>
So it's a fair representation. If someone wants to appreciate this product, they probably have to adapt a slightly different mindset, not fully communicable by a review.Yes but the review could and should be within that mindset, while making clear that it differs from a mainstream consumer product. Instead this review is like 'I guess if you care about <mindset>, then you're fine with <subpar spec>', while never really reviewing <subpar spec> within the context of other comparable options.
Like why did they choose a Freescale quad A53, rather than say the hex-core RK3399 of the Pinebook Pro? I assume it's because the system-on-module makes it possible to upgrade. Explaining that in-mindset tradeoff would be valuable, but it's completely missing.
Furthermore there is a comparison of mindsets to be done. For example if you are concerned with servicability but not Free software or ARM, this probably isn't the machine for you.
FWIW personally I segregate my usage of modern bloatware to separate machines, rather than taking a clean trustable machine (that I'm paying for in other ways) and then polluting it with unknown blobs. Devices have become inexpensive ($1300 price tag on this notwithstanding), and it's easier to give proprietary bloatware the environment it expects rather than trying to swim upstream.