Online Retailer Imposes First Ever Web Browser Tax

[joshuaayt]

Can't they just, like. Drop support, and put up a notice that says "This site will not display correctly with your current browser, click here, here, here or here to upgrade"? I've seen those notices before, they're pretty cool.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

The big problem I have with this is the wording of the message. "It appears you or your System Administrator has been in a coma for five years..." OK, IE8 came out three years ago, not five. I know this because, as a Web developer myself, I make a point of keeping up with this stuff. So either they don't, or they suck at basic math. Either way, it's no wonder it costs them so much to handle compatibility; it must take them a whole workday just to find the damn on switch on their work terminals!

Mockery aside, I can see why people are so eager to jump the IE7 ship this soon after 6 bit the dust. IE8 is fully backward-compatible, so even local intranets that use badly out-of-date code should be able to handle it. And the interface is identical too, so there's no retraining required.

IE7 is a year newer than xbox 360.
Just sayin'

The difference is that you can't upgrade to the next generation Xbox for free.

 

[Sovereignty]

It's always a good idea to piss your customers off rather than just dropping support for IE7. Instead of a "we're gonna charge you extra" page, how about a blank page with an explanation and links to new browsers? I guess that wouldn't be edgy and cool though would it?

Oh well, I don't really care.

I'm with this state of mentality.

While I don't really give a $%(K this is essentially a business doing something "for the lulz".

Even if the intention isn't to charge, the advertising alone is going to net them profit, and while I can't blame them for wanting more traffic... It's still a bit lame.

 

[NiPah]

I sincerely hope this doesn't catch on. "Use the software we tell you to use, or we'll charge you for it!"? Terrible idea. Next games will have no previous-gen OS support. Once a new version of Windows comes out, all games will require a payment to continue playing the game on the now "outdated" OS. We all know that is what companies will be thinking as they read this. Upgrading, or even paying, to appease this company is a landslide that can only end in disaster for the consumer.

Telling companies that this behavior is "OK" can really only end in disaster, way I see it.

Eh I see this in much the same way that some retailers charge more for using checks or mail order instead of online. If someone still wants to use tele-text to buy a shirt from a random store that store should have the option to charge more for putting in the resources to allow such a transaction.

An online store is just a company that offers a service to the consumer, they have every right to charge a premium for service to a customer costing them more.

 

[Morti]

I am actually of the opinion that this may not be such a good idea. Many poeple, and I am not naming names, I know have older machines that will not upgrade past IE8. If they decide to push their usage tax to this version as well it could actually end up hurting the retailer in the long run. True,consumers can avoid this by switching browsers, but a good portion of them may choose an even simpler route of not shopping with Kogan. Thus they would loose not only the fee but a sale as well.

What's the old saying.. "Cut off the nose to spite the face"? Looks like a 6.8% nose chopper to me.

From BBC [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18440979]:

Mr Kogan said it was unlikely that anyone would actually pay the charges. His goal is to encourage users to download a more up-to-date version of Internet Explorer or a different browser.

He is not expecting people to pay it, he wants to make them aware that their browser is old. And he wants to stop support for IE7 which in the long run is beneficial for his company. If half of your customers were using IE7 this would be suicide, but they are in the minority. I don't think this is bad for his business, especially since (so far) he has not received bad press over it. He might lose a few grumpy customers, but that's a price he is willing to pay.

And surely it's more or less the same effort to update your browser and find a new place to buy your gadgets

A more direct counter to his concerns is actually contained in the BBC article:

3% of his users still use IE7, but his web team spends 50% of their time developing for it.

Sounds like encouraging people to either upgrade, bugger off or cover the aditional cost is a win-win-win situation.

 

[Joccaren]

I came on here expecting a discussion about Internet freedom, expecting the article to be about some stupid retailer imposing a charge on anyone who even visited their site.

I am pleasantly surprised that the world has not fallen that far yet, and that instead one company is just supporting an update that is a good 5 years old, that happens automatically, for free.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

You know you've played too much Mass Effect when you read the company name as "Krogan".

 

[Beautiful End]

Yeah, who the hell is Kogan?

Anyway, I like the idea. I also like the fact that they make it look menacing, what with the whole red warning colors and then TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX covering the background.

For some reason, my mother refuses to use Firefox and Chrome. Every day she calls me because she has trouble with her computer being slow and stuff. Then I tell her to use Firefox or Chrome and she says they don't really transfer her Saved Sites to any of them and how she has passwords saved there that she doesn't know by memory and stuff. All that can easily be solved but...she just doesn't want to change browsers. hell, she doesn't even grasp the Browser term.

So I like that tax thing. it's a passive way to force people to get on with the times. It's not like they're charging you without telling you. And it's not like they're asking you to give them your firstborn child. If you wanna continue using the site but for some reason you wanna keep using IE, then you can just open up Firefox/Chrome, make your purchase with it (I assume you buy stuff in that site?) and close it. You will also get familiarized with those browsers while you're at it.

But really, IE is to blame here. If IE was half decent, then people wouldn't have to use Firefox or Chrome for any other reason and liking its appearance and customization. It's like asking Nintendo to become a good online gaming console. It could but it won't. So most people looking for that just gotta get a much better PC, PS3 or 360.

