Google Maps in WebKit: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2128410/maps-webkit.png
Google Maps in Firefox: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2128410/maps-firefox.png
Gmail in WebKit: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2128410/gmail-webkit.png
Gmail in Firefox spoofing a WebKit UA header: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2128410/gmail-firefox-webkit-ua.png
Gmail in Opera or Firefox normally: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2128410/gmail-opera.png
Twitter in WebKit: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2128410/twitter-webkit.png
Twitter in Firefox: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2128410/twitter-firefox.png
These are just some of the big-name sites that I knew off-hand. At least these high-budget sites usually have some sort of fallback. Some sites just have degraded styles; some have parts that are unreadable. Some provide partial functionality to non-WebKit browsers; others won't work at all (like Bing web search in Opera).
This is becoming more common on the desktop too, with sites like Tweetdeck that just lock out non-WebKit browsers using UA sniffing: https://web.tweetdeck.com/web/unsupported.html
For some technical details, see for example http://bugzil.la/668218
Mozilla does need to "step up" -- but work required to fix cases like these is not technical. It's about gaining user marketshare, developer mindshare, and improving the standards process.
I'm not entirely certain about this approach though, so what is the real harm in a web where boxes have slightly rounded corners in one browser and not another? I'm also curious if anybody has examples of WebKit-only sites (that don't actually function in other browsers) that don't fall under the heading of "look at this cool new CSS thing that this site exists to demonstrate."