knowledgable users buy what they need more than uneducated users who buy what marketing tells them they should want. That's what Neuro keeps getting wrong.
If by "uneducated" you mean novices who haven't spent hours researching camera reviews, hanging out in camera forums, etc., and if we can assume from their market share that such people buy Canon more than other brands, does that mean, then, that Canon's ads and other marketing devices are more effective than anyone else's? Is there any evidence to support this? The only camera ads I've noticed on TV are Ashton Kutcher's for Nikon; I don't recall ever seeing a Canon ad anywhere (though perhaps that's just because I watch & read the wrong things). I suspect that marketing isn't as effective as you (and marketing departments) think - my first dslr was a Nikon, not because I had swooned at the sight of Mr. Kutcher or read tons of reviews (though I had probably looked at more than most novices do), but largely because my father had one and I thought he might be a useful resource. Novice friends and colleagues of mine who have no interest at all in spending hours researching this stuff have often followed my advice because they've seen some of my photos and think I'm trustworthy, in part because what I say about various cameras makes sense to them (I don't talk to them about dynamic range....); and I'm sure that's true of others. Some may be act on name recognition (they have Canon copiers at work or at home) or because they see masses of Canon cameras at sporting events, or because they took a camera course one weekend where the instructor used a Canon. Others pay attention to salesmen (it's instructive to spend some time in camera stores listening to interactions between staff and novices).
As for who needs what, beyond the basics ("I want to take photos of my toddler roaming around the house so I can email them to his grandmother") you probably don't know until you do a lot of photography and take it seriously enough to think about what your equipment is stopping you from doing and why it makes your photos look the way they do. To the extent that Neuro is suggesting that Canon is successful despite not doing so well in various DXO et al. tests because those relative deficiencies don't matter to most people, that's probably true in some sense, but also a bit misleading: I doubt Rebel buyers chose Canon because they know noisy shadows at low ISOs and lower resolution aren't significant to them and don't fall within their "needs" - rather, they haven't the slightest idea what any of those things mean, either at all or in practice (in Rumsfeld-ese, this is known-unknowns or unknown-unknowns territory). Try talking to a novice about APS-C vs FF, crop factors, etc., let alone the advantages of shooting RAW and fiddling around with software.... It's not because they're stupid or uneducated or dupes of marketing; it's just that they have other priorities.