I guess my cynical side is telling me that if they use the exact same reference samples and algorithms then they don't have anything different to sell.
I think in terms of Nat Gen, Jovialis has explained on the Italian genetics thread that the written explanation, at least the old one, does make a distinction between northern and southern France. It would be malpractice, imo, not to say that, because the southwestern France (I think it's Gascony) academic sample has already been analyzed and it's quite different.
A lot of the other things we've been discussing are judgment calls. You can't really say any of them are bad science.
I do think it's a huge mistake to use the Ashkenazim as a reference sample. They are anywhere from 40-60% "European", so it's going to screw up the analysis in my opinion. That was always my complaint about the FTDNA analysis and that of Dr. McDonald. The only way to really get a handle on whether or not you have Ashkenazi ancestry, imo, is to take the 23andme test. It will become extremely obvious based on the deluge of Ashkenazi "cousins" you get, and you'll even be able to figure out how far back it shows up. It doesn't quite go back to the 1200s with that algorithm, but it will go back pretty far.