Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

AOL: High Speed*, Low Price

AOL high speedHistorically, people have complained that AOL is slow and expensive. Now they have formed a partnership with Verizon [disclosure: Verizon is a financial contributor to Mouse Print’s parent, Consumer World] to offer a combination package including Verizon DSL and AOL for $25.90 a month. That price is marginally more than AOL charges for dial-up service. (Unbundling that price, $17.99 is the Verizon DSL charge, and $7.91 goes to AOL. That is a real bargain for unlimited AOL.)

AOL also promises “high speed” and “true broadband” with this package, but what they consider “high speed” may not be what you consider fast.

*MOUSE PRINT: “Fast high-speed DSL: Up to 768 Kbps connection speed.” [Insert in SuperCoups envelope, newspaper supplement, April 2006.]

Standard dial-up speed is 56Kbps, so 768Kbps is about 14 times faster. But that is not a fast broadband connection compared to other DSL speeds offered by Verizon, competitors, and by cable companies. It is actually one of the slowest broadband speeds offered to home consumers. Verizon’s “regular” speed is 3000Kbps (or 3Mbps), by comparison, for $29.95.  AT&T just announced it was raising its DSL Internet speed to 6000Kbps (or 6Mbps), and Comcast is already at that speed. RCN (a regional provider) even offers 20000Kbps (or 20Mbps).

So, what you consider fast, what competitors consider fast, and what AOL considers fast may be very different things.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

HP Ink Cartridges: 35 Times More Reliable*

HP ink cartridgesComputer printer companies practically give away their printers because they know they will make the real money by selling high-priced replacement ink cartridges.They are not fond of no-name companies that sell refilled cartridges at much lower prices. One way to get consumers to buy the name brand is to tout its superiority. HP claims in this ad that its cartridges are “35 times more reliable than bargain ink cartridges.*”

*MOUSE PRINT: “Based on a 2005 Inkjet Cartridge Reliability Comparison Study by QualityLogic, Inc. and commissioned by HP. Testing performed on HP 45, HP 56, HP 57 , and HP 78 Inkjet print cartridges compared to leading remanufacturer brands.” [Boston Globe Magazine, May 22, 2006]

The footnote goes on to refer the reader to the full details of the study , and other information. They tested 50 of their own cartridges, and 30 of each of 13 other refilled brands. The results: 2% of the HP cartridges had a problem, while 70.3% of the other brands failed in some respect. Presumably this is how HP came up with the claim that they are 35 times more reliable.

Trouble is, HP is using failure rates to mathematically support their reliability claim. More appropriately, if they wish to make claims about reliability, they should be looking at the reliability rate of their cartridges compared to the reliability rate of competitors. Flipping their test statistics, HP cartridges were reliable 98% of the time, while competitors’ cartridges were reliable 29.7% of the time. HP could and probably should have said their new cartridges have over three times the reliability of refilled cartridges. Still, that is a genuine advantage to boast about, but it is not the claimed 35 times advantage over the competition.

 

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Microsoft: Fingerprint Reader Replaces Passwords*

Fingerprint reader smallMicrosoft has a fingerprint reader that will let you enter password protected sites or accomplish logins without the need for entering your username and password.  Just touch your finger to the device, and you’re in.  It is a time saver, and presumably offers extra security protection.  Or does it?

*MOUSE PRINT: “The fingerprint reader is not a security feature and is intended to be used for convenience only.” [Online “Getting Started” manual, Microsoft.com, April 10, 2006]

The actual disclaimer adds more cautions:

Fingerprint disclaimer

Who would have expected that a fingerprint reader should not be used for security purposes?  At least the warning was disclosed.