This is classic bikeshedding. A lot of mobile device reviews are pretty unsophisticated, so there's a lot of spilled ink about button location, how the metal/plastic feels, etc. Its a strange regression. Like we just can't judge or weigh the complexity of a modern mobile OS and all its services and apps and just take on this simplified, "Uh, it looks nice" point of view.
Strange that even a hard-nosed tech site like anandtech can't resist the typical fetishiztion of buttons and whispered sighs of "So intuitive" and "designey!" Meanwhile, valid competitors like the Nexus or Samsung line-ups either get strict apathy or get criticized in a way that Apple is immune to (for example the Note's size being unacceptable yet the 6+ size being perfect). Or the Jobsian logic that the press repeats (size of iphone is perfect because of human thumb size) and then ignores when even Apple itself doesn't buy that argument anymore.
I think the world of tech reviewing proves how well marketing works, especially against those who often see themselves as resistant to it and self-declared rational/skeptical/intellectual thinkers. If anything, these types seem more susceptible to it for some reason.
I don't even really read reviews in a serious fashion at this point, except maybe at Ars. Reviews seem to be marketing vehicles, either consciously or sub-consciously on the part of the reviewer. Ars seems to be more even-handed than most and they try not to fall too deeply into the trap of bikeshedding or pandering for ad impressions. I can't be the only one unhappy with how these things are reviewed nowadays. It seems like the narrative of the "nerds have won" in regardless to tech is pretty disingenious. If anyone has won, its the marketers. The more you spend to promote your talking points, the more often those talking points will be believed or, at least, repeated. It doesn't seem anymore complex than that.
I'm also willing to concede that there's a subjective element here that makes reviewing of commodity tech almost like reviewing the arts. At a certain point performance, durability, etc are all fine for the top competitors and reviews just address things that are more subjective than objective for the lack of things to talk about. Mobile has certainly reached that space and the only rational move for these companies is to just invest more in marketing to make your 'SoC tied to a touchscreen tied to a mobile OS tied to an app store' look better than the other guy's 'SoC tied to a touchscreen tied to a mobile OS tied to an app store.'
Now the role of the reviewer is to communicate these marketing messages effectively.