 

[Elamdri]

I am actually of the opinion that this may not be such a good idea. Many poeple, and I am not naming names, I know have older machines that will not upgrade past IE8. If they decide to push their usage tax to this version as well it could actually end up hurting the retailer in the long run. True,consumers can avoid this by switching browsers, but a good portion of them may choose an even simpler route of not shopping with Kogan. Thus they would loose not only the fee but a sale as well.

What's the old saying.. "Cut off the nose to spite the face"? Looks like a 6.8% nose chopper to me.

If you have a computer that can't update past IE8, you're probably not the kind of person who would shop at that website anyway, considering they're an electronics retailer.

 

[Caffiene]

To compensate, though, this retailer just made a TON of publicity and may just get one of my purchases. I sure as hell have never heard of them before today, but they have my support.

Give that man a cookie! Thats the right answer.

Kogan is an Aussie budget online electronics seller. The founder has a nose for generating free publicity, and hes really hit it big with this latest one. I dont think the intention was ever for this to be a serious plan on its own, it was done to attract news and free links and name drops.

Have a look at the "Kogan Technologies" wikipedia page. The "controversies" section takes up half the article, and most of them are intentional advertising stunts.

 

[doublenix]

Best. Idea. Ever.

 

[Mortuorum]

Oh God. People who use IE7 should be physically restrained. The security issues alone where enough to make you want to weep openly. They might as well just e-mail their bank details out and get it over with. I think windows should actively disable Ie7; its got to be fueling cybercime in some way or another.

Up until recently a friend of mine worked in computer repair and you would not believe the amount of people who brought in machines with an ancient version of "Norton", barely updated Windows and IE7 on it. There needs to be a serious public awareness campaign about lax computer security, i can only imagine the number of potential bot-net computers out there just laying open to be used as a method of attack.

Think of what Kogan is doing as a long-overdue Internet 'tard tax.

Why stop there? How many people should see this pop up over their web browser:

Hello! We've determined that you haven't updated your OS in two years, have no antimalware software and are hosting at least six viruses, trojans and/or other malicious applications. Because you are an Official Internet Dumbass (TM) and are putting the rest of us at risk, you have to pay an extra 12% surcharge on any and all Internet purchases you make until you get a frickin' clue.

 

[Darren716]

I think this should catch on it could be called the technologically ignorant/ illiterate tax.

 

[Samarith]

I'm actually curious as to how many people can still use such a crap browser. Considering there are a lot of infinitely better options at the low low cost of "free".

Some departments in our organisation have to use IE7 because other companies have not updated their software to work with IE8 (I kid you not).

If Kogan's website warns users that there's a surcharge for using an old browser and offers a link for updating, that's fine. If it just sneaks in the charge and then retroactively justifies it to the customer, that's terrible.

At the end of the day, if it costs too much to maintain their site for IE7 they could...NOT do that and accept the loss of business. Of course if this catches on we can expect to see Firefox only websites that charge if you use anything else, to support development costs honest!!

 

[Frylock72]

Is no one worried about the line of logic this kind of thinking will lead to? Imagine being told you have to pay tax on a website because they don't want to support that specific browser. All of a sudden, you have to go install a different one to use the website. This company could have simply said 'we will no longer support IE7 on our website, go find a better browser', but instead they decided that they wanted to make money off of it.

This could lead to some very wily shenanigans, and not in the good way.

 

[vxicepickxv]

Oh God. People who use IE7 should be physically restrained. The security issues alone where enough to make you want to weep openly. They might as well just e-mail their bank details out and get it over with. I think windows should actively disable Ie7; its got to be fueling cybercime in some way or another.

Up until recently a friend of mine worked in computer repair and you would not believe the amount of people who brought in machines with an ancient version of "Norton", barely updated Windows and IE7 on it. There needs to be a serious public awareness campaign about lax computer security, i can only imagine the number of potential bot-net computers out there just laying open to be used as a method of attack.

I lost track of the number of complaints I've sent to the DON, DOAF, and DOD about how terrible their network and website security are(SSL 2.0), their policy on upgrading web browsers(IE7) and how much less of a headache everyone will have if they get everything upgraded.

Whoever is directing IT policies for the military needs to be fired for gross incompetence.

 

[Aeonknight]

I never thought I'd see people actually embrace the idea of a company telling you what software you should/should not use. The hypocrisy, it is delicious.

 

[ZeZZZZevy]

I'm actually curious as to how many people can still use such a crap browser. Considering there are a lot of infinitely better options at the low low cost of "free".

Some departments in our organisation have to use IE7 because other companies have not updated their software to work with IE8 (I kid you not).

If Kogan's website warns users that there's a surcharge for using an old browser and offers a link for updating, that's fine. If it just sneaks in the charge and then retroactively justifies it to the customer, that's terrible.

At the end of the day, if it costs too much to maintain their site for IE7 they could...NOT do that and accept the loss of business. Of course if this catches on we can expect to see Firefox only websites that charge if you use anything else, to support development costs honest!!

Well the picture on the article suggests that they do warn you before adding in the surcharge, so it's not like they're trying to be sneaky about it. (If they were trying to be sneaky I'd be against this, since that's just bad service)

I don't really agree with the slippery slope argument though, since people aren't forced to buy from any one site the vast majority of the time. If one decided to charge everyone not using firefox, for example, non-firefox people would just stop going to that site, and the site wouldn't make any money since I imagine the cost-to-gain ratio wouldn't be very good.

Sucks about your organization sticking with a terrible browser though.