I don't understand this statement. The PF Beginner Box Set is aimed at new RPG players. The D&D Starter Set is aimed at new RPG players. It's a valid to compare the two, from content to price point. The audience is the same.
The point that I believe Mistwell is making is that while, in the big picture, the PFBBS and 5e Starter Set are aimed at the same audience, their approach to that audience and the intent of the products are so different as to not make them a fair comparison when it comes to content.
The goal of the PFBBS is to present a simplified version of PF, reducing the cost of buy-in to the Core Game. It is very consciously patterned after the old TSR Basic Sets, which extra-consideration to the reliance PF has on map-based play. The idea is that prospective players can get the box, play long enough to get hooked and want more, and then move onto the fuller PF rules, ready and willing to take on the additional rules burden.
The goal of the Starter Set is to go from box-opening to actual play in as minimal an amount of time as possible. No chargen, minimal rules to understand, minimal set-up. Open box, distribute characters, read through about 8 double-sided pages, and go off to the races. It's designed to have replay value: e.g., 1-5 levels, multiple adventures in a sandbox setting. But the goal is to hook the player through actual play as soon as possible. Having played the game, and gotten hooked, they can then download the Basic Rules for chargen and (later) more monsters and campaign building tools, and if they're really hooked they can then buy any of the PHB, MM, and DMG if desiring even more options.
Paizo looked at Pathfinder and said, "How can we present the full Pathfinder experience, including chargen, roleplaying, and map-play, in the smallest, easiest possible way?" The result was the PFBBS.
WotC looked at 5e and said, "How can we get players actually playing the game in the fastest, easiest possible way?" The result is the 5e Starter Set and the free online Basic Rules.
