вторник, 4 августа 2015 г.

uApple Denies Report That It’s Planning To Sell Mobile Services Directly To iPhone Usersr


4 4 4 9
  • Apple has come out against a recent report that had claimed the company was testing a mobile virtual network operator, a cellular service that would replace traditional phone carriers for iPhone users in the U.S. and Europe.

    The company usually stays mum in these kinds of situations, but today it denied Business Insider’s report that it was moving in the wireless carrier direction.

    “We have not discussed nor do we have any plans to launch an MVNO,” an Apple spokesperson told Mashable. Apple is, however, testing an MVNO among its employees.

    There are other tech companies out there dipping into the MVNO pool: Google recently launched Google Fi, an invite-only plan for Nexus 6 owners. Plans come with unlimited talk/text, unlimited international texting. WiFi tethering will start at $30/month, with each gigabyte of data you use costing an additional $10. And if you don’t use your full allotment, your account gets credited accordingly.

    This service works how Apple’s reported MVNO would have — leasing capacity from established carriers, with the service hopping around on wireless connections to use the best one, depending on where the customer is.

    Apple denies that it’s working on its own cellular service [Mashable]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uNo More “TargetExpress” Or “CityTarget,” Just Small Target Storesr


4 4 4 9
  • Between TargetExpress and CityTarget, the country’s No. 2 big box retailer appears to have the mini urban store market down. But when you operate three similarly named stores, there’s bound to be a bit of confusion, right? Apparently that’s the case for Target, which now plans to rebrand its smaller-format stores to, you guessed it: Target.

    The retailer announced today that it will drop the “Express” and “City” from its smaller stores’ names in favor of its traditional – and more widely recognized – moniker beginning in October.

    “Over the years, we’ve explored many different formats that help us tailor our stores to fit their neighborhoods,” the company said in a blog post. “But big or small, our stores have one thing in common: They’re all Target. What better way to stand behind that promise than with our own Bullseye? So beginning this fall, we’ll begin the process of renaming all of our CityTarget and TargetExpress stores ‘Target.'”

    While the company’s announcement doesn’t specify that the changes were made because of confusion regarding the smaller format stores’ names, a spokesperson tells the Star Tribune the rebranding is an effort to clarify that the mini stores are in fact real Target locations.

    “It’s about a simplified experience for our guests,” Erika Winkels, a Target spokeswoman, said. “It also helps guests understand that you’re not only limited to what’s in the four walls of that store.”

    When Target first began experimenting with the mini-store concept it said the locations would be about 15% of the size of a standard Target discount store, and fit into former urban grocery stores.

    The first CityTarget opened in 2012, but the company kept the test small. It now counts 14 locations on its roster.

    Target notes in its rebranding announcement that it continues to be committed to the mini-stores, with four new locations left to open this year.

    [via The Star Tribune]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uAcer Takes A Week To Fix $150 Pricing Error On Its Websiter


4 4 4 9
  • acer1It’s frustrating enough when an online retailer makes a typo that leads customers to think an item is on sale. It doesn’t help when the retailer subsequently brushes you off when you bring this error to their attention. And even after the media has pointed out the mistake to the corporate office, it will inexplicably take a week for the price to be corrected.

    Let’s go back to the beginning.

    Consumerist reader J. recently encountered what we call “discount letdown” when he and his son came across an Acer Revo mini desktop computer for $299.99. A heck of a deal, or so J. thought.

    He tells Consumerist that he’d bought an earlier model of the Revo that had been serving him well for years. So when he came across the this model for what appeared to be the bargain price of $299.99 — on Acer’s site, no less — he was understandably interested in upgrading.

    Then he scrolled down from the top of the listing, which prominently displays the “$299.99″ price, only to find another set of prices “below the fold,” all linking to retailers selling the mini desktop for around $449.99, including another link to Acer’s online store — where it’s also $449.99.

    acer2

    When J.’s son reached out to Acer on livechat on July 29 to find out what was going on, it seemed to them that the company wasn’t too worried about $150 pricing error.

    Acer Rep: Welcome to Acer eCommerce at Sutherland, how may I help you today?
    J.’s Son: I was wondering why on your page at http://ift.tt/1eQTDKH it is $299.99 but in your store it is $499.99?
    Acer Rep: There might be a misprint on one of the pages. You will pay the $449.99 if you order from the Acer Store.
    J.’s Son: That is a pretty big misprint.
    Acer Rep: May I assist you with anything else?

    The customer service rep apparently didn’t want to linger on that misprint thing, and moved on.

    J. wrote to us on Monday, noting that the lower price is still sitting at the top of the listing on the Acer site. The screengrabs above were taken by us in the late afternoon on Aug. 3, four days after J.’s son tried to alert the company to the error.

    “I can understand if it’s really a mistake, but once notified of the mistake, shouldn’t they make some effort to fix it?” J. asked.

    We asked Acer HQ about the price confusion, and a company representative thanked us for the heads up. But the typo will remain until Wednesday, Aug. 5, now a week after J.’s son contacted Acer about it. We just checked the site again in the hope that maybe someone would sense some urgency, but nope.

