It's strange -- when misreporting mischaracterizes an underdog, I feel sympathy towards that underdog. But when someone calls out reporting like this, I find it more offensive than informative.
In theory perhaps I should treat them the same, but the best analogy I can come up for this piece reads is something dramatic and ugly like "this article claims economic conditions in South America are improving, but check out how poor they are compared to the US!"
Your argument would almost be a good one if NPD had not used quotes such as:
“According to NPD’s Consumer Tracking Service, 76 percent of consumers who purchased a non-Apple tablet didn’t even consider the iPad, an indication that a large group of consumers are looking for alternatives, and an opportunity for the rest of the market to grow their business.”
If you overlay this argument on your South American analogy it would read something like:
Economic conditions in South America are improving, an indication that poverty has declined.
If you think about it, this does not make sense. Improvements in economic conditions may have no effect on poverty at all if the money is not trickling down.
NPD was probably targeting this report at some PC manufacturer that was looking to invest in the tablet sector. It is probably 'market research' reporting such as this that creates bubbles such as Groupon.
I saw your response late, sorry for missing it. That quote is a good one. I agree "76% of consumers who purchased a non-Apple tablet" is constructed to sound like a big number but is really a small one. Not sure why your comment shows up grayed out.
In theory perhaps I should treat them the same, but the best analogy I can come up for this piece reads is something dramatic and ugly like "this article claims economic conditions in South America are improving, but check out how poor they are compared to the US!"