[fjtorres]

It used to be rule one of reviewing: critique the product for what it is, not for what you think it should be.
You don't complain if a drama is lacking in funny wisecracks but you do complain if a dramatic moment comes out humorous instead of moving; you don't complain about trunk space in a Ferrari but you do complain if a full-size pick-up can't handle a 4 by 8 sheet of plywood. And you don't make a stink about the lack of animated menus on a device intented for static images.
Contrary what some seem to believe, no product is perfect; no product is free of compromises or design trade-offs. It,s what makes product optimizations possible in the first place: you tailor the product to meet the needs of your target audience, not clueless pundits and marketers.
And just because two products can be used to do one common function doesn't instantly make them competitors nor does it mean they should be designed to the same criteria. Yes, you can carry manure in a Ferrari but most people know a pick-up truck is optimzed for heavy loads and Ferraris for speed and only an idiot pretends they are competitors.
iPxxxs are designed for media consumption; eink readers are designed for static text displays. One needs color and fast response for video, the other needs to be light enough to hold for hours, page fast enough it doesn't break immersion, and generally be as paperlike as the tech allows. You would think a 500% price differential would be enough of a clue that eink readers are *NOT* iPad competitors but some people seem to be oblivious to the obvious.

This kind of blindness isn't limited to clueless reviewers, BTW; just yesterday, a commenter on a digital reader blog wanted to know if a just-introduced 6in eink reader could be used to make phone calls and, when told it couldn't, proclaimed the vendor had missed the boat.
(No further comment needed, right?)