Poor and attrocious exploitative service from ACER Third Party service providers

isovenu
isovenu Member Posts: 2 New User

Dear Forum members,

 

I had a bitter experience with third party service providers of ACER and am sharing my experience so that others on the Forum can gain from my experience.

I purchased ACER ASPIRE ONE 722 in December 2011 through AMAZON and got a Windows 7 Home premium loaded along with the laptop. Reently I felt my system is slightly slow and was considering to format the system. So I wanted to know from the ACER customer support as to how I can reload the WINDOWS 7 Home Premium on my laptop after formatting. The website directed to a third party service provider. the name of the website was misleading to believe that it was ACER official service provider.

But instead of helping me to know the process of reloading my WINDOWS 7 Home premium, the lady who took the call [ she said she was responding from India] was trying to sell me a one year service package costing $199.99. The original cost I paid for the laptop was $320. I felt this was unbridled exploitation and declined to take the offer.

Later I contacted the Microsoft customer support and they readily informed me that the KEY to the loaded  Windows 7 Home premium would be at the bottom of the laptop and readily validated the authenticity of the KEY.

Through this FORUM I request ACER management to have a process of identifying such third rate, exploitative Third party service provides, BLCK-LISTING them and protecting ACER Customers. Please realise that Customers are more important than Third Party service providers.

If you allow this type of exploitation, Customers like me may switch to some other brand whose service is better.

 

Incidentally, MICROSOFT service is exemplary and provides customer delight. 

 

Hoping that this suggestion is posted. If any matter in this post is objectionable, I authorise  the moderator to edit as deemed right and post it so that Customers and the ACER will get the benifit.

 

Venugopal

 

[edited for privacy]

Answers

This discussion has been closed.