John Siracusa's reviews of Mac OS X are the kind of reviews I would consider the closer to "objective". The amount of technical and factual data he gives leaves much less room to subjectivity than say, this review.
I love John Siracusa's OS X reviews, but they too are subjective, like all reviews are. Saying a person's opinion is subjective is like saying he or she has a perspective. Everybody has a perspective, you can't escape yours.
A review cannot be more or less subjective, it can only be good or bad, which in turn, is also subjective. So consider that: the next time you call someone's review subjective, you are making a subjective review of that person's subjective review. But that's much better than calling someone's review "objective", because at least you're making sense.
That is like saying: Since we can't cool something to absolute 0 Kelvin, all termometers are valueless.
You have to look at how wrong things are, too..
If I wrote a review of a game in my favorite sport where my home team played, it would not be objective. And another review by me of a sport I don't care about, between teams I don't know, might not be objective either (if women play, one team might be better looking. Or whatever.).
But those reviews would not be EQUALLY subjective...
For another example, consider evolutional biology. Some people have a deep and emotional connection to the scientific model -- while some other people have emotional connections to political ideologies...
