that seem unlikely to happen anytime soon given all the lucrative data plans and connected devices the carriers are selling in large part thanks to the iPhone halo effect. Nonetheless, this is obviously something Apple needs to remain mindful of.

Still more numbers. From Bloomberg:

Verizon is banking on the popularity of wireless-data plans to increase sales as the pool of people who don’t already own mobile phones shrinks and revenue from voice calls slows.

The company sold 2.2 million iPhones since the device, which lets users surf the Web, download games and send e-mail, went on sale in February.

“They are outperforming the overall industry and Verizon does have a significant opportunity in front of them to sell additional smartphones,” said Michael Nelson, an analyst at Mizuho Securities USA Inc. in New York, who rates the stock “outperform” and doesn’t own it. “They certainly increased market share during the quarter.”

The New York Times:

Verizon Communications posted strong first-quarter growth in wireless subscribers, helped by sales of the Apple iPhone, but the effect on its earnings failed to impress investors.

With subscriber growth barely beating Wall Street estimates, some analysts complained about profit margins and others said revenue growth was lower than they had hoped at Verizon Wireless, the mobile venture of Verizon and the Vodafone Group.

Verizon Wireless posted net additions of 906,000 subscribers, just slightly ahead of expectations from analysts contacted by Reuters, who had predicted more than 888,000 subscribers.

While Verizon Wireless, the top mobile service, added only slightly more subscribers than it did in the fourth quarter, it was well ahead of its archrival, AT&T, which added 62,000 net subscribers in the quarter.

But a crucial point for investors when comparing the two was that AT&T, even though it no longer had exclusive rights to the iPhone, won more new iPhone customers in the quarter than Verizon.

The expectation had been that hordes of customers would flee AT&T when the Verizon iPhone arrived because popular phones typically experience a surge in sales during the quarter when they are introduced.

“It was a stronger new customer driver for AT&T,” Steve Clement, an analyst at Pacific Crest, said.

Verizon, which put the iPhone on store shelves on Feb. 10, said it sold 2.2 million iPhones by the end of the quarter, compared with the 3.6 million iPhone sales at AT&T, which had the phone for the entire quarter.

However, the Times also notes:

AT&T, the nation’s largest telecommunications company, reported a 39 percent increase in its first-quarter profit on Wednesday, despite losing the exclusive rights to sell the iPhone in the United States midway through the period.

The company posted net income of $3.4 billion, or 57 cents a share, up from $2.5 billion, or 41 cents a share, a year earlier. Revenue climbed more than 2 percent, to $31.2 billion from $30.5 billion.

AT&T said it activated 3.6 million iPhone accounts during the period, nearly a million more than it activated a year earlier, easing concerns that Verizon, which began selling the iPhone in February, would cut into its market share immediately. Nearly a quarter of the new iPhone subscribers were new to AT&T. 

Ralph de la Vega, the company’s chief mobility officer, said AT&T’s marketing push, which included commercials that highlighted technical limitations of Verizon’s CDMA network that do not allow smartphone owners to make voice calls and simultaneously perform data functions like browsing the Web, as being instrumental in retaining subscribers.

The company also attributed the popularity of connected devices like tablet computers, Kindles and personal Wi-Fi hot spots, as lifting the company’s profits. AT&T and third-party retailers sold 421,000 of those during the quarter, although the vast majority of those sales were iPad 3Gs, which made up 322,000 of those sales.

Numbers aside, look at what the carriers face: No device can go head-to-head against iPhone. iPhone is driving new subscribers. Multiple carriers, now including T-Mobile, are fighting for the right to carry the iPhone, and no one wants left out. And now carriers are eager to sell "connected devices" like the iPad. Which, honestly, is the only legit tablet on the market.

Carriers won't be shutting out Apple anytime soon.

AT&T today:

AT&T of 20 years ago: