Isn't any evaluation of how a person or company affected to the world shaped by each individual's own value-system? By what criteria do you rank someone's achievement? Is it by the number of people affected ... longevity of their creations ... enlightenment to society? There's no one way to judge such a thing because it's all subjective. Users of Apple products are potentially more-biased towards the company that created their tools of choice ... just as a guy that hosts a search-engine podcast is probably more likely to extol the achievements of his favorite search company. A world away from those two corporate titans, I'm sure, if asked, a villager in Somalia that just received a shipment of food and vitamins probably thinks whomever facilitated those things has made the most profound impact on the world. In their case, whether Google or Apple ever existed, food in their stomach and vitamins to address malnourishment may have allowed them to live another day. How many iPads equate to extending a life?
My point is that everybody has their own perceptions of what's important in this world. For Peter Nowak, apparently it's Apple. For Jesse Brown, it's Google. And that's fine ... in order for anyone to ever exchange money for goods they need to value what that good can do for them over the money in their pocket.
People should value things differently, otherwise all trade would grind to a halt as everybody hoarded the exact same shit. Ultimately .... what people value is really irrelevant ... but trying to rank Apple over Google, or vice-versa seems somewhat pointless to me ... especially since both companies are still plugging away throwing new things into the world to see what flies.