ELBLOGDEFORMACION: 09/19/14

Samsung Says My New TV From Groupon Is Secretly Mexican

Rob bought a TV from Groupon Goods, and found himself in a weird dilemma where Groupon promised that his new TV would have a manufacturer’s warranty. He had no reason not to believe them until something actually went wrong with the TV. Samsung told him a few different things: that they don’t warranty items bought online, or that his television came from Mexico or Canada. What?

None of those things make any sense. Now, it can be a problem when buying electronics online that the vendor you’re buying from isn’t an authorized seller, which voids your warranty. You might encounter this problem when shopping on Amazon: while Amazon itself might be an authorized seller, its Marketplace sellers mostly aren’t. Yes, even if the item ships from an Amazon warehouse: outside sellers can use “Fulfilled by Amazon” warehouse services and your un-warrantied widget might even ship alongside items that are purchased from Amazon itself. Then there’s the whole matter of gray market electronics, which aren’t specifically banned in this country but don’t have a valid warranty, either.

Of course, Rob wasn’t thinking about any of this. Rob bought a television, and Groupon said that it had a warranty. He had no reason not to believe Groupon, but things got very strange when he tried to get it repaired.

The set had a stuck pixel, which sounds minor until you’ve tried to ignore one on your own screen. He called Samsung, and after some troubleshooting, they made him an appointment with a technician. The technician never showed. When Rob called, Samsung representatives explained that the model number indicated that he shouldn’t have this TV: the television was a Mexican model, so Samsung U.S.A. didn’t have parts for it.

“I got bounced around between their call centers for a while, talking to Samsung Mexico, several Samsung US centers, and even Samsung Canada,” he wrote to Consumerist. “At one point it was even suggested I talk to Samsung Panama. When Canada tried to direct me back to Samsung US, I gave up.” We don’t blame him.

This is when you turn to Executive Customer Service, right? Rob wrote to Samsung’s Office of the President, and that’s when things started to make even less sense. Yes, that is possible. Rob explains, “They then said that because it was purchased on the web, it is not considered a US purchase and they can’t help me.”

What?

We’re pretty sure that Samsung electronics purchased online usually have a warranty. He must have misunderstood, right? Nope. That’s what Samsung says.

We tried contacting them about Rob’s case, and they didn’t respond. We turned to Groupon. They responded and were super nice, finding someone over at Samsung to help Rob. After some promising interactions with an “After Sales Support Team Leader,” that contact person disappeared, and Rob didn’t hear from that person anymore.

Sure, one stuck pixel in a high-end television isn’t a complete disaster. It’s still usable. That’s not what Rob paid for, though. He paid for a television that comes with a manufacturer’s warranty. Why should he have to call Samsung in four different countries to get it?

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

22 herramientas básicas para Twitter (gratuitas) #infografia #infographic #socialmedia

Hola:

Una infografía con 22 herramientas básicas para Twitter (gratuitas). Vía

Un saludo

22 herramientas básicas para Twitter (gratuitas)

Archivado en: Infografía, Redes Sociales, Sociedad de la información Tagged: Infografía, internet, redes sociales, tic, Web 2.0.

from TICs y Formación http://ift.tt/1p4tc2W

via Alfredo Vela Posteado por www.bscformacion.com

Kickstarter: Project Backers Must Get Rewards (But Leave Us Out Of It)

When you pledge your money to a Kickstarter project, you do so knowing that you won’t actually be charged unless the project reaches its funding goal. While that protects against an unfundable project from running off with your money, what about those projects that reached their goal but still don’t deliver the promised rewards?

The current Terms of Use for Kickstarter state that “Project Creators agree to make a good faith attempt to fulfill each reward by its Estimated Delivery Date.”

It also says that Project Creators are “required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill,” but that the Creators are “not required to grant a Backer’s request for a refund unless the Project Creator is unable or unwilling to fulfill the reward.”

This has led to numerous instances of successfully funded projects where the backers wait much longer than expected for their promised rewards, and where the project creators stop responding to queries and refund requests.

And as the Terms clearly spell out, “Kickstarter does not offer refunds,” and it doesn’t get involved in these disputes.

In just the last few months, we’ve told you about Ping Wallet, a project that raised $59,000 — almost double its funding goal — a year ago, with the promise of delivering rewards by Dec. 2013. After disgruntled backers brought their story to the media’s attention, the creators re-emerged, promising to deliver rewards by the end of 2014.

And earlier this year, Washington state’s attorney general sued the creators of a Kickstarter project that raised $25,000 in the fall of 2012, but has yet to deliver rewards to backers.

Today, Kickstarter announced that it has revised its Terms to make them more readable and to include an entire section that spells out creators’ obligations to their backers.

