[redthrowaway]

Objective, to me, means 'not based upon personal tastes, opinions, and biases'. So this review is completely subjective, as it's based entirely upon what he likes. Regardless, it is nice to see him set the homer hat aside and write an article that wasn't either heaping praise on Apple or scorn on Google.

MG Siegler is as subjective as any reviewer, but that's not what matters. What matters is that you can usually tell what he's going to say before you even read the article, as his views are generally that predictable. He seldom has anything negative to say about Apple, or positive to say about Google.

So the pleasant surprise here comes from seeing him break that trend and say something that couldn't have been written by Apple's PR dept.

[taligent]

Right so your definition of objective is "agrees with what I think".

And if he doesn't then he works for Apple PR.

[entropy_]

Wait, what? The initial post and the GP are from different people. Also, the one you're replying to clearly states: "So this review is completely subjective". How do you go from that to 'your definition of objective is "agrees with what I think"'?

He said it's a pleasant surprise, he did not say that was his definition of objective. He clearly states his definition of objective and that this article does not meet it.

[redthrowaway]

Were you trying to reply to someone else, or did you misread what I wrote?

[cageface]

And if he doesn't then he works for Apple PR.

Siegler's previous pieces very strongly give this impression.

[davidlumley]

Do they though? As a frequent reader of his blog, and related blogs I have always thought they read as someone who values the time Apple spends designing their product, which is why when Google release a product that is similarly well designed he values it too.