This is such a bizarre story. First as others pointed out 1 in 125 is 0.8% not 0.008%. They presumably forgot the 100 but in percent conversions. It's presumably 0.8% as if it's 0.008% then they're saying 9billion devices were sold on the last quarter. At 0.8% it's 90million laptop devices. They later say 20% of all laptop sales were AI laptops at 13.3 million which would be 66.5 million laptops overall, not 90milljon. 720,000 would actually 1.1% of all laptops and 5.4% of the AI subcategory.
So whoever wrote the article doesn't seem to know how to do basic maths? They also don't make clear how they arrived at their figures with these contradictory figures elsewhere in their own article.
But the main thing is this whole story is some bizarre idea that a new device getting nearly 1% of global sales in its first quarter is doing badly?
To me that's actually good? But maybe the manufacturer had some crazy expectations? Or maybe the writers think that all products should behave like incumbents?
This reads like shitty journalism - trying to make big claims to get clicks. I have no idea if the product is doing well or not versus expectations, but I don't trust this articles take on it.
I'm personally skeptical about the "AI" bullshit in these products, but I do think the power efficiency of ARM chips may give these Snapdragon X a chance to take market share from traditional chips.