Author: Marc Perton

When CVS discovered that prices listed for brand-name drugs on its SilverScript Medicare site were mistakenly displayed at about 4% less than the drugs were actually being sold for, the company quickly fixed the glitch, according to a report in today’s Wall Street Journal. But what happened to customers who saw the “low” prices and ended up paying more at retail? According to The Journal, CVS cut a deal with the government, allowing the company to offer refunds only to customers who asked for them. CVS then sent letters to the customers that said they could call and discuss “your options,” and made no mention of the possibility of a refund.

According to the Journal, a computer error caused CVS to provide inaccurate prices to SilverScript’s site, as well as the government’s Medicare site and other sources for Medicare information. The incorrect information was online from October 8, 2009 through January 8, 2010. After fixing the info, CVS contacted the government:

CVS notified the federal regulator, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, about the problem in January. A Medicare spokesman said regulators worked with CVS to craft a response plan, under which CVS would offer a refund for the price difference, but only to consumers who specifically requested that. The Medicare spokesman said CVS also agreed to help unhappy customers switch to another plan.

“The plan’s lapses are … under close scrutiny,” the spokesman said, adding that Medicare has received very few complaints about the problem. …

CVS sent letters of apology to affected customers starting in late March. A letter reviewed by The Wall Street Journal didn’t mention the possibility of a refund, but directed a recipient with questions to call a toll-free number to discuss “your options.”

“Did I pay too much for medication?” the letter said in question-and-answer format. The answer: “No.” The letter said the drugs were “priced correctly at the pharmacy, but may have been higher than what the price-comparison tools estimated.”

That doesn’t sit very well with consumer advocates, including Judith Stein of the Center for Medicare Advocacy, who told the Journal that customers “should all get their money back” or get the advertised prices for the full year. “The burden should not be on the beneficiary to prove that’s why they chose the plan.”

Meanwhile, at least one customer who called CVS to ask for a refund was told he had to file a “grievance” and provide a printout of the site showing the lower price. CVS says that’s not the company’s policy, and that anyone who paid more than the advertised price is entitled to a refund. If they ask for one, that is.

CVS Charged Medicare Customers More Than Promised [WSJ.com]

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has released the names of the top manufacturers of stinky, dangerous drywall, which emits high levels of hydrogen sulfide (the source of its stinkiness). According to the agency, drywall from the manufacturers, all based in China, emitted hydrogen sulfide at levels up to 100x greater than samples from non-Chinese manufacturers.

CPSC head Inez Tenenbaum said: “Homeowners who have problem drywall in their homes are suffering greatly. I appeal to these Chinese drywall companies to carefully examine their responsibilities to U.S. families who have been harmed and do what is fair and just.”

The companies on the CPSC’s list are:

• Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co. Ltd.: (year of manufacture 2005) China
• Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co. Ltd.: (2006) China
• Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co.: (2005) China
• Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co. Ltd.: (2006) China
• Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co. Ltd.: (2006) China
• Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co. Ltd.: (2006) China
• Shandong Chenxiang GBM Co. Ltd. (C&K Gypsum Board): (2006) China
• Beijing New Building Materials (BNBM): (2009) China
• Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co. Ltd.: (2009) China
• Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co.: (2009) China

Not all Chinese drywall had hydrogen sulfide problems. The CPSC also listed a number of Chinese companies whose drywall had “no detectible emissions” of the substance. List month, the CPSC issued recommendations to homeowners who have problem drywall, which can be summed up as “Rip it out. Now.”

CPSC Identifies Manufacturers of Problem Drywall Made in China [Official release via Consumer Reports Safety]

PREVIOUSLY: Gov Says All Stinky Chinese Drywall Should Be Gutted

Think that tanning bed is safer than the evil ol’ sun? Not quite. A new study from the American Association for Cancer Research has determined that frequent use of tanning beds can quadruple your risk of skin cancer. But, hey, you’ll look great, and isn’t that the first step to good health?

Consumer Reports Health sheds some sunlight on the news:

Eager to soak up the sun, or at least look like they have, some folks are getting their bronze on early—indoors. But indoor tanning beds can increase the risk of melanoma up to four times, according to a new study released by the American Association for Cancer Research. The bottom line: Melanoma risk goes up with frequent indoor tanning, regardless of how old people are when they start using tanning beds.

