A CNET article on O3D also quotes Papakipos. 'Google believes that it's possible that multiple 3D interfaces will be supported in browsers of the future. "Ultimately, there's going to be at least two," Papakipos said, pointing out that 2D graphics in the browser has two technologies at present, SVG and Canvas'. Having personally discussed X3D with Matt Papakipos, I have high hopes that he may be referring to X3D here, or perhaps a derivative of X3D. When I discussed X3D with members of the O3D team (known internally by a different name) last summer, they said they didn't know a great deal about X3D at the time, but they seemed to have some reservations about parts of the standard – apparently enough to warrant taking their own approach to the problem.
I am encouraging Web3D Consortium members to engage in this discussion. As Google has recently become a browser vendor and a member of the Khronos group, I would also be interested to hear the consortium's views on Google's recent release. Their new API is yet another example of an imperative approach in contrast with X3D's declarative approach.
Please note that I am not currently an employee of Google, I was only an intern there last summer, any opinions expressed are my own.