solipsism, I agree. But should we let AppleInsider get to the point where we must always evaluate the validity and bias of the author's article?
Journalists abide by a Code of Ethics. The section on "Seek Truth and Report It" says "Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error." These aren't ethics just for the Wall Street Journal. These are ethics for all journalists.
From the replies to this article so far, it looks like there's more than a little misinformation.
I think that you are making way too much of this. Let us stipulate that AI has a pro-Apple bias. That is a non-issue for most of the people that subscribe to or read it.
I think that the "?" against the vudu.com statistic was obvious, in context, to most people (including me): It simply signaled "we're not sure."
As to some of the other data being "misinformation," c'mon - that's an overstatement. If it is wrong, it will be (and is) often pointed out. Understand that no one can get everything right, and if one used that as the standard, few forums such as this would exist. My strong view is that it is foolish to read only an article without digesting the comments as well. Typically I learn as much, if not more, from the comments than the article itself, which I often view as a context-setter for a set of additions, subtractions, insights, and corrections that follow.
To make such strong attributions as you are to AI's motives is also not terribly ethical, in my view.