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