    Perhaps the internet store has run out of numerals for the moment, and Acer will have to place a special order for more “4”s.

    “This was in fact a mistake – the MSRP should have been $449.99,” the rep told Consumerist. “Our web team just changed it and it will be live tomorrow.”

    J. says that though he used to be a happy Acer customer, this “business of multiple prices on the same page (with the most prominently displayed one being unavailable) leaves a very bad taste” in his mouth.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uHipster Dad Version Of Hamburglar Fails To Sell McDonald’s Sirloin Burgersr


4 4 4 9
  • Is he telling us to be quiet or the burger?!?

    Shh. Don’t talk about how no one wants to buy this burger.

    The updated version of the Hamburglar, a classic McDonald’s character, had one job. He was supposed to sell “third-pounder” sirloin burgers to children of the ’70s and ’80s who grew up with the Hamburglar as part of the McDonaldLand marketing ensemble, and who are now young adult “foodies.” Yet the appeal to nostalgia and his snazzy hamburger tie weren’t enough to draw customers in to try the burger he was promoting.

    The marketing campaign began back in May, as part of a push to assure Americans that McDonald’s really does use actual food in its menu items. Along with the Third-Pounder sirloin burger, they also offered an Artisan Grilled Chicken sandwich, continuing marketers’ efforts to drain all meaning from the word “artisan.”

    A McDonald’s spokesperson told Bloomberg Business that the “didn’t meet [the company’s] expectations,” but we haven’t heard whether the company has freezers packed full of ground steak, like what happened when their Mighty Wings venture failed to take flight. The burger was always intended as a temporary menu item, though, and the McD’s spokesperson points out that the people who they were able to coax into restaurants to try the burger liked it. “Seventy-six percent of customers who tried the sirloin burger said their opinion of McDonald’s beef improved,” she points out, though the poll doesn’t specify where their opinion of McDonald’s beef started out.

    The fast-foodery is still finding their way with this campaign: around the time the Hamburglar returned, they posted signs that sounded more like a threat to hamburgle customers’ pantries. As part of an effort to assure customers that they are no longer using bricks of ammonia-blasted beef trimmings, or “pink slime,” the company somehow thought that a callback to pink slime on its placemats was a good idea.

    Hamburglar Generates Buzz But Not Burger Sales for McDonald’s [Bloomberg Business]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uCharter Wants To Follow FiOS Into Offering “Skinny Bundles” For Cable Customersr


4 4 4 9
  • Last spring, Verizon FiOS rejiggered its pay-TV slate into so-called “skinny bundles,” where customers pay for a small core base of channels and then add on smaller, niche-targeted bundles of channels as they please. The change resulted in a very public spat Disney, but the folks at Charter think it’s a good enough idea to consider.

    Deadline reports that Charter CEO Tom Rutledge told analysts this morning that pay-TV companies need to stop forcing hundreds of channels down consumers’ throats.

    He explained that “people are not buying that full [pay TV] package because they can’t afford it,” and so it’s up to the cable companies to create something new “at a lower retail price.”

    The biggest roadblock to breaking out channels into these skinny bundles is the fact that, just like consumers are often forced to buy huge swaths of channels they may never watch just to get the few they do, pay-TV providers are being forced to buy smaller-audience channels just to get the rights to carry the popular ones.

    “If we had our druthers, we’d buy our product a la carte” acknowledges Rutledge.

    And breaking up existing bundled channels can get you into hot water legally. Verizon is being sued for not including ESPN — the single-most expensive channel in any basic cable package — in its core FiOS offering.

    One thing that might ease the transition to more customizable cable options is the current trend of cable networks licensing their content to streaming subscription services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Hulu.

    By making this content available in some way other than traditional pay-TV, Rutledge argues that the cable networks “lower their value to us, which is good for our cost structure… They’ve devalued their core product and may or may not be carried because of that. No trend goes unchecked.”

    But don’t expect Charter to make a move toward skinny bundles just yet. It’s likely to wait until after its pending merger with Time Warner Cable is resolved within the next year.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uOffice Depot Plans To Close 400 Stores By The End Of 2016r


4 4 4 9
  • Office Depot and Staples are the country’s two largest remaining big-box office supplies chains, and earlier this year, Staples proposed to to acquire Office Depot. While the two companies wait for the Federal Trade Commission to bless the marriage or call off the engagement, Office Depot has announced plans to speed up its store closings, with a goal of shuttering 400 stores by the end of 2016.

    This plan works whether the FTC approves the merger or not: 400 store closings is close to the number of stores that a combined Staples/Office Depot say that they would decide to close due to territory overlap or as part of a “retail store portfolio optimization” process. Office Depot, for its part, is still optimizing its own portfolio and finding cost savings in its 2013 acquisition of OfficeMax. Office Depot has about 1,800 stores right now, and has been closing fewer than 100 per year.

