That would depend almost entirely on battery manufacturing capacity. If VAG, Daimler, and other luxury brands want to be competing in volume 3-4 years from today, they would have needed to start building battery capacity now
GM, Ford et al don't have steel or aluminum foundries. Batteries are and will be a commodity, not a strategic advantage. Apple doesn't make touch screens, batteries or camera sensors. It's a problem for the first mover because the commodities aren't in place yet, but concurrent with the ramp up at the other car manufacturers, is the ramp up in battery manufacturing capacity at the battery makers (Samsung, LG, China Inc., etc.). Think GM and US Steel, now GM and LG, or BMW and Samsung, or Fiat and Bosch.
Tesla will spend lots of capital (of which it has very little), and lots of management expertise (also stretched thin), to create what GM, MB, BMW et al will buy from suppliers. Everyone else will have much lower cost "just in time" supply chains that consume very little capital, while Tesla will literally own and fund the factory and all inventory associated with their battery production.
Tesla has been forced to re-create the vertical integration business model because they are the first mover, everyone else will be able to just buy from suppliers. Further, the followers will be able to diversify their supply base, while Tesla will be entirely dependent on a single factory. There are very sound operational and financial reasons that all other industries abandoned vertical integration 30yrs ago.
Apple was the first mover in terms of touch screen phones with access to truly useful web services other than email.
By your argument, Android should have killed them 5 years ago, and that's actually what I thought would happen, but despite Apple only having market share of around 14% (and shrinking) in mobile devices, they remain the most profitable by a long shot.
Actually Windows phone on the Motorola smartphones, Blackberry on it's proprietary OS, and Symbian on the Nokia smart phones all had multiple apps and internet access. Apple was fortunate enough to come along as cellular bandwidth was dropping radically in price (remember the iPhone 3G?), whereas the earlier phones struggled with a cellular infrastructure that had very low bandwidth and thus less utility.
Android does kill Apple on volume. Look at the business models of the two companies. Google wants lots of volume because they make money from the information collected by the phone, not on the sale of the phone hardware. Apple makes all their money on the hardware, not the information gathered. The difference in business models drove Android to entirely dominate volume, while Apple dominates profit, at the expense of all the manufacturers selling Android phones. It's just a replay of the PC era where Microsoft cared about unit volume of the hardware, because they were selling the software (Windows + Office), while Apple again cared about the hardware margins. The PC business all migrated to the lowest cost and lowest margin producers, just like Android has done, while Apple's Macintosh continues to have weak share, but much better margins now replicated in the iPhone.