If you actually read the article, which I'm sure you did, then you'd know that they tested both modes (remote play and via router). With both modes exhibiting unfavourable latency. Meanwhile the gamepad has latency lower than the Wii U connection to many TVs. I believe it is the same for framerate reduction on the Vita, all games are cut to 30fps.

Is the functionality of remote play not the core of the "actual experience"?

I'd much rather solid 60fps where applicable and minimal latency while playing than being able to connect via router. If you're buying a home console and handheld for this experience, I'd rather play the 3DS on the go.

Or just take the Wii U with me :)

experiments happen when you're the only console maker who is pushing the gaming industry forward.

Just that with all love Nintendo isnt the only one.

Firmware 2.5 changed the 30fps to 60fps. The only drawback, is that they don't let you record gameplay on the ps4 while remote playing at 60 fps.

But again, I'm telling you. The experience when directly connected is flawless in terms of latency. The only complaint i have is the lack of  L2/R2. Its the whole reason many people like myself would double dip and buy a new vita if they gave the second bumper (instead of having to use the touch screen or rear screen to send those inputs).

I do notice latency issues sometimes when playing via router, but i do NOT have issues when directly connected.

WiiU has big marketing?

I think people are looking at the systems in terms of life regarding the developers involvement too- the Wii U is probably more likley than the Vita at this point to do BETTER and improve its sales because it is still getting extremely strong support from Nintendo, and the Playstation Vita on the other hand has been practically abandoned by Sony and is only living due to third party developers

I don't necessarily EXPECT the Wii U to improve its performance in sales, but between the 2 systems (Vita / Wii U) it is probably the only option with possibility of gaining any traction

I love how this was ignored, even though it's very much the truth.

There's no doubt that wiiu will beat the vita easily this year, just like it did last year. But the point is that it's weird that the vita, a so-called dead console, is beating another console that people argue that is not dead. If wiiu was beating ps4 even for a month, it'd be a big deal. Same with xbone. When xbone was beating the ps4 in a single region, it became, understandably a bid deal.

What the OP is saying is that the vita has everything going against it and it still beating the wiiU even by a little. In a way, it is defying the odds. It's not doing well or even ok, just surprisingly better than people give it credit for.

I love my Vita.
I play it almost everyday.
With the vast amount of free titles that ps+ dishes out every month for the Vita, there is never a shortage of Vita titles to play.

Compile that with the ability of remote play, my Vita gets much play.

Fact to the matter is, the Vita has a far better line up than the Wii U does.

More Original Vita games, more Indie titles, Remote play with PS4 games. No wonder the Vita is selling better.

The difference between Vita and Wii U being dead or not is probably more depending on the games released. Vita just got games in Japan. But outside Japan it's mostly indy and old PSP games as downloads and absolutely zero support from Sony themself in terms of (big) first party software.

That first party stuff is something Wii U has, as well as some indies.