There is a good argument to be made that Google is a more influential company than Apple, but this article doesn't present it. Once you take away the unsubstantiated (at least in the article) fluff, such as "Google preaches openness because it benefits the company", here are Google's concrete accomplishments, according to the article:

1) Their core technology, Google search.

2) The fact that they bought YouTube.

This isn't a very compelling summary of Google's concrete accomplishments, and I'm sure a much better one could be made. Even Google Docs is a better example of Google changing the way people communicate than "they bought YouTube". (YouTube itself is, of course, amazing, but they were established and very popular before Google, a fact that doesn't really fit the narrative as presented.)

The worst part of this article, however, is that it presents Apple's accomplishments as inevitable and Google's as miraculous, when you could just as easily argue the reverse. "Someone would inevitably have bought YouTube -- surely the fact that anybody can now share videos on the Internet is inevitable?" And the answer is, yes, someone would have, but the point is that Google did. In the same way, everybody can see, in hindsight, that the iTunes music store was inevitable, but Apple was the company to make it happen. Being first is only easy in retrospect.