[anotheruser092]

I also think it's unpaid, because the consequences are too significant if it's leaked that there was collusion for Wired to publish a puff piece in exchange for money from Microsoft, and Wired didn't mark it as "sponsored content" or similar.

It's bad for the writer because it shows the writer can be bought, reducing the credibility of previous and future work (though this does happen). It's also bad for Wired as it will be seen as biased for future reports on Microsoft. And it's bad for Microsoft because unpaid positive articles are worth more than positive articles that are suspected to be paid for.

At the most cynical, it's possible the writer wrote this in exchange for building relationships with the sources for future interviews and getting scoops (payment in a different way). More optimistically, the writer was naively passionate as you rote. Still, in any case, the writer could've asked at least some hardball or technically interesting questions for the report.

[asah]

The fact that it reads as paid, means that Wired leadership failed.