4 ms·

1979: The IBM 370 is unbeatable. 1982: The IBM PC is unbeatable. 1985: SONY is unbeatable. 1988: Microsoft DOS is unbeatable. 1990: Kodak is unbeatable. 19

by edw519 15y ago

1979: The IBM 370 is unbeatable. 1982: The IBM PC is unbeatable. 1985: SONY is unbeatable. 1988: Microsoft DOS is unbeatable. 1990: Kodak is unbeatable. 1993: Windows is unbeatable. 1994: AOL is unbeatable 1996: Netscape is unbeatable. 1998: Internet Exlorer is unbeatable. 2002: Krispy Kream is unbeatable. 2004: MySpace is unbeatable. 2006: Real estate is unbeatable. 2008: Toyota is unbeatable. 2012: The Ipad is unbeatable.

bonch 15y ago
2002: The iPod killer is coming. 2003: The iPod killer is coming. 2004: The iPod killer is coming. 2005: The iPod killer is coming. 2006: The iPod killer is coming. 2007: The iPod killer is coming. 2008: The iPod killer is coming. 2009: The iPod killer is coming. 2010: We give up on iPod killers. 2011: The iPad killer is coming. 2012: The iPad killer is coming.
raganwald 15y ago
Tense matters. In 1979 the IBM 370 was unbeatable. “The iPad is unbeatable” is true. “The iPad will always be unbeatable” is a different statement.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- eco 15y ago
  The subtitle of the article is: > Why Apple’s tablet competitors don’t stand a chance—and maybe never will.
  - danudey 15y ago
    I believe that subtitle is referring to, for example the iPod's dominance, where since its launch the only thing that competitors have managed to do is claw back scraps of market share to bring it down to 78%, from its high of 90%+ in the past. Is the iPod unbeatable? Well, no, of course not. It's losing a sales, but mostly, from what I've seen, to smartphones, and of those, most are iPod Touches or iPhones. It's possible that soon, the iPod's sales will dwindle to minimal numbers, but it may still hold the majority of the market of MP3 players. Apple's MP3 player competitors didn't stand a chance, and the way things look they never will, not until something changes pretty dramatically in the market. That's the key issue. The iPad isn't 'unbeatable'. Something better will come along eventually. My question is, is that 'something better' going to be from Apple's tablet competitors? Or from another Apple project that renders tablets in general obsolete for the majority? I suppose a better title would be 'Apple's tablet competitors can't beat the iPad', which seems true to me until they change something to improve their chances.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- eavc 15y ago
  This is a weird bit of equivocation, and it's kind of clever and fun to think about. But they aren't really different statements plainly spoken. To say that something is unable to be beaten is intrinsically a claim about the future.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    I think you’re taking it too literally. In the movie “Pumping Iron,” Serge Nubret says to Arnold Schwarzenneger at the 1975 Mr. Universe competition, “You are unbeatable!” Did he really mean forever? Just that competition? Until Arnold retired? I think the expression “unbeatable” always means “Under the current circumstances, roughly now-ish, for the foreseeable future, &c.” If you take it literally, there would be no use for the word. Saying “Arnold is Unbeatable” in 1975 meant that the current crop of body builders couldn’t beat him, that either he would grow old, or retire (which he did, and then un-retire to win again), or some new young phenom would come out of nowhere. Saying “IBM 370 is unbeatable” in 1979 meant simply that nothing at that time would beat it, that only time or the unforeseeable would unseat it, which is what happened.
    - eavc 15y ago
      The word is always used with an implied context, yes, but that context is never just 'the present' with all circumstances staying as they are. To call something 'unbeatable' means that there are still variables that can come into play in the contest, but they don't even matter. The victor is already decided even allowing for the most extreme probabilities. For many or most of the items in the list you were replying to, the contest was not over when the crown was lost. The OPs list was intended to show that many companies lost their tremendous advantages in a variety of ways, that the variables are such that the iPad shouldn't be labeled as unbeatable. And of course, no one really believes the iPad is unbeatable in any meaningful sense. It's just hyperbole for being in a dominant position.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    To say that something is unable to be beaten is intrinsically a claim about the future. Really? Everything I know about philosophy, science, and traditional knowledge points me towards the notion that everything is transient. Anyone who states or receives the message that "something is unbeatable" with an implied "indefinitely" is naive or has been lured into wishful thinking.
AlexandrB 15y ago
> 1993: Windows is unbeatable. When did Windows stop being the dominant PC platform? Sure it's on it's way down in the "post-PC" era, but AFAIK it's still far and away the dominant platform on traditional PCs. But, even if you assume that Windows is no longer dominant when did that happen? 2010, maybe 2007 at the earliest? That's at least 14 years of complete domination of the personal computing market. So by this standard we should expect an iPad killer in 2024?
scott_w 15y ago
It's worth pointing out that DOS was never beaten, as Windows is its direct successor. In other cases, the market dominance was quite complete and it took a market shift to unseat them (Kodak, Sony). In any case, even if the iPad is bettered, how much of the competition will be around to see it? I think that's more the point of the article than the hyperbolic title.