    Staples and Office Depot were forced into the merger: the meddling relatives behind this arranged marriage are Starboard Value, who threatened to take over the board of the larger chain, Staples, as they did with Olive Garden’s parent company, Darden.

    Office Depot picking up pace of store closures [Chain Store Age]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uRegulators Sue To Shut Down Illegal Offshore Payday Loan Networkr


4 4 4 9
  • While most of us think of payday lenders as small-time storefront operations, there is also a complicated web of interconnected payday businesses operating outside the U.S. borders, but illegally issuing costly short-term loans to American borrowers. A newly filed lawsuit hopes to put an end to one such network.

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a lawsuit [PDF] in federal court against NDG Enterprises – an operation consisting of 11 companies – for purportedly issuing illegal payday loans and then using aggressive means to collect those debts.

    The companies named in the complaint include Canadian corporations NDG Financial Corp., Ltd., E-Care Contact Centers, Ltd., Blizzard Interactive Corp., Sagewood Holdings, Ltd., New World Consolidated Lending Corp., New World Lenders Corp., Payroll Loans First Lenders Corp., and New World RRSP Lenders Corp. Two other companies, Northway Financial Corp., and Northway Broker, Ltd., are incorporated in Malta.

    According to the CFPB complaint, since at least July 2011, the companies in the syndicate have issued short-term loans in all 50 states, including those where laws impose interest rate caps and licensing requirements that essentially outlaw such costly financial products.

    Each of the companies under the Enterprise umbrella served a specific purpose in the overall operation.

    For example, Blizzard identifies customers for Northway’s loans by purchasing leads from lead generators, some of which are websites operated by Northway Broker.

    One of the criteria that Blizzard uses to identify customers is the consumer’s state of residency. According to the complaint, in June 2013, the company focused on consumers residing in the United States, with the exception of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, West Virginia, American Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands, and North Dakota.

    States targeted by the company included New York which has laws prohibiting high interest short-term loans.

    Once the leads were purchased, consumers were directed to Northway-managed websites where they were required to create a user account that included their checking account number, social security number, date of birth, and home address.

    The companies then used this information to disburse loans and collect on owed debts.

    Loans offered by the operation were generally short-term (14 days), ranging from $100-$1500 with finance charges between $19.98 and $26.98 per $100 borrowed.

    The complaint includes examples of the enterprise's payday loan costs. In this case from the CashTaxi.com website managed by Northway.

    The complaint includes examples of the enterprise’s payday loan costs. In this case from the CashTaxi.com website managed by Northway.

    Once loans have been issued to the consumer, collection activities are taken over by E-Care on behalf of the Enterprise.

    The CFPB alleges that E-Care used a host of deceptive and illegal debt collection tactics to obtain payments from consumers.

    In many cases, the company initiated contact by phone, e-mail, and letter with a restatement of the consumer’s obligation to repay the principal and interest in full, along with a $39 non-sufficient funds fee, and a $20 late payment fee.

    According to the complaint, many of the loan agreements made between the issuer and the consumer included a wage assignment clause, that states if a consumer defaults on the loan for more than seven days from the date that payment is due, the consumer authorizes NDG Enterprise to instruct the consumer’s employer to pay the outstanding amount directly to NDG Enterprise from consumer’s wages.

    When a wage-assignment agreement wasn’t available, the CFPB alleges E-Care falsely told consumers that non-payment of debt would result in lawsuit, arrest, imprisonment, or wage garnishment, despite lacking the intention or legal authority to take such actions.

    In addition to using threatening tactics to recoup loan costs, between July 21, 2011 and 2014, the Enterprise furnished information to credit reporting agencies on trade lines belonging to consumers residing in all fifty states, including approximately at least 15,000 trade lines belonging to New York residents.

    According to the CFPB, loans issues to residents of several states, which have usury laws in place, are void because of their illegal nature. These states include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Utah.

    Despite this, the companies often claimed to consumers that because they were incorporated outside of the U.S. they did not have to abide by such state laws.

    For example, the companies – in most cases Northway and Northway Broker – would send a letter to consumers stating:

    If you take a moment to review the attached loan agreement, you will see that Northway Financial Corporation Ltd. is a Financial Institution licensed and regulated in accordance with the European Union (EU) Directives. As such, the laws of the Republic of Malta (member State of the European Union), not the state of [consumer’s state of residence] applies to its terms. We provided you with this notice so that you would understand the terms of your loan.

    In response to hundreds of complaints against Northway, several states issued cease and desist orders, directing the company to stop issuing loans that don’t comply with lending law protections. However, the companies continued to originate, service and collect loans in those states, the CFPB complaint alleges.

    In all, the CFPB alleges that the Enterprise violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices.

    Specifically, the companies made false threats to consumers, deceived borrowers about their debts and used illegal means such as wage-assignment clauses to collect on void debts.

    With its lawsuit, the CFPB seeks to refund the money the companies took from consumers where the loan amounts were void or the consumer otherwise was not obligated to repay the loan.

    Additionally, the Bureau seeks to prohibit the companies from any further violations of federal consumer laws related to unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist