Ugh. I'm gonna nuff hard on this.
It looks like it could aerate wine, but only when you have the bottle inverted fully so it can make a thin layer on the walls and turbulence in the nozzle. The bit that collects in the bubble on a tilted pour is getting no more aeration than if you put it in your glass.
Decanting a partial bottle hoping to save the rest for another day (under a vacu-vin seal, for instance) is not a good idea, because aerated wine goes back into the bottle, carrying oxygen, killing any hope of preservation. So this isn't any good unless you'll be drinking the whole bottle.
As for the aeration it does, you get pretty much the same air/wine contact from pouring into a large glass from a height. And you get more from swirling once it's in the glass. In fact, a few seconds of swirling a reasonable amount of wine in a proper wine glass will probably put more wine in contact with air than this thing could if you ran it through multiple times.
Now, if you're thinking of using this on old wines, you're shooting yourself in the foot. Since it only reaches anything like effectiveness when fully inverted, you're dumping all of the sediment out of the bottle with the wine. You'll have to decant twice, with a rest in between to let the sediment settle again (but the bottle's been sitting in a rack for several years, so you're not going to get the same settling from a few minutes on the counter...).
I watched the video and read the review at wwp, and puh-leez. Cadging free product creates subconscious bias. Example: When one of only two samples broke because it couldn't hold together under normal use, he should have been critical, not cautionary (how hard is it to glue a cylinder into a hole when it's the only two parts you have to adhere together?) If he'd paid for it with money he got from his grandma for his birthday, he'd have had a different attitude towards that. We don't get free stuff from this manufacturer, so we're owed a common basis for judgment. Such bias affects judgment on performance of the product as well as its construction.
The blind tasting was a good idea, but the results weren't as statistically conclusive as the conductors think, and the dismissal of "experts" at the end was hypocritical and self-serving. (An expert should come up with a repeatable result in line with the objective facts and the mode (peak) of the distribution of public opinion. Substituting your inexpert, personal, subjective opinion will be much less objective and will likely have a lower correlation to the mode of the opinion distribution. You may like your wine that way, but you're writing a review so others can form an opinion, not shopping for yourself, so your defiant subjectivity is detrimental to your readers, and proclaiming it is ultimately is just an obfuscated disclaimer of responsibility for any errors you have made, couched in populist tones to gain emotional support (claptrap)).
1. Bad for wines with sediment.
2. Not as good as swirling.
3. Defeats preservation of partial bottles.
4. Poor quality control in manufacturing.
5. Inconclusive testing.