IMHO, any disposable glove which has been worn by someone is likely to have DNA on it--even if worn by someone experienced in aseptic technique.
Therefore a commonly available glove that is "similar" to the one worn by the video-perp, which was found almost 2 miles from the crime scene, is likely to have DNA on it and unlikely to have anything to do with the crime--IMHO.
That's NOT to say that it shouldn't have been collected and tested; it just feels like people and the media are hanging their hopes on "this is going to break the case" when in reality it has a miniscule chance of being significant to this investigation, IMHO.
I truly want the test results to be significant and case-breaking.