The point is that although they are being installed for different reasons for the park, why should that mean that as a whole people shouldn't compare the two. To me it just comes across as "because Disney are doing XY and Z here, its fine for Avatar to be slightly less impressive than other areas and for there to be less put into it" which to me at least shouldn't be the way things are looked at.
I think they should compare the two. But like I said- limit it to the immersion and focus on the lands themselves, and rides, etc.
Those saying the motives were to be "Disney's version of Harry Potter" I believe are very mistaken and misguided.
I don't think Disney went into it thinking "how many glowing milk shakes and stuffed banshees can we sell?" I think a plethora of things went into play that are obvious- such as wanting to sell dining packages at Tusker house and increasing DAK attendance, spending, and time spent as a whole.
But also more indirect things- like the dropping of MSEP and the "new MK fireworks show" that will cost less and have less pyrotechnics. Push those crowds to DAK and not only do we not have to spend a dime at MK- but we can reduce our nighttime offerings and money spent towards that in the process.
Doing this Potter-Pandora motives comparison is simply a fallacy. And it's annoying because it always becomes some desperate attempt to "prove" a way that Disney is somehow failing at this expansion- instead of simply relishing in the new offerings. If internally they see no additional time spent at DAK, and we see no increase in attendance at DAK, then it's a failure. But we simply don't know that will be the case.
What I can't wait for is to walk into the land- and then ride the rides- and see how everything stacks up vs WWoHP. Wand interaction, gringotts, butterbeer, etc will likely still make me favor WWoHP overall- but I want to give Pandora a fair shake- and I believe it will be the most beautiful theme park land in the world.