I don't think that Niceman is claiming to be speaking "objectively", whatever that means when it comes to music. I personally don't think that The Beatles could ever write songs as good as U2's best songs. But "good" means "pleasing to me", because what else could it mean? We can discuss cultural relevance (The Beatles win) or influence (The Beatles win), but I'm not sure whether "good" can mean much more than "pleases me". At least when it comes to music. There are certain criteria that is search for in music, and, by and large, U2 fill them much better than The Beatles do, nearly universally. Your criteria may be different.
That being said, I don't think that anyone believes that, say, Womanfish is better than Hey Jude.