Well, there is evidence of Samsung astroturfing blog authors. One fellow I followed had a rather obscure blog, and then one day he talked about samsung and suddenly had hundreds of negative comments (and not of the american pro-android kind you see here.) So, he checked his logs and found they were coming from a limited IP range in Korea.
Anecdote, of course.
But I think assuming that someone who posts a blog posting in a blog about watches with a history of writing about watches is probably not so easily bought.
> But I think assuming that someone who posts a blog posting in a blog about watches with a history of writing about watches is probably not so easily bought.
That was, in a roundabout way, my point; it seems silly to cry "omg, Apple shill!" with no evidence beyond "he said something nice about the iWatch" (and it is equally as silly for me to cry "omg, Samsung shill!" on nothing but the basis of "he said something unkind about Apple"). I'm afraid absurd tone doesn't come through well on the internet.
This is precisely the kind of article I'd expect from a watch aficionado. One can look at it with a suspicious eye, but unless there's something to indicate that they were bought, it's silly to call them out as such.
They invited him to the Keynote. They wanted him to be there. It's his profession to write reviews on the watch industry. All signs point to this being a mutual agreement, but of course, we question whether money was exchanged? We can ask that question of any and all reviews for products, no matter the company or the author. I guess what I'm driving at is... Why are you cynical about this particular article?