According to the report, the pursuit of a bronzed body has become so popular that the indoor tanning industry estimates that some 30 million Americans visit tanning salons each year. That figure is nearly double that of the early 1980s. Last year the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified tanning devices as carcinogenic.

The FDA is currently considering banning teens from using tanning beds; teenage girls and young women are the largest users of tanning salons.

Indoor tanning booths can quadruple your skin cancer risk [Consumer Reports Health]

Yesterday afternoon, while everyone else was cheering about how Facebook’s supercool new privacy settings were going to bring about world peace and end hunger, Marshall Kirkpatrick actually took the time to listen to what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had to say about the changes, and noticed something interesting: Zuckerberg, as Kirkpatrick put it on ReadWriteWeb, “said a number of things that seemed of questionable…truth.”

Today’s changes were good for users concerned about privacy, but Zuckerberg’s tone on the call was odd.

He said a number of things that seemed of questionable…truth. Those were: that settings weren’t changed arbitrarily when all this began in December, that the changes weren’t driven by advertising and business concerns and that Facebook makes its decisions based not on criticism but on metrics or its belief in what the right thing to do is. …

Zuckerberg began the call today with a long and detailed history of the site, its growth and its changing privacy policy over time. When he got to the part of that history concerning the radical change in privacy defaults last December he described it like this: “We asked people to reevaluate their privacy settings, but we didn’t change any settings.”

Perhaps that was a slip of the tongue, a mistaken oversimplification of how Zuckerberg intepreted things. It sure doesn’t seem true, though.

Last December people who had never changed any of their privacy settings had their new defaults set to share far more content publicly, with the world at large. The prompt to re-evaluate was a chance to opt-out of the new changes, but those settings and the defaults were certainly changed.

Kirkpatrick tries to determine why Facebook made its recent privacy changes, and finds that, based on statements by Zuckerberg and others, it’s “unclear what exactly is going on.”

One thing that is clear: “The company’s response to public backlash through greater simplification of settings and language is in many cases obfuscating its largely unchanged agenda (default = public) and is in some cases based on untruths.”

The Half Truths of Mark Zuckerberg [ReadRightWeb]

Research conducted for the National Association of Chain Drug Stores has revealed that in order to be healthy, you first have to look really hot: “The first stage of health and wellness is beauty,” said researcher Thom Blischok, during an event on “Redefining Health and Beauty Care for Untapped Profit Potential.”

Blischok, of SymphonyIRI Group, continued his exegesis:

“People want to look good to feel good. This is a major shift in thinking. Health and wellness is holistic and not about medicines only or beauty used in salons or the home. It is about a concept.”

Or, as translated by our exclsuive Meggelfish®: “What part of ‘Redefining Health and Beauty Care for Untapped Profit Potential’ don’t you get?”

Blischok told the drug retailers that they should “position their departments as health, beauty, wellness rather than health and beauty care to take advantage of the shopper’s focus on wellness going forward.” Or,as Meggelfish® translates it: “What are you, deaf? Redefining Health and Beauty Care, people. Untapped Profit Potential. Jesus, somebody get me a frickin’ drink, and put some pomegranate juice in it for the wellness and sh*t.”

Beauty Care Seen as First Step to Wellness [Supermarket News]

The U.S. Department of Justice is reportedly investigating Apple, to determine whether the company used its position as the nation’s largest music retailer to unfairly influence music labels. Apple allegedly told labels not to offer exclusives to Amazon.com, and punished those that didn’t comply by dropping marketing support on iTunes.

According to The New York Times:

The antitrust inquiry is in the early stages, these people say, and the conversations have revolved broadly around the dynamics of selling music online.

But people briefed on the inquiries also said investigators had asked in particular about recent allegations that Apple used its dominant market position to persuade music labels to refuse to give the online retailer Amazon.com exclusive access to music about to be released. …

Though the Justice Department’s inquiry is preliminary, it represents additional evidence that Apple, once the perennial underdog in high tech, is now viewed by government regulators as a dominant company with considerable market power.

