Since we’re talking about the third generation of iPads, it seems silly to stop at the “review of reviews” level and we should be meta-to-the-cube. So here’s a review of reviews of iPad reviews. Because no-one asked for it.
Forbes and Barron’s reviews of reviews are pretty much indistinguishable from one another and cover the same original reviews (with the only difference that Forbes adds a quick quote from John Gruber). And of course, since they both cater to people who see significance in daily stock prices, they both end by marveling that the Apple stock flirted today with the $600 mark.
Om Malik’s review of reviews wins the “most obvious laziness” prize (in a category that invites laziness), but if you really want to know ahead of time how many words each review will inflict on you then he’s got the goods.
Daniel Ionescu’s review of reviews for PCWorld is the most readable of the lot and manages to find a narrative flow among the links and quotes.
The CNET review of reviews comes a close second and organizes the piece by feature rather than by reviewer. Which makes it more a “review-based review” than a “review of reviews” if you’re into that kind of distinctions.
The Washington Post’s review of reviews just slaps quote after quote and can be safely avoided.
You know what you have to do now, don’t you? No, I don’t mean write something original, are you crazy? I mean produce a review of reviews of reviews of reviews, of course. This is 2012.