Not really though - they just said it wasn't quite as supreme as Google said.
"Because the original meaning of the term “quantum supremacy,” as proposed by John Preskill in 2012, was to describe the point where quantum computers can do things that classical computers can’t, this threshold has not been met."
In other words, "quantum supremacy" is not being used as just a buzzword.
So yeah, IBM is casting doubt on Google's claims of "quantum supremacy" because "supremacy" doesn't just mean "better than everything else."
Edit: Thanks guys for pointing out where I misread the article, leaving mistake intact so the replies make sense.
A still fuzzy and arbitrary but imo somewhat elegant cutoff would let feasibility be set by the market and technological development, in the sense of something not being worth throwing compute at _now_ because the timescale of work is slow enough that future classical efficiencies will progress (much) quicker.
The ROI was terrible, but it wasn't mere busywork when Galileo was mucking around with balls and ramps.
You perform busywork, if for marketing purposes usually of the kind or at least set up in a way favorable to your product, and on the presumption that it will in some manner transfer to real work.
The more synthetic the less likely that is, but it's still indicative of something and I don't see what you mean is so different here.
Meaning when supremacy soon is demonstrated even accounting for storage, it should be able to be undone for a while yet by, say, appropriating everyone’s phones and fridge storage, Silicon Valley style.
But you’re right, it is a subjective judgement.