Nobody was willing to talk to The Times on the record, though one antitrust lawyer helpfully commented that “without knowing what acts or practices they are targeting, it’s difficult to say exactly how big a problem this is.” The paper also pointed out that Apple has recently opened itself up to more competition, by allowing streaming services such as Pandora and Rhapsody onto its devices.

U.S. Is Said to Scrutinize Apple’s Online Music Tactics [NYTimes.com]

Just three months after the American Academy of Pediatrics put out a call for a redesigned hot dog that would be safer for small children to eat, Eugene D. Gagliardi, Jr. — the food designer who invented Steak-umms and popcorn chicken — has come forward with a solution. His patented hot dog has eight slits that open during cooking, which cause it to break up into smaller pieces, potentially reducing the likelihood that a child could choke on it.

The patent, for a “food product having reduced likelihood of choking,” is all about breaking up the “elongated food product” into smaller pieces:

Briefly stated, the present invention comprises an elongated food product having a central axis extending along its length and two portions, a segmented portion comprised of at least two segments that are separable from each other, and an unsegmented portion which is substantially contiguous to the segmented portion. A consumer’s biting into the food product generally perpendicular to the central axis results in the separation of the segments, creating in the mouth of the consumer small food pieces relative to the size of the bitten-off section to reduce the likelihood of choking on the food product.

In one preferred construction the invention comprises an elongated food product having a generally cylindrical outer surface, a length and a longitudinal centerline traversing the length of the food product. The food product further comprises an array of at least two generally radial lengthwise cuts, each cut residing in a plane containing the centerline, with each cut extending from the outer surface of the food product inwardly to a predetermined, substantially uniform distance from the centerline, thereby providing an unsegmented generally cylindrical inner portion and a segmented outer portion having at least two separable segments, each segment having as a cross-sectional shape a sector of a circle truncated at its apex, each segment further being contiguous with and connected to the unsegmented inner portion.

Gagliardi received his patent in 1991. According to reports, he’ll soon begin marketing his elongated food product on the East Coast. No word on why it’s taken nearly 20 years for it to go from concept to product.

United States Patent: 5069914 [U.S. Patent Office via The Package Unseen]
Pediatricians Urge Warning Labels on Foods That Can Choke [NYTimes.com]

PREVIOUSLY: Is Your Hot Dog Trying To Kill You?

When the Yankees lost two out of three games to the Mets last week at New York’s Citi Field, iPad owners could have tweeted about it, watched replay videos or switched to another game (an option many Yankee fans would have liked) using the device’s big, bright screen. When the two teams have their rematch next month at Yankee Stadium, iPadders will have to settle for an iPhone or other small-screen device; iPads are welcome at Citi Field, but have been declared off-limits at the House That George Built.

Yankee Stadium has a blanket ban on all computers, and stadium management considers the iPad just another laptop:

To Apple’s chagrin, no doubt, the Yankees apparently consider the iPad to be just another laptop—and such devices are banned from the stadium, along with firearms, knives, video cameras, and beach balls.

In the case of computers, the team said it’s a safety issue. Fans glued to, say, Facebook might be caught unawares by foul balls or flying bats headed in their direction.

Foul balls and flying bats were likely the last thing Yankee fans were thinking about last week, and if the team’s performance doesn’t improve, some fans may prefer squinting at other events on small-screen iPhones to watching the action on the field. We hear you can even score a video of last year’s World Series on iTunes, if you really feel the need to relive better days.

iPad Banned From Yankee Stadium [InformationWeek]

Walmart has dropped the price of the iPhone 3GS to $97, which is $2 less than Apple charges for the older 3G model. The move has fueled speculation that Apple plans to announce the next-generation iPhone at its developers conference next month. They may as well. It’s not like anybody’s going to be surprised to see it.

Speculation about the new iPhone is running wild, given Apple’s problems keeping prototypes locked up (and the media’s need for new Apple news at least once a week). Muses The Wall Street Journal:

[T]he announcement comes as speculation is heating up about when Apple will launch a new iPhone.

