This doesn't really qualify as a review in my mind, not even close to be honest. Pardon my ignorance, but what does a Pixii even look like? I'm not being facetious — this is not a product that I have been following, so I honestly don't know. But had this been an actual product review I wouldn't be asking such a question, along with plenty of others that I could easily come up with. This struck me much more as a PR piece of sorts, likely intended to drum up interest among those who were already interested in this product to begin with I suppose.
However, the basic gist of the product, from what I can tell from reading this article, does jive with a thought that I've held for some time now. Which is this: at some point the near future, the trends that we've seen as applied to the consumption of digital music will also likely apply to digital photography. The camera will still serve to capture an image, but what happens with the subsequent file that is generated will be much different than now. Automatic dissemination to various remote storage/hosting options of the users choosing will likely be key. Just as most people no longer care to own a physical medium containing the music they listen to, so it will go for images they capture with a camera. That's not to say that they wouldn't be able to access those images for editing and local storage later on if they so desired.
But going forward the selling feature of digital cameras will likely have just as much to do with the software involved and the role the device plays in distributing the captured images as it does with the act of capturing of the images in the first place. Unlike the Pixii, this will not likely be dependent upon a smartphone to do so. Yet such functionality would likely be offered in addition to the camera's own abilities.