thanks for taking the poll.
I have voted “YES”.
I mean, please…
If they claim to be a “legally a Not-For-Profit Organization, which allows us to keep the costs relatively low compared to certain other testing labs, because of the support of the Austrian Government and partnerships with Universities.”
I stress on:
“…keep the costs relatively low […] because of the support of the Austrian Government and partnerships with Universities”
So if the Austrian Government is supporting and some Universities, and costs are relatively low, why do they still claim that costs should be covered by vendors?
The costs that arise from the tests and demands from vendors should be covered by the vendors, as it is like an external quality assurance assessment (and they also use it for marketing). That vendors have to pay a fee (which is the same for all vendors, and of course has no influence on results) is publicly known.
All I am seeing its that they have NOT A fee, but MANY fees, depending on the test procedures, if the results should go public or not, etc…
Where is all this information, where are all the fees listed?
Is not public at all, against on what they are saying.
If they are really a Not-For-Profit Organization, be transparent on the financial part and stop lying!
Yes, why not? Transparency is always welcome.
If the payments do not interfere in the results, as stated by them and the other participants in the tests, no problems.
Federal Trade Commission says they should be Transparent…
further clarification about “disclosure” (which is sorely lacking on AV-Comparatives case) is necessary as few (i do mean only a few) people think its ok to claim to be “indepedent” , not reveal financial interests and provide no Validation/auditing of the processes!!!
http://www.mlmlaw.com/library/guides/ftc/ftcendorse.htm (This is from Federal Trade Commission)
[b]§255.5 Disclosure of material connections.
When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product which might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience) such connection must be fully disclosed.[/b]
I voted yes. the more open an AV tester is the better. No reason to hide anything really.
As long as it simple enough (even a kid could understand and not easily misinterpreted) and not hidden or hard to find. That’s the way it should be. :-La