In past years, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs has unveiled new iPhones at the company’s annual Worldwide Developers Conference, offering them up for sale soon after in late June or early July. The company said on Monday that Jobs would be delivering his keynote at this year’s WWDC on June 7 at 10 a.m.

Wal-Mart’s price cut is particularly notable because when Apple introduced the iPhone 3GS last year, it cut the price of the older iPhone to $99. Wal-Mart’s new price would allow it to continue to lead in pricing if Apple decides to repeat last year’s strategy and reduce the price of its iPhone 3GS to $99 when the next iPhone comes out.

Of course, the news could be nothing more than Walmart being Walmart, which is the way the big boxer is playing it right now. The company’s wireless chief, Mehrdad Akbar, would only say: “As it is our commitment to always lead on price, we are going to reduce the price on this most popular smartphone so our customers can realize these new saving as soon as possible.”

So, if you’re looking for a deal on an iPhone, Walmart may be the place to go — unless you want to just wait around for a new model to show up on a barstool near you.

Wal-Mart Cuts Price on iPhone 3GS [WSJ]

Echoing (or is that just endlessly repeating) comments made by his minions last week, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg today said that the company “missed the mark” with its complex privacy controls, and vowed to give users a “simpler way to control your information.”

In a Washington Post column, Zuckerberg repeated statements that the company would provide easier-to-manage privacy tools that would allow customers to decide which of their data is made public.

We have heard the feedback. There needs to be a simpler way to control your information. In the coming weeks, we will add privacy controls that are much simpler to use. We will also give you an easy way to turn off all third-party services. We are working hard to make these changes available as soon as possible. We hope you’ll be pleased with the result of our work and, as always, we’ll be eager to get your feedback. …

We have also heard that some people don’t understand how their personal information is used and worry that it is shared in ways they don’t want. I’d like to clear that up now. Many people choose to make some of their information visible to everyone so people they know can find them on Facebook. We already offer controls to limit the visibility of that information and we intend to make them even stronger.

Zuckerberg didn’t offer up any changes to which personal data the company would share by default.

Mark Zuckerberg – From Facebook, answering privacy concerns with new settings [Washington Post]

Zappos-owned e-commerce site 6pm.com had a little pricing problem this weekend: A glitch in its system marked down every product in the store to $49.95. By the time the problem was fixed, the store had lost $1.6 million. So, did Zappos cancel the orders or charge the customers the “correct” price for their goods. Nope. The company ate the loss, saying it was “the right thing to do for our customers.”

Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh (pictured) explained the situation on the company blog:

We have a pricing engine that runs and sets prices according to the rules it is given by business owners. Unfortunately, the way to input new rules into the current version of our pricing engine requires near-programmer skills to manipulate, and a few symbols were missed in the coding of a new rule, which resulted in items that were sold exclusively on 6pm.com to have a maximum price of $49.95. (Items that are sold on both 6pm.com and Zappos.com were not affected.)

We already had planned on improving our internal pricing engine so that it will have a much easier-to-use interface for our business owners. We are also planning on adding additional checks and balances to hopefully prevent this type of thing from happening again.

To those of you asking if anybody was fired, the answer is no, nobody was fired – this was a learning experience for all of us. Even though our terms and conditions state that we do not need to fulfill orders that are placed due to pricing mistakes, and even though this mistake cost us over $1.6 million, we felt that the right thing to do for our customers was to eat the loss and fulfill all the orders that had been placed before we discovered the problem.

Interestingly, Zappos’ policies are not shared by its parent company, Amazon.com. In March, for example, an Amazon pricing glitch brought the prices of some books down from $125 to as little as $15. The company fixed the bug, canceled any orders that hadn’t been fulfilled. Customers got $25 gift cards instead of their books; not a bad deal, but definitely a different perspective on the idea of “the right thing to do” for customers.

6pm.com Pricing Mistake [Zappos.com company blog]

Previously: Amazon Offers $25 Gift Card To Disappointed Comics Fans After Epic Price Glitch
Thanks to everyone who sent this in!

While Walgreens may have voluntarily chosen not to sell home genetic testing kits in the face of an FDA investigation, its action has brought attention to the entire for-profit testing industry, and others may not have the luxury to quietly shut down on their own. A congressional committee is looking into the business, and could end up regulating the industry.