- kenrikm 15y ago
  Good point, Sony still has the market for portable cassette players. The problem is that that market is dead and long replaced. I was just discussing this yesterday, the best thing Apple has done is to not let it's prior success prevent it moving forward. The iPod is "dead" for all purposes (I'm talking about the original form) the name lives on in the iPod touch, however the touch itself is really just an iPhone without connectivity. You could be "unbeatable" in Point and Shoot cameras however I would not want to be in that market when almost every phone new has a 8mp camera built in. Markets come and go, staying ahead of the changes is what's important.
  - gnaffle 15y ago
    And the interesting thing is that the two longest-lived things on the "unbeatable"-list, the PC and Windows, are actually what the iPad is attacking (the "post PC" era). So far, it seems that Microsoft has decided that the most competitive response is to release an "no compromise" MP3 player which is also great at playing cassettes.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  In other cases, the market dominance was quite complete and it took a market shift to unseat them (Kodak, Sony). In this, we can see a good model for the eventual decline of Apple. So long as Apple can see technological potentials and the 2nd/3rd order future of market direction (+), they will continue to dominate. Whether or not they can do so for longer than the 3-5 year timeframe all depends on how well they marshall the culture and other soft assets that allowed them to get to their current position. (Word to the wise -- if you have an inside view to how Apple's internal culture changes, you might make some money with short selling.) (+) - It takes an organization like Apple to see the fad for netbooks going on all around and extrapolate to the mobile computing "post PC" model.
i_cannot_hack 15y ago
That is just fallacious. How many times something has been suggested wrongly by other people regarding other products in the past has no bearing at all on whether Farhad Manjo is right or wrong regarding the iPad. If you want to make a point you will have to counter the arguments laid forth in the article, and show why it is likely the iPad will go the same way as Netscape. It will contribute to the discussion much more than just spouting dates.
- eavc 15y ago
  It's not fallacious; it's not even an argument. It's just a shortcut. It seems hard to make any definitive claim about Apple's future so soon after the loss of Jobs's leadership and influence.
ctdonath 15y ago
It's not that any of those were beaten. It's that the season ended.
sliceof314 15y ago
but this time it's different, there's more pixels!
why-el 15y ago
The iPad is unbeatable, unless you think otherwise and in that case an counter example would be convenient.
bunderbunder 15y ago
IBM 370: Not really beaten, so much as made less relevant by a shift to new technology. IBM PC: Not really beaten, so much as completely took over the world. Most servers are PC descendants, as are Macs and basically everything else that isn't a tablet or phone. Sony: (Assume you mean the Walkman) Not really beaten, so much as made less relevant by a shift to new technology. DOS: Not really beaten, so much as replaced with a new product by its manufacturer. Kodak: Not really beaten, so much as made less relevant by a shift to new technology. Windows: Still enjoys 90% market share. AOL: Not really beaten, so much as made less relevant by a shift to new technology. Netscape: Beaten. But seriously, who thought they were unbeatable? IE: Beaten. Thank goodness. Krispy Kream: Who? MySpace: Beaten. Real estate: Market bubbles aren't quite what we're talking about here. Toyota: 20% market share is hardly a lock on the industry.
- swombat 15y ago
  My take on the "unkillable" thing: http://swombat.com/2010/12/15/what-will-kill-facebook http://swombat.com/2010/12/15/what-will-kill-facebook - matches your data.
drzaiusapelord 15y ago
You forgot 2010: The iPhone is unbeatable 850k Android activations per day according to Andy Rubin last month. Turns out decentraliztion wins out in the end, just like it did in the 80s with Apple vs MS. Actually, I'd argue that the ipad is probably unbeatable, but only because its a peripheral in the Apple ecosystem like a firewire cable or white speakers. No one wants a competitor because its not an apple product. The ipad isnt a new class of product, its just a dumb interface to Apple's various stores and services. Its like saying there's no competitor to AppleTV. There's not, my Tivo can't buy from iTunes, thus AppleTV is unbeatable.
- aaronblohowiak 15y ago
  For what function of "wins"? Who has most of the profit in the mobile space? Whose app developers are making more money?
  - epo 15y ago
    Careful, the groupthink here punishes anyone who is not critical of Apple. Witness the risible, tortuous linguistic analysis trying to prove the referenced article is wrong because it must be claiming that the iPad will be dominant for evermore. "One tablet to rule them all."
    - drzaiusapelord 15y ago
      I wouldn't be so dismissive. I think its obvious that the tech press and bloggers as well just latch on the the winning horse for the easy narrative and easy hits and people get sick of it. Yes, Apple is doing a great job, but do we need to be reminded of it every hour here? Are we also prohibited in talking about how things have been playing out and how the tech press is usually wrong?

