No, it isn't. That's the definition of revenue. What's disingenuous is obscuring the costs that correspond to, and apparently exceed, that revenue.
If I buy an iPod from Apple for $150 and sell it to you for $199, my revenue is $199. That's the definition of revenue. Along with that revenue, I have $150 COGS (cost of goods sold), plus my own expenses. So my net income (revenue) might be anything less than $49.
Yes, calling all $10 revenue is disingenuous, but this accounting change doesn't effect their profitability (or lack thereof)