Wired News spliced the details:

The House’s Committee on Energy and Commerce sent requests to the CEOs of 23andme, Navigenics and Pathway Genomics for a wide array of information about the companies’ services.

The letters, co-signed by Henry Waxman (D-California), Joe Barton (R-Texas), Bart Stupak (D-Michigan), and Michael Burgess (R-Texas), ask for all documents dating from January 1, 2007 to the present.

First, the committee wants “a chart listing the conditions, diseases, consumer drug responses, and adverse reactions” for which the companies’ test and “all policy documents, training manuals, or written guidance” about their counseling policies. They also requested all documents related to how the companies identify the risk to consumers based on their genomic profiles, and how they process and use individual DNA samples.

Add it all up and the documents could be the starting point for a wide-ranging investigation, if the committee decides to go down that road.

As of now, neither the committee nor the FDA are making any statements about long-term plans, but as Wired points out, “they’ve had a relatively free ride from regulators, which appears to be ending.”

Congress Opens Investigation Into Genetic Testing Companies [Wired.com]

PC World has compiled a list of the best and worst places to buy a range of gadgets, including digital cameras, laptops and printers. While many of the results may not be surprising (Amazon ranked at or near the top in almost every category), there are a few interesting wrinkles, including a Best Buy victory for HDTV shopping.

One reason for the Best Buy win is sheer practicality: In a store, PCW points out, you can “test-view the TVs in action.” However, the mag also gave Best Buy an edge for some other qualities:

Nationally, the highest-ranked retailer for large HDTVs was Best Buy, which im­­pressed us with the range of models it had available. The Best Buy salespeople we spoke to earned high marks for their answers to our HDTV questions. The best information came from staffers who worked in the store’s television department; they usually explained technical details–such as refresh rate and contrast ratio–with accuracy, clarity, and patience.

The study also includes a list of some of the best and worst answers PCW’s researchers received when calling retailers for the story. Our faves:

When we asked a Target team member in Memphis whether a certain hard drive was compatible with both Macs and PCs, she replied, “I have no idea; my husband does these things for me.” Great–then why are you the one working in the electronics department?

…

One sales clerk at at Walmart in Minneapolis was a little behind the times when it comes to laptops. He told us to “go to Walmart.com, you know, on the Internet” to look at the retailer’s selection, because he had no idea what was available. To watch videos online, he advised, we should “download some programs” first; and he had never heard of an LED backlit screen, volunteering that it was “probably something new.” Imagine our shock when he confided that “We are actually not computer specialists; we just sell them and know the basics.”

Best Places to Buy [PCWorld]

Tired of dropped calls? Want to do something about it? If you’re an iPhone user, Worst Phone Ever wants you to send in your dropped call logs, with the goal of starting a class-action lawsuit against Apple and AT&T after it’s collected enough of them.

The site provides information to help you find your dropped call logs, which are stored on your computer when you sync your iPhone with iTunes. It even provides a tool that automates pulling the log data and uploading it (currently Mac-only). Why are they doing this?

Q: Why are you doing this?

You don’t have an iPhone do you?
But actually, it’s part of our jobs. We make games that people play with cell phones, and every time that a client of ours does a demo with an iPhone that drops, or a player out in the world has the same thing happen, it diminishes the coolness of what we do. And it doesn’t ever happen on Verizon Blackberrys, for example. Also, our office is in Times Square, NYC, and our iPhones are completely useless there. It drives us bananas every day, and we’re offended that AT&T is going to try to charge for their femtocell service.

Q: Do you hate Apple or AT&T?

Not at all! Well not Apple anyway. We love Apple, we just think they built a terrible phone and chose a terrible provider. Ironically this site was build using two Macbooks. Yes, that is the correct use of ironic. It could only be more ironic if we built the site using an iPhone.

The site may also begin providing information about how to get similar data from other products: “It’s a crazy dream, but our hope is that sites like this one can force manufacturers to provide logs of the operation of their devices so that any consumer can compare their experiences.” Doesn’t sound crazy to us!

