I'm not sure if David was thinking of 'the masses' as the majority of Westerners who come to Buddhism or as the majority of people in traditionally Buddhist countries.
If the former, your experience is pretty typical and David is right but perhaps for the wrong reasons. As you accidentally demonstrate, Tibetan Buddhism has such a high profile (relatively speaking, of course) that one can easily not realise there is any other kind, partly because the Chinese-forced Tibetan diaspora did at least bring large numbers of Buddhist teachers into the wider world (not that that is any reason to condone the invasion).
If David meant the latter, he is still right but over a far longer timescale: whole populations gradually shifted Buddhism towards a more 'religious', devotional style and away from the more 'philosophical' style of classical Theravada. Even in Theravadin countries, the typical lay approach is, if I can put it this way without offending anyone, more faith-based than experience-based or analytically-based.
Edited for clarity.