You'll have to add these caveats in as well:

Once Apple supports WebM.

Once chipset manufacturers produce WebM optimized hardware decoders.

Once handset, set-top, etc. manufacturers purchase and integrate those WebM hardware decoders.

Once handset, set-top, etc. manufacturers develop or license software players that support WebM encoded video and file format.

Could happen the other way around. But it ain't likely.

Yeah. There is no way Google of all people could launch a Cell Phone OS based on a Java variant and beat Apple by the end of 2010. Stupidest idea ever. I'm still laughing.

This seems like kind of an odd comment. How did Android 'beat' Apple? What's the game they're playing? Google is displaying a lot of ads (their goal). Apple is making a shitload of money (their goal). How did Apple 'lose' or Android 'win'?

Also, not to nitpick, but 'Java variant' seems inaccurate. Code is written in actual Java (not a variant, as far as I'm aware), and compiled to bytecode to run on the Dalvik VM (not a JVM variant).

You can only beat an opponent if you're playing the same game.

Really? "Disruptive Technology" don't happen?

Google drove the cost of smartphone OSes down to as near to zero as patent law will allow.

I'd say that is a game changer.

How much does WebM cost?

The issue is not whether it's a game changer. Apple's game is to build devices, software, and a highly consistent and polished user experience, irresistable to buyers and app developers, all in an effort to capture maximum profit share. Google's game is to build a similar OS that is irresistible to device makers, all in an effort to maximize market share and the advertising revenues boiling off the free app ecosystem.

With Apple, the product is the device and you are the buyer. With Google, the product is you and the advertiser is the buyer. They are each winning their respective games. Superficially they are competitors, but if there is a winner, then there's a loser. How can you look at either company and consider it the loser?

They can both be winners and losers depending on what game they choose to play. Being disruptive is about pissing on the rules for the original game.

Actually the more I think about it the more non-sensical your original statement and this conversation becomes. ;)

Putting aside the metaphors, Google's growth is not coming at the expense of Apple's profits. Nor are Apple's seemingly perpetual revenue and profit gains coming at Google's expense. They are attacking different problems from very different angles.

With only three or four percent of the market, Apple swallows up more profit share than the largest three phone makers combined (in the neighborhood of 40 percent). That's an astounding number, and it doesn't even include non-phone devices. At the same time, Android had tremendous growth in 2010, inevitably passing Apple in unit sales rate. It's a bit glib to simply say Google therefore beats Apple in 2010. There is nuance, and either company can be painted in the foreground.

Agreed,

Both companies seem to be doing wildly well with their respective mobile strategies.

There's a massive volume of h.264 out there that isn't going to get converted just to satisfy some dogmatic commitment to 'openness'.

They won't change it for openness reasons, but they will change it if 80% of their visitors support WebM and not h264. It happened before. How longer were people forced to design web pages for ie6 due to its market share.