Worst Phone Ever [Official Site via CrunchGear]

You’re gonna die. Why make your family suffer even more by burdening them with the cost of your funeral? That’s the pitch made by companies that try to get you to pay for your funeral years in advance. But, in most cases, you’re better off putting your money into normal savings accounts or life insurance instead.

The Wall Street Journal takes a close look at the prepaid funeral industry, and why these plans are usually a bad idea:

Some view prepaid plans as an inflation hedge that allows them to lock in today’s prices—about $10,000 on average—for an expense that in recent years has risen faster than the consumer price index. Others take the step simply to spare survivors the burden of arranging and paying for a funeral. Consumer advocates say these plans are most appropriate for people who wish to spend down assets in order to qualify for Medicaid coverage.

About one in four Americans age 50-plus—some 20 million people—have paid in advance for a funeral service, according to AARP. While national figures on the size of those payments are scarce, in Texas alone consumers have contracts worth $3 billion.

Prepaid funeral plans come in two basic varieties. With a so-called guaranteed plan, a funeral home promises that if you pay today’s prices, it will provide the goods and services you purchased, no matter how much prices rise. “Non-guaranteed” plans offer no such protections. But if these accounts appreciate in value, heirs get to keep the gains. (You can prepay today’s full cost or a portion of it, in one lump sum or over time.)

Even guaranteed plans don’t always protect against unexpected bills, however. Many exempt such items as flowers and music. And changes, such as upgrades in caskets or a switch to another funeral home, can void the price guarantee.

There are other risks as well. In 2008, a Missouri company that sold prepaid plans collapsed, after “systematically loot[ing] the cash for their personal enrichment” according to state officials.

The industry is largely unregulated, leading to abuses and fraud. Instead of a prepaid plan, the Journal recommends setting up a joint bank account with someone you trust, and putting your funeral savings there. Or you can set up a trust fund and designate it for funeral costs.

When Prepaid Funeral Plans Are Wealth Killers [WSJ.com]

Not content with offering discounts to customers who bring in their own travel mugs, Starbucks has now thrown its weight behind “betacup,” a contest to “eliminate paper cup consumption through the design of a more convenient alternative to the reusable coffee mug.” Some of the ideas submitted so far include a hemp-based cup (we have some ideas about how to recycle that one), cups made from coconut shells, and inflatable, reusable cups.

The contest was organized “to reduce the number of non-recyclable cups that are thrown away every year by creating a more convenient alternative to the reusable coffee cup,” though the competition’s web site states that coffee cups are just the beginning;

Paper cups are just part of the problem.

The amount of waste resulting from consumer packaging every year is mind-boggling. If you’re reading this and you live in the North America, then you’re contributing to the 250 million tons of garbage thrown away every year.

Reducing the number of paper coffee cups consumed is our initial attempt and reducing this overall figure.

We have chosen the coffee cup not because it’s necessarily the biggest perpetrator, but because it’s a symbol of how consumerism has got completely out of control.

Entries are being accepted through June 15th; if your idea is picked as the best, you’ll get $10,000. You retain ownership of your idea, so if you come up with an idea for a biodegradeable coffee cup made out of cultured slug slime, you’ll still own it, and can patent it, shop it around, and get rich from it (too late; that one’s mine!).

betacup drink sustainably [Official Site via Cnet]

The King hath won the latest round of a battle with upstart serfs, as a judge ruled that Burger King has the right to set maximum prices for some menu items. However, the indentured servants, er, franchisees that sued the chain over its value menu, are still planning to argue that the pricing system was entered into in bad faith.

Reuters summarizes the battle thusly:

A Miami court ruled on Thursday that Burger King Holdings has the right to set prices at its stores but said allegations by the franchisees of bad faith by the company had enough plausibility to be argued in court.

The National Franchisees Association had alleged Burger King admitted that selling its double cheeseburger at $1 could lead to the bankruptcy of stores.
…

Burger King said in a statement emailed to Reuters it was pleased by the court’s decision to reaffirm its rights, and added that extensive testing “more than validated the business case for the addition of this competitively priced product to its Value Menu.”

The ruling could make it easier for chains to add even more low-cost items — such as Taco Bell’s new $2 meal — without fear that franchisees will balk.

