Also: "After making a minor nuisance of myself, Bosch agreed to give me a private demo"

I mean it's possible they paid for him (and others) and still didn't allow him to get a demo... but it's unlikely. Also, I feel like IEEE can afford to pay the attendance costs for a reporter.

So, this is really just promoted content/an ad. Which is fine and it's even fine to wait until the end to tell us I think but not if the article body tries to paint a different, organic picture. This wasn't at all necessary for the content but simply there to detract from the paid promo nature of the piece.

To paraphrase:

"We don't want this getting out just yet, but... oh okay, you can come behind the curtain just this once."

<end of private demo>

"So, what'dya think? By the way, here's a fresh marketing video we happen to have lying around. Tell everyone. No no, actually, let us pay you to tell everyone. We insist."

I wondered this myself but I searched the IEEE website and it appears that there are several stories about various Bosch technologies so it is possible that Bosch was expecting this writer to cover their other stuff and wasn't planning to demo this particular item. Given that Bosch is looking for a commercial partner and not to sell direct to the public they might have had the glasses to show to possible partners and not reporters.

I don't know if the article was edited, but this is what the article now shows at the end:

> Robert Bosch LLC provided travel support for us to attend CES 2020. Bosch Sensortec, responsible for the Smartglasses Light Drive, was not aware of nor involved with the travel support.

So it seems like you are correct. The article could have been much more clear about this though.

I can't prove it but at the time I checked and the OP of this thread had an exact and complete quote of what was on the page.

It has been edited at some point within the last ~2 hours.

It was edited since initial publication.

I don't think the new text changes anything, though. a) If that new text tries to paint the picture that this isn't sponsored content or might have bias, then why did they even mention that disclaimer? b) Which exact legal entity or subsidiary was "officially" sponsoring the trip isn't really that relevant when they are so tightly connected in brand and organizationally.

They could have simply started the article with: "This year Bosch invited us to CES fully covering our attendance cost."

or alternatively later on "while Bosch sponsored our trip we still had a really hard time getting a demo for ... because of ..." (e.g. too many people)

> Bosch Sensortec GmbH is a fully owned subsidiary of Robert Bosch GmbH

This was my assumption too... they have plenty of consumer products currently for sale that they're probably much more interested in promoting.

sure. anything is possible.

Native advertising.

Aren't you generally supposed to disclose things up front? not after the submarine has launched.

Preferably. If you want to create a more trustworthy rapport with your audience so they don't feel manipulated.

Sneaky disclosures kill any interest I have in a product/company.

Indeed. I was fooled. I went back after reading OP comment now I have a bad after-taste.

Yeah, they really Bosched this one...

Yeah, that's a big no-no for credibility. At least for me, I have to trust a stranger before I could ever convert on a pitch, and stating any financial obligations or fiduciary duties or conflicts of interest upfront or early on is far better than tacking it on later.

Case in point, I'm not even going to read this article after reading this comment.

Is it that unlikely that Bosch has sponsored a story written by an unaffiliated writer?

I don't understand your implication. Are you saying that an unaffiliated writer who is sponsored one time by Bosch wouldn't have an inclination of positive bias towards his financial benefactor, as opposed to a PR / marketing person on staff?

They wouldn't if they wrote the story before Bosch noticed it and decided to sponsor it as an article. Seems like good PR practice to me.

Does that change the fact that this is futuristic new technology?

The more relevant question is whether that changes the likelihood that this is a futuristic, new, working technology.

Well working is a qualifier that you added, not the author. Maybe he's only interested in things that explore innovative ideas rather than a functional product.

ieee.org tends to be like that. Still has interesting articles from time to time though

How about you actually quote it?!

>Robert Bosch LLC provided travel support for us to attend CES 2020. Bosch Sensortec, responsible for the Smartglasses Light Drive, was not aware of nor involved with the travel support.

I quoted what was on the page when I read it. They changed it at least twice, the last time I checked it said something about Bosch Sensortec, and I had to Google it to see if they were related to the glasses. They since apparently added that in as well.

Holy shit. The parent comment is as disingenuous as the implication they’re putting the author of the article. It earned a very rare HN downvote from me.

Looks like they changed the disclosure at some point. The original version of the article is here: http://archive.is/QCmA6

Thank you! I tried using internet archive but somehow it wasn't loading the page properly. I was going a bit insane, but remembered it's just the internet and moved on.

I can confirm that the article was edited. It said exactly what the parent comment wrote when I read it.

This IMHO makes it even worse. The article should clarify that they updated this description.