Wired Magazine, Can You Say Product Placement?
Don't get me wrong, I usually find the content of wired magazine informative, authoritative, and balanced. Unfortunately some of their articles read like product placements, and their mobile video service rundown is no exception.
Sure, it's ok to feature "mainstream" services like Apple's iTunes Store (which isn't truly mobile and mostly works only with Apple products), AT&T Cellular Video, Sprint TV (scored 7/10 as the winner), and Verizon V Cast Mobile TV. But why leave out services like TinyTube.net?
I understand that Wired would want to feature only commercialized services. Yet this betrays a perception on the part of the writer and editor: only services that have something to sell are worth considering. Which isn't true, because the reason why video, whether on computers or on a smartphone or PDA, became much more popular as more people were able to watch them for free.
That's why the article reads like a product placement. In at least one article, nothing differentiated Wired from those typical "authoritative" gadget magazines that are basically advertisements with long copy. For shame.
