I cannot recommend this book. Why? I don't know to whom to recommend it.
(1) Its too big for med students. With pathology becoming less & less central to medical curricula & with the availability of smaller & cheaper books (for example, Pathology Illustrated, a personal favourite & a book which I can recommend), a med student has to be out of his mind to read Robbins. The (single) goal of a "non-pathologist's" pathology book should be to provide a useful clinico-pathologic classification of diseases, so when a clinician reads a histopathology report, he can correlate with the clinical/biochemical/radiological features. For example, proliferative glomerulonphritides are nephritic & non-proliferative glomerulonphritides are nephrotic, small-cell lymphomas are low-grade & medium/large-cell lymphomas are high-grade, etcetera. Not unsurprisingly, whenever I ask med students (or physicians) who had read Robbins--for example--what the difference is between Hodgkin's & non-Hodgkin's or between two non-Hodgkins', they don't know.
(2) Its too irrelevant for pathologists. Maybe comparison to the Bible (as one reviewer comments) is useful. Most pathologists own Robbins. Most pathologists who own Robbins never use it. The reason is the unevenness of depth of topics. Morphology is a small part of the book, as it was--no doubt--intended. No pathologist would look up morphology in Robbins. (In which case, why not do away with the morphology parts, since pathologists don't use them & non-pathologists won't use them?) There is no useful clinico-pathologic classification of diseases (see above). I've heard people say that Robbins is a "pathophysiology" book, which it is not. I challange anyone who has read the pathophysiology of heart failure, circulatory shock or dysfunctional uterine bleeding--for example--in Robbins to be subjected to scrutiny. Finally, there is a lot of molecular biology. Transduction proteins, transcription factors, genes, etcetera--at present--are not largely relevant in real-life, day-to-day histopathology.
Furthermore, a lot of molecular biology makes little sense, because we know too little. I remember seeing a diagram in a book once, outlining the theory--at that time--of anaemia of chronic disease. The diagram occupied a whole page & was non-sensically complex. A week later Hepcidin was discovered. The large, complex diagram was reduced to a small, simple sketch. Today, when I read about c-Myc in Robbins, I have a deja vu. Until we know enough about molecular biology to talk about it in a simplified way, a general pathology book is not the place for it. Additionally, Robbins talks about discoveries from the last decade (for example CDKs, of which we still know too little) as if everybody studied them in school. Robbins reduces molecular biology to name dropping.
So what is Robbins? Is it a pathhologist's book or a non-pathologist's book? It's neither. Which is why I predict it won't survive the near future, as has happened to similar books in the past (anyone heard of the Oxford Textbook of Pathology or Anderson's Pathology?).