At the computer magazine where I work, we consistently refer to the products we evaluate as "the Kindle," "the Nexus 7," "the Surface," "the iPad," etc., etc., etc. On one level, "the iPad" stands for "the iPad that we had in our lab for testing." But more generally, the usage seems appropriate because we're extrapolating from our experience with that particular test unit to say something more general about the entire production line of the same model in comparison to test units of other models that we've examined.
We have occasionally had discussions about whether it would be more accurate for our reviewers to say "our test iPad," "the test iPad," and so on instead of "the iPad" (of course it would be). But the very tendentiousness of our claim to be discussing something broader than a single unit of hardware explains why we don't rein ourselves in by constantly acknowledging the limits of our research: Readers care about the characteristics of the particular iPad we tested only insofar as it provides insight into the characteristics of the iPad that they might buy.
Thus, for example, in a camera review:
I noticed significant amounts of noise in the [Canon] SD900's shots as I increased its ISO sensitivity above 400, but it performed better than the S80 at the same ISO settings (the S80 tops out at ISO 400). The 30D was far superior: Its noise level at ISO 3200 was comparable to the SD900's at ISO 400.
I believe that this convention with regard to names of reviewed products is commonplace in U.S. publishing. It certainly isn't limited to discussions of Apple products.