Burger King cheeseburger-pricing case can continue [Reuters]

Apple has finally caught on to something many of us have known for years: John Hodgman’s befuddled “PC” is far more appealing than Justin Long’s smug “Mac,” so the “I’m a Mac” ads aren’t really very effective at converting PC-users to Mac fans. Well. maybe that’s not the official reason, but the company is still killing the long-running campaign

The ads have already been removed from Apple’s site, and have been replaced by the company’s “Why you’ll love a Mac” promos. The “I’m a Mac” campaign launched in 2006, and has been one of the company’s most successful marketing efforts (at least when it comes to raising its brand recognition). Last month, Justin Long signaled the end when he told an interviewer: “You know, I think they might be done. In fact, I heard from John, I think they’re going to move on.”

Fortunately, nothing really disappears on the internets, so go ahead and get your Hodg on with this collection of the ads:

Apple Officially Ends ‘Get a Mac’ Campaign, Revamps ‘Why You’ll Love a Mac’ Feature [Mac Rumors]

Three companies that made claims that they could help consumers reduce their credit card interest rates — and then charged fees of up to $1,590 — have been shut down by the Federal Trade Commission. “The last thing debt-ridden consumers need is to be deluged by illegal robocalls – especially when all the calls are offering is a scam,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.

The three companies are Advanced Management Services NW LLC, doing business as AMS Financial; Rapid Reduction System’s [sic] LLC; and PDM International, Inc., doing business as Priority Direct Marketing International, Inc.Among other things, the FTC says the companies would boast that they could help consumers reduce their credit card interest rates, but would really just send out information about how to pay down your balance early and save on interest.

According to the FTC’s complaint, over the past two years, the defendants made or authorized calls to consumers nationwide, claiming that they could negotiate with credit card issuers to substantially lower the interest rates on the consumers’ credit cards. They also allegedly delivered prerecorded “robocalls” that consisted of urgent-sounding messages from “Card Services” or “Financial Services,” stating that consumers needed to “press one” to speak to a representative about their credit card interest rates. Many consumers believed the calls were from their credit card issuers.

Consumers who signed up for the defendants’ services were charged from $499 to $1,590 up-front and promised their money back if the callers failed to deliver at least $2,500 in interest rate savings, the FTC alleged. Instead of arranging reduced interest rates, the complaint states, the defendants sent consumers instructions to pay down their credit card debts early, thus saving money on interest. Consumers who complained and demanded refunds allegedly were denied outright, got the run-around, or had a $199 “nonrefundable fee” deducted from their refund.

At the FTC’s request, a federal judge has shut down the three companies and frozen their assets.

At FTC’s Request, Court Stops Deceptive Telemarketing Calls [FTC.gov]

A day after refusing to take cash from a customer who wanted to purchase an iPad, Apple has reversed course and is now willing to accept Federal Reserve Notes backed by the U.S. government. “We want to make sure it’s as fair as possible for people to get iPads,” said Apple Sr. Vice President Ron Johnson.

Johnson told KGO-TV in Palo Alto that its coverage brought about a change in company policy:

“About a month ago, we said we’d like you to use a credit card when you buy your iPad, and that was the best way we could think of to make sure that people only bought two per individual,” said Johnson. “And then it came to our attention that Diane [Campbell], through your story, was very interested in buying an iPad with cash, and we made a decision today to change that.”

Johnson said our story triggered a company-wide policy change. As of today, anyone can pay for an iPad with cash as long as they set up their Apple account at the store. Apple accounts are needed for the iPad anyway, so that is not putting anyone out.

“We heard about this, you know… we all would love people like Diane [Campbell] to get an iPad, so I called her up and she was very excited and we’re actually on our way to deliver an iPad to her house,” said Johnson.

While other customers will now be able to pay in cash, Apple still won’t accept Campbell’s greenbacks: they’re giving her the iPad for free.

Johnson told KGO that the earlier policy about not accepting cash “was instituted to make sure the tablets were fairly distributed during a time of high demand.”

Apple reverses its no-cash payment policy for iPads, following 7 On Your Side report [abc7news.com]

PREVIOUSLY: Your Cash Is No Good At The Apple Store