I absolutely read the article. I don't care how it compares to other cameras, I have problems with the very concept of the camera.
It's an overpriced camera with a tiny sensor that will always underperform other cameras with larger sensors. It's the same reason why almost everyone discounted 4/3 when it first launched back in 2003. 4/3 was designed to solve technical issues of the time. Those issues no longer exist, so we are left with a camera system that is by design inferior.
The Nikon 1 takes this problem to a new level. Sony's RX100 is much more logical. Take a small sensor and make a small camera. Don't take a small sensor and make something bulky.
The IQ is good for a sensor of its size. To say that it is generally good is an overstatement. All of my time with the J1 left me feeling like I was using an expensive point-&-shoot... which I was, and the images looked like it.
If Nikon had taken the benefits of the V1/J1 and put it into a P&S with top-quality glass, I would have called it a marvel--the next generation of P&S technology, destined to compete with the influx of cell phone cameras. But they didn't. Instead, they built a bulky, fundamentally inferior camera at a high price.
And I don't understand how you can say it compares well with other cameras. Vis-a-vis the Sony, 1.6 fewer stops of dynamic range? You call that comparing well? And it doesn't compete at all in comparison to the Olympus E-M5. And while we're on the subject of comparing it to 4/3 sensors, they sucked! Everyone knows that the 4/3 sensors made by Panasonic weren't competitive. That's why Olympus (finally!) ditched them for Sony, and why even Panasonic has likely started using Sony's sensors for the GH3.
The continuous shooting uses a great number of technical tricks (such as the electronic shutter) that results in distortion of images that I don't like. The standard, "shutter-open-expose-shutter-close repeat" mode of continuous shooting is only 5fps (on the V1, the J1 only has an electronic shutter).
Moreover, the burst rate fills up the buffer so quickly, that you can only capture a second of time in photos. The window is too small. I have as good a chance of getting a shot if I simply fire off one and hope that I got it.
That's not to say that it's bad. Using the standard 5fps shooting rate allows for ten seconds of time. That's good, but no better than other cameras.
And the J1 and V1 only began selling well on Amazon after the large price drop in anticipation of the J2 and V2. Before that they were somewhere around 500th.
The J1 only has 73 reviews after being on the market for a year. The V1 has 47. The Sony RX100 has 159 after having been out for only five months and is still, right now, outselling the V1 and J1. The V1 is #144 in "camera & photo," while the RX100 is #14. The Sony NEX-5n is #17.
For further information, we can look to Flickr. The J1 is 32nd in the Nikon list, and the V1 is 46th. They don't even appear on any other lists. The J1 had 82 users yesterday upload images, the V1 only 48. The NEX-5n had 311. The RX100 had 167. The E-M5 had 339. Even the old Panasonic GF1 had 173.
All of the data indicates that the Nikon V1/J1 are being destroyed in the marketplace. And rightfully so. They are overpriced and under-designed, intended not to provide the consumer with the most for their money, but wedge a product into Nikon's extant product line-up without competing with their DSLR business. It is a cowardly product.
Moreover, merely being available in locations doesn't equal sales. And the Asian markets are unique. Both Panasonic and Olympus have been doing very well there, and everywhere else they are tanking hard.
So here's a tip for you, too. Don't condescend to people you don't know and about whom you have little information. Nor should you read into their posts and infer things they didn't say.