by edw519 15y ago

bonch 15y ago

2002: The iPod killer is coming. 2003: The iPod killer is coming. 2004: The iPod killer is coming. 2005: The iPod killer is coming. 2006: The iPod killer is coming. 2007: The iPod killer is coming. 2008: The iPod killer is coming. 2009: The iPod killer is coming. 2010: We give up on iPod killers. 2011: The iPad killer is coming. 2012: The iPad killer is coming.

raganwald 15y ago

Tense matters. In 1979 the IBM 370 was unbeatable. “The iPad is unbeatable” is true. “The iPad will always be unbeatable” is a different statement.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
eco 15y ago
The subtitle of the article is: > Why Apple’s tablet competitors don’t stand a chance—and maybe never will.
- danudey 15y ago
  I believe that subtitle is referring to, for example the iPod's dominance, where since its launch the only thing that competitors have managed to do is claw back scraps of market share to bring it down to 78%, from its high of 90%+ in the past. Is the iPod unbeatable? Well, no, of course not. It's losing a sales, but mostly, from what I've seen, to smartphones, and of those, most are iPod Touches or iPhones. It's possible that soon, the iPod's sales will dwindle to minimal numbers, but it may still hold the majority of the market of MP3 players. Apple's MP3 player competitors didn't stand a chance, and the way things look they never will, not until something changes pretty dramatically in the market. That's the key issue. The iPad isn't 'unbeatable'. Something better will come along eventually. My question is, is that 'something better' going to be from Apple's tablet competitors? Or from another Apple project that renders tablets in general obsolete for the majority? I suppose a better title would be 'Apple's tablet competitors can't beat the iPad', which seems true to me until they change something to improve their chances.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
eavc 15y ago
This is a weird bit of equivocation, and it's kind of clever and fun to think about. But they aren't really different statements plainly spoken. To say that something is unable to be beaten is intrinsically a claim about the future.
- raganwald 15y ago
  I think you’re taking it too literally. In the movie “Pumping Iron,” Serge Nubret says to Arnold Schwarzenneger at the 1975 Mr. Universe competition, “You are unbeatable!” Did he really mean forever? Just that competition? Until Arnold retired? I think the expression “unbeatable” always means “Under the current circumstances, roughly now-ish, for the foreseeable future, &c.” If you take it literally, there would be no use for the word. Saying “Arnold is Unbeatable” in 1975 meant that the current crop of body builders couldn’t beat him, that either he would grow old, or retire (which he did, and then un-retire to win again), or some new young phenom would come out of nowhere. Saying “IBM 370 is unbeatable” in 1979 meant simply that nothing at that time would beat it, that only time or the unforeseeable would unseat it, which is what happened.
  - eavc 15y ago
    The word is always used with an implied context, yes, but that context is never just 'the present' with all circumstances staying as they are. To call something 'unbeatable' means that there are still variables that can come into play in the contest, but they don't even matter. The victor is already decided even allowing for the most extreme probabilities. For many or most of the items in the list you were replying to, the contest was not over when the crown was lost. The OPs list was intended to show that many companies lost their tremendous advantages in a variety of ways, that the variables are such that the iPad shouldn't be labeled as unbeatable. And of course, no one really believes the iPad is unbeatable in any meaningful sense. It's just hyperbole for being in a dominant position.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  To say that something is unable to be beaten is intrinsically a claim about the future. Really? Everything I know about philosophy, science, and traditional knowledge points me towards the notion that everything is transient. Anyone who states or receives the message that "something is unbeatable" with an implied "indefinitely" is naive or has been lured into wishful thinking.

AlexandrB 15y ago

> 1993: Windows is unbeatable. When did Windows stop being the dominant PC platform? Sure it's on it's way down in the "post-PC" era, but AFAIK it's still far and away the dominant platform on traditional PCs. But, even if you assume that Windows is no longer dominant when did that happen? 2010, maybe 2007 at the earliest? That's at least 14 years of complete domination of the personal computing market. So by this standard we should expect an iPad killer in 2024?

scott_w 15y ago

It's worth pointing out that DOS was never beaten, as Windows is its direct successor. In other cases, the market dominance was quite complete and it took a market shift to unseat them (Kodak, Sony). In any case, even if the iPad is bettered, how much of the competition will be around to see it? I think that's more the point of the article than the hyperbolic title.