The section, entitled “How Projects Work,” puts this duty in language that leaves less room for interpretation.

“When a project is successfully funded, the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward,” reads the updated Terms (bolding in original text). “Once a creator has done so, they’ve satisfied their obligation to their backers.”

The revised terms, which go into effect on Oct. 19, also clarifies that creators “owe their backers a high standard of effort, honest communication, and a dedication to bringing the project to life,” while asking backers to have some patience, as “they’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists,” which might mean delays, and — in the worst cases — the inability to make good on the project.

For example, while a Kickstarter project might get its full funding goal, it’s possible the creator could have grossly underestimated the costs to actually produce the finished product. Even with all the money from backers, it may not be enough to finish.

“If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement,” read the new Terms. “To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers.”

Ways in which this can be done, says Kickstarter, include creators posting an update on the site that “explains what work has been done, how funds were used, and what prevents them from finishing the project as planned.”

Creators should be able to demonstrate that they’ve worked “diligently and in good faith” to make the project a reality, and that funds were used appropriately.

If there is any crowdfunded money remaining, Kickstarter also advises (but does not require) creators of funded-but-failed projects offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward.

For all of its tougher talk and helpful guidance, Kickstarter, which collects a 5% fee on fully funded projects, still does not provide refunds to backers or get involved in rewards disputes after a project is funded.

“The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project,” cautions the new Terms. “If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers.”

Here are a few things you need to keep in mind when deciding whether to fund a Kickstarter project:

1. Am I willing to lose my full investment?

Remember, in spite of its rewards-based funding process, Kickstarter is not a store. You are providing funds to completely new ventures and you run the risk that nothing will ever come of your investment.

2. Is the funding goal sufficient to complete the project?

If someone sets a funding goal that looks too low for what they’re trying to do, you have to wonder if the creator has underestimated the actual costs of completion or if they are just setting a goal that is reachable so they can get the funds and disappear. In some cases, the goal may be low relative to the overall costs of a project because the creator already has some money and just needs to get over the hump.

3. Is the timeline for the rewards realistic?

Manufacturing takes time, shipping takes time, sourcing materials takes time. Many project creators over-promise when it comes to delivery times on rewards. If a creator is promising turnaround of a new, manufactured product in only a couple months, you probably shouldn’t expect it to arrive when promised.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

5 consejos sobre el SEO local #infografia #infographic #seo

Hola:

Una infografía con 5 consejos sobre el SEO local. Vía Websa100.

Un saludo

5 consejos sobre el SEO local

Archivado en: Infografía, Posicionamiento Web, Sociedad de la información Tagged: Infografía, internet, posicionamiento, tic

from TICs y Formación http://ift.tt/1mn4wqS

via Alfredo Vela Posteado por www.bscformacion.com

ERP móvil #infografia #infographic #software

Hola:

Una infografía sobre ERP móvil.

Un saludo

ERP móvil

Archivado en: Infografía, Sociedad de la información Tagged: Infografía, internet, Software, Telefonía, tic

from TICs y Formación http://ift.tt/1ukDTl3

via Alfredo Vela Posteado por www.bscformacion.com

GM Must Turn Over Documents Regarding Ignition Switch Defect

(frankieleon)

Since the General Motors ignition switch defect came to light in February there has been no shortage of lawsuits filed against the car manufacturer. While the company hopes that its compensation plan, and previous bankruptcy, will help to shield it from these claims, plaintiffs in these suits received some good news Friday: The company must hand over all documents pertaining to the defect.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a federal judge directed GM to turn over all documentation, including information already submitted to Congress and an internal investigation, to attorneys for the plaintiffs in multiple suits.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that GM’s failure to acknowledge the ignition issues have led to and will lead to economic losses, personal injury and deaths.

In a minor victory for GM, the order only pertains to accidents that occurred after the carmaker emerged from bankruptcy as the “New GM” in July 2009. As part of GM’s bankruptcy restructuring, the New GM is not supposed to be liable for any non-fatal accidents that occurred before the bankruptcy.

But even the bankruptcy protection may not always shield GM from liability. U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Gerber has been asked to determine whether the company committed fraud during its bankruptcy.

If he rules that GM deliberately chose not to disclose information about the ignition-switch defect, which was first discovered during pre-production testing of the Saturn Ion in 2001, at the bankruptcy, then the shield of protection would be voided, the WSJ reports.

Officials with GM contend that the bankruptcy effectively shields the current company against any litigation connected to accidents or products that occurred before 2009, because executives never knew about the issue.

However, the company has said it would not hide behind the bankruptcy shield when it comes to considering compensation for victims and their families under the Victims’ Compensation Fund.

Judge Tells GM to Open Defect Files [The Wall Street Journal]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist