This post, factually correct though it is, just shows the absurdity of setting up these arbitrary contests.
How can you possibly compare Google's business model with Apple's? Google seeded the world with Android to jumpstart the smartphone revolution faster. That means that more people will see more web ads sooner. For every day that X people view web ads, Google makes money; this is especially true if that day is tomorrow, rather than five years from now, because Google's share of the web ad business is really good now and doesn't seem likely to go up from here. [1] So Google increased the area under the smartphone-users-vs-time curve for the next few years, and will then make money on that.
Google also makes money on Apple's products, of course. If Apple were capable or interested in saturating the near-term market with iPhones, Google wouldn't have needed to bother with Android, and maybe they wouldn't. And, to the extent that Apple does eventually saturate the market with iPhones, Google might slack off on Android. Though that also depends on what happens with iAds.
Meanwhile, Apple primarily sells gadgets. They make money by selling more gadgets or by maintaining high margins, or both.
Their businesses are intertwined, and the actions of one affect the other, but they're not in the same business and you can't run a horse race between them. Companies don't win some prize by having a higher market share, or higher total market cap, or higher total revenue. Zappos isn't a failure just because its $1B revenue is 65 times smaller than Apple's.
---
[1] Though who knows? There are other ad businesses in the world than the one Google currently dominates.