Dear internet: please stop ‘reviewing’ Microsoft Surface until you’ve actually used one
Via The Loop, Trusted Reviews pits the iPad 3 [sic] against the Microsoft Surface. It comes to lots of conclusions, raving about the Surface’s kickstand and smart cover/keyboard, thinness (0.1 mm thinner than Apple’s now clearly far-too-thick iPad), ports, and specs. There’s just one snag: the person writing the article hasn’t actually used the Microsoft Surface, in the same way that almost every single person raving about the Microsoft Surface hasn’t used one. One of the most telling parts of the Trusted Reviews piece involves comparing the screens of the two devices:
We’re still not sure whether the 10.6in Surface RT will only be offered with a 1,366 x 768 resolution or whether the Full HD res found on the Surface Pro will also be an option
In addition, we’ve no idea about specs, almost no idea about how well the keyboard cover actually works, and absolutely no idea how the device is in extended use.
This might sound like sour grapes. You might well be thinking, “Well, you’re such an Apple fan-boy that you’re bound to slag off Microsoft.” Actually, my increasing hatred for such ‘reviews’ has been exacerbated by my new iPad, but not in the way you might think. Apple’s device absolutely looked the part during the keynote and it is in many ways an impressive device—the screen in particular is excellent. But it gets a bit too warm and it remains a bit too heavy. I still like my iPad a lot and I don’t regret buying it, but it certainly doesn’t live up to the initial coverage online—and that’s something you only realise and can only tell after extended use, not through seeing a couple of pictures online and a keynote video.
And at the end of the Trusted Reviews piece:
It might be too early to call a winner
You think‽
but can the Surface be recycled???
I’m guessing that in the past there must have been a great deal of published speculation about upcoming Apple devices and what their features and specifications might be. I ‘d further guess that after a new Apple product has been officially announced, but before anybody has got their hands on one, there have been “reviews” discussing the new devices’ features and specifications and their various benefits. Granted, these are not “hands-on” reviews – but that doesn’t mean that people can’t engage in dialog about what they know so far, or informing others about what they know so far, and commenting on the various merits or otherwise of these devices based on what is known so far. In this sense, I don’t see what is wrong with such “reviews”. You seem to imply that everybody should keep absolutely quiet and not engage in any commentary whatsoever until the day that they have the product in their hands and have tested it. Of course we will know a lot more then – but that doesn’t mean that we can’t discuss anything in the meantime.
@Mark: I’m not suggesting people don’t comment, but that they don’t try to offer critical analysis/comparative analysis of something until they’ve actually used it. What you’re suggesting is someone saying, say, “From what I know, I’m hoping the new Dredd movie is going to be WAY better than Robocop”. But what we’re increasingly getting on line is: “The new Dredd movie is much better than Robocop,” from people who’ve seen five seconds of footage of the new movie and not even read the script. It’s insane.