In any case here's what I had to say (in full) to the author of the piece:
I think that a plurality of tools from a number of different analysts is an unambiguously good thing, both for the creators of these tools and their users.
For the users it is good because they can obtain different assessments of their ancestry, so they learn to be skeptical of extraordinary or unexpected claims of any particular test, and also to be more convinced of results that recur across many different tests.
For the creators it is good because of both (i) the motivation to improve their tools driven by competition with other test creators, and also (ii) the feedback they get from users of their tests.
These tools are also good for science in general, because a plurality of eyes (test creators and users) examine genetic data trying to detect interesting patterns in them that might be missed by more narrowly-focused research. So, a whole ecosystem of ideas springs up from these tests, as people try to fit their results into a broader pattern of human history. This is complementary to academic research: less structured and more "noisy" in terms of ideas that don't pan out, but also more dynamic, fast-paced and democratic.
As for Dodecad, I have developed my calculators by utilizing standard population genetics software, as well as software developed by myself, making use of publicly accessible academic datasets together with data from volunteers; the latter is very useful, because it helps me fill in gaps in population coverage: either because some populations have not been sampled in the literature yet, or, if they have, because their data is not publicly accessible to everyone.