That's the point being made; the "Watson" marketing and the "Watson" reality are at odds, but there is a Watson reality, even if it's more mundane than the marketing.

I rewrote my initial draft of that sentence to deny IBM their strategy of using Watson as a human name, which is part of the problem. You shouldn't really use a possessive on Watson, because nothing is Watson's as it isn't a person, grammatically or otherwise. Watson is a collective noun, which is a suite of products. Even if you nominally know better, it fools your brain if you let them frame Watson as a proper name of a person.