kenrikm 15y ago
Good point, Sony still has the market for portable cassette players. The problem is that that market is dead and long replaced. I was just discussing this yesterday, the best thing Apple has done is to not let it's prior success prevent it moving forward. The iPod is "dead" for all purposes (I'm talking about the original form) the name lives on in the iPod touch, however the touch itself is really just an iPhone without connectivity. You could be "unbeatable" in Point and Shoot cameras however I would not want to be in that market when almost every phone new has a 8mp camera built in. Markets come and go, staying ahead of the changes is what's important.
- gnaffle 15y ago
  And the interesting thing is that the two longest-lived things on the "unbeatable"-list, the PC and Windows, are actually what the iPad is attacking (the "post PC" era). So far, it seems that Microsoft has decided that the most competitive response is to release an "no compromise" MP3 player which is also great at playing cassettes.
stcredzero 15y ago
In other cases, the market dominance was quite complete and it took a market shift to unseat them (Kodak, Sony). In this, we can see a good model for the eventual decline of Apple. So long as Apple can see technological potentials and the 2nd/3rd order future of market direction (+), they will continue to dominate. Whether or not they can do so for longer than the 3-5 year timeframe all depends on how well they marshall the culture and other soft assets that allowed them to get to their current position. (Word to the wise -- if you have an inside view to how Apple's internal culture changes, you might make some money with short selling.) (+) - It takes an organization like Apple to see the fad for netbooks going on all around and extrapolate to the mobile computing "post PC" model.

i_cannot_hack 15y ago

That is just fallacious. How many times something has been suggested wrongly by other people regarding other products in the past has no bearing at all on whether Farhad Manjo is right or wrong regarding the iPad. If you want to make a point you will have to counter the arguments laid forth in the article, and show why it is likely the iPad will go the same way as Netscape. It will contribute to the discussion much more than just spouting dates.

eavc 15y ago
It's not fallacious; it's not even an argument. It's just a shortcut. It seems hard to make any definitive claim about Apple's future so soon after the loss of Jobs's leadership and influence.

ctdonath 15y ago

It's not that any of those were beaten. It's that the season ended.

sliceof314 15y ago

but this time it's different, there's more pixels!

why-el 15y ago

The iPad is unbeatable, unless you think otherwise and in that case an counter example would be convenient.

bunderbunder 15y ago

IBM 370: Not really beaten, so much as made less relevant by a shift to new technology. IBM PC: Not really beaten, so much as completely took over the world. Most servers are PC descendants, as are Macs and basically everything else that isn't a tablet or phone. Sony: (Assume you mean the Walkman) Not really beaten, so much as made less relevant by a shift to new technology. DOS: Not really beaten, so much as replaced with a new product by its manufacturer. Kodak: Not really beaten, so much as made less relevant by a shift to new technology. Windows: Still enjoys 90% market share. AOL: Not really beaten, so much as made less relevant by a shift to new technology. Netscape: Beaten. But seriously, who thought they were unbeatable? IE: Beaten. Thank goodness. Krispy Kream: Who? MySpace: Beaten. Real estate: Market bubbles aren't quite what we're talking about here. Toyota: 20% market share is hardly a lock on the industry.

swombat 15y ago
My take on the "unkillable" thing: http://swombat.com/2010/12/15/what-will-kill-facebook http://swombat.com/2010/12/15/what-will-kill-facebook - matches your data.

drzaiusapelord 15y ago

You forgot 2010: The iPhone is unbeatable 850k Android activations per day according to Andy Rubin last month. Turns out decentraliztion wins out in the end, just like it did in the 80s with Apple vs MS. Actually, I'd argue that the ipad is probably unbeatable, but only because its a peripheral in the Apple ecosystem like a firewire cable or white speakers. No one wants a competitor because its not an apple product. The ipad isnt a new class of product, its just a dumb interface to Apple's various stores and services. Its like saying there's no competitor to AppleTV. There's not, my Tivo can't buy from iTunes, thus AppleTV is unbeatable.

aaronblohowiak 15y ago
For what function of "wins"? Who has most of the profit in the mobile space? Whose app developers are making more money?
- epo 15y ago
  Careful, the groupthink here punishes anyone who is not critical of Apple. Witness the risible, tortuous linguistic analysis trying to prove the referenced article is wrong because it must be claiming that the iPad will be dominant for evermore. "One tablet to rule them all."
  - drzaiusapelord 15y ago
    I wouldn't be so dismissive. I think its obvious that the tech press and bloggers as well just latch on the the winning horse for the easy narrative and easy hits and people get sick of it. Yes, Apple is doing a great job, but do we need to be reminded of it every hour here? Are we also prohibited in talking about how things have been playing out and how the tech press is usually wrong?