The article missed some of the benefits of the passive glasses and miss stated (I am guessing they haven't actually used them yet??) others. I have seen numorous demo's of both technologies for both consumer and commercial applications and I can't see any justification for the active glasses other than as a revenue stream (the manufacturers will tell you that the incremental cost of either technology in the display is negligible).
Unlike the shutter glasses, which not only cut the overall brightness (well, if your eye is covered half the time, things will appear dimmer right?), but also often get off sync, so that one eye, or both, will seem to vary in brightness, the passive glasses maintain consistant brightness, and don't cut overall brightness at all (since both eyes are exposed to the brightness of the screen 100% of the time).
The active glasses also have a very limited viewing cone, so you can't get very far off axis before they lose sync and start 'dimming' your view randomly. They also can't be tilted, so don't try to use them laying on the couch!
Overall 3D on a small screen (one that doesn't significantly fill your field of view) is really more a marketing push than a real advancement in technology. The only real benefit on the small screen is seen on the little bit of programming material that uses 3D to enhance depth of field, although the already artificial depth of field provided by HD cinimatographers using infinite focus, and the nature of LCD TV's to look 'deep' (due to different color pixels being located at different depths in the substrate) already give many viewer fatigue, so adding in bulky glasses seems to be a waste of time and money!
More information about formatting options