Some of the reviews were simply bad, independent of their conclusion. A review consisting solely of an "I don't like 3D" gripe is not a good review. The gizmodo reviewer, in response to a commentor that said you don't have to use the 3D features, said: "Then why bother buying a phone with a main distinguishing feature of 3D capabilities?" Why? Because it's one of only a few fast dual core phones out, and one of the few qHD ones, and probably the best available phone on Sprint's network right now -- going based on specs, not something subjective. In other cases, the forumgoers here have experience which would lead us to the opposite conclusion the reviewer drew from the same data. For example, leaving the 4G radio on for 14 hours, or taking photos for an hour solid -- we know these are battery-expensive features, so many of us believe the battery life they reported was actually good, not poor. I think the complaints about poor voice quality are something to be concerned by; they were shared by multiple reviewers. (I think many are skeptical that this is a big negative, as they use their phones for data more than talking. Or maybe like me, they keep a landline because they've never had a cell phone with what they'd consider "good" sound quality.) And the camera may well be worse than other phones -- probably not surprising that they made sacrifices to get two of them in. Sounds like otherwise, things are pretty good. Yes, some people may be in denial no matter what the reviews say. But keeping a critical eye on the critics isn't inherently a bad thing.