Apple's advantage is design. Google's advantage is search.
As the boundaries of mobile search are pushed (better local, better social, voice search, better x), I believe Google will dominate mobile. Good mobile design will become ubiquitous, but search is a different story.
Google has the best search technology (along with the best infrastructure and data to support it). They also have the best ad network to monetize its benefits.
It's not very insightful to realize that Apple has design while Google has search. This is obvious.
Design won't become ubiquitous. Where else has this happened in the world? Design is hard. Great design is incredibly difficult to achieve. What Apple's managed to do is create a great design and then make it a priority all the way through the company. They won't ship a product if the design isn't exactly what they want.
Building a search infrastructure is expensive, but relatively trivial.
I disagree completely in your assertion that design will become ubiquitous.
You're right, great design is incredibly difficult to achieve - the first time. But then it gets copied by numerous competitors. That's happening right now with the iPad.
> Good mobile design will become ubiquitous, but search is a different story.
That's one hell of an assertion. As most of the "iPod killers" showed, design isn't something you can just suddenly decide as a company to start doing right.
Good design hasn't become ubiquitous on the desktop. I find it hard to believe mobile is going to magically do the opposite.
Apple's advantage is design. Google's advantage is search.
As the boundaries of mobile search are pushed (better local, better social, voice search, better x), I believe Google will dominate mobile. Good mobile design will become ubiquitous, but search is a different story.
Google has the best search technology (along with the best infrastructure and data to support it). They also have the best ad network to monetize its benefits.