4 ms·

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.
  - deleted 15y ago

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.
- deleted 15y ago