These sweeping generalization stories flow like water after EVERY baby step in technology. From long before the paperless office myth, to high level stop lights that were going to eliminate rear end collisions and now HUDs each new technology faces it's microsecond of judgement when the lame stream media decides whether to evangelize or condemn it with little, if any, evidence.
The actual truth is ANYTHING you do to change "normal" for the average person will have a wildly disproportionate impact on immediate studies -- until people get used to it. High level stoplights are the quintessential example. Somewhat well constructed studies showed a holy grail sized impact from this wild new thing no one had ever seen before; within 3 years they were little more than light pollution.
OF COURSE your, not really statistically valid, "random sample" will demonstrate people are staring at the new bauble. This proves less than nothing at all. Most of the time it gives a VERY false impression of long term results. We are addicted to instantaneous results being nowhere near fast enough, but for any hope of a valid study you'd have to leave the mice with their toy for a year before you START the study.
One of the reasons "science" has fallen into disrepute and distrust is because the modern "scientist" is a political creature that doesn't really have any idea what the scientific method is, or means. He also never learned basic statistics. But he is a GRAND MASTER at filling out Grant Requests and producing the results desired by the Grantor.