Online Retailer Imposes First Ever Web Browser Tax
- Thread starter WMDogma
- Start date
DVS BSTrD said:
Since you asked so nicely, here you go:
"Online retailer imposes 6.8% surcharge on people using outdated software in an effort to cut costs of maintaining support for legacy systems"
You're welcome.
hope this catches on, maybe if all websites become like this it will force my college to upgrade their fucking browsers once in a while i think they are still using the same version that came with the damn os and while they are at it they could install flash
Makes sense, in my opinion -- charge people for what they're using. If it costs extra to support IE7, then charge IE7 users for that work.mad825 said:
So if Google pays a site to "prefer" Chrome then technically all other browsers would cost more to support since those companies aren't paying.aristos_achaion said:
Really, this kind of nonsense could lead to a fee for non preferred browsers all over the place. Wal Mart prefers IE, Gamestop prefers Firefox, Best Buy prefers Chrome, etc...
I know though, slippery slope fallacy right? That's what they said when people said DLC would turn bad.
On the other hand, if Google did that they'd be in the shits for another antitrust investigation. It's not that this doesn't have the potential to be abused, it is that this is a single retailer as opposed to a company that effectively controls the market already.Crono1973 said:
It's not that it's just this one site. It's that non forward thinking people are applauding this nonsense. This is as idiotic as if I applauded a fee on those who play Call of Duty because I don't like Call of Duty. I would never do that because I can see the potential for abuse and I know that sooner or later that would come back to shoot me in the foot.Starke said:
Yeah, well too late [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/110483-Activision-Unveils-New-Call-of-Duty-Online-Service].Crono1973 said:
If a company says they won't accept one browser because they no longer support it isn't really that uncommon already. Just try surfing the web with IE6, if you don't believe me. If they want to say, "if you really want to do it this way, but we'll charge you for the inconvenience to us", that's actually not that far out of bounds either, and it's certainly more forgiving than simply saying, "fuck you, upgrade or die" which a lot of sites already do.
Are there ways we can use this for evil? Well, no shit. It's the internet, and there are corporations on the internet. Go figure. Is this the point to freak out? No. If you're that concerned about any encroachment, we've already started down that path, if you're waiting for it to get bad, this is premature.
A: This is moronic
B: This is a service fee, not a tax.
C: I cant speak for Oz, but cannot be legal to refer to a merchant service charge as a tax.
D: I hope that this idiocy is put to a stop before any actual damage comes of it.
E: All of the above for the good of all of the people.
Its not humorous, its asinine and potentially damaging precedent if it is left unchecked and allowed to continue.
Edit: Other thought
And why? So we can reward a webmaster for being too lazy to double check if the webpage layout doesnt break for older browsers?
B: This is a service fee, not a tax.
C: I cant speak for Oz, but cannot be legal to refer to a merchant service charge as a tax.
D: I hope that this idiocy is put to a stop before any actual damage comes of it.
E: All of the above for the good of all of the people.
Its not humorous, its asinine and potentially damaging precedent if it is left unchecked and allowed to continue.
Edit: Other thought
And why? So we can reward a webmaster for being too lazy to double check if the webpage layout doesnt break for older browsers?
Crono1973 said:
Funny, businesses already do that in other forms. If you make it inconvenient for them to do business with you, they increase their prices. Live in a different country? Most retailers will charge you more for shipping across the border. Tacking an easy to avoid surcharge onto an online purchase with expensive to support software isn't really that different from the convenience fee surcharge my utilities company's been charging the entire metro area for using their online payment system for years, and I didn't see you jump to my defense there.Kogan.com said:
It may be semantics but they should be clear that it is a surcharge as opposed to a tax. Unless Kogan is a branch of the government. To call it a tax makes it sound like that it someone other themselves are doing this to give themselves legitimacy.
Aaaaaannnnd they are idiots. This is exactly the kind of behavior that loses customers. Non computer illiterate folks will keep their browsers updated. The computer illiterate are not going to upgrade their browsers, they will shop elsewhere where they are not billed extra for their browser. Full stop with a period at the end. Far easier to just stop supporting old browsers altogether.
Aaaaaannnnd they are idiots. This is exactly the kind of behavior that loses customers. Non computer illiterate folks will keep their browsers updated. The computer illiterate are not going to upgrade their browsers, they will shop elsewhere where they are not billed extra for their browser. Full stop with a period at the end. Far easier to just stop supporting old browsers altogether.
