From OZ, World's first 'tax' on Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7

[philinux]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18440979

I doubt any body will pay, just a prod to upgrade their browser.

[Paqman]

Hmm, I'd be pretty suss if they weren't linking to all four main alternatives, but since they are it doesn't look like anyone's put them up to it. Interesting idea, passing on the cost of maintaining backwards compatibility.

Good on him for sticking up for his web monkeys.

[CharlesA]

Now if the internet implements an IE6 tax, we all win...

Coding for IE 8/9 is hard enough without having to worry about IE6 and 7.

[KiwiNZ]

That is illegal here and I am sure it is illegal in Australia. It is also stupid business practice.

[MisterGaribaldi]

Under exactly what rationale would it be illegal to upcharge someone based on their browser of choice, KiwiNZ?

Personally, if I were into web development (didn't I already have this conversation on here before?) I would code to full open standards, not implement anything that was browser-specific, and let it go at that.

If your stupid web browser borks because it was too stupidly designed to begin with, I don't honestly see why that should be my problem. It isn't my problem when you decide to try and ride a horse to my retail business when horses aren't allowed on the streets, no matter how "legitimate" a form of transportation they might be.

[KiwiNZ]

1. It is being charged as a tax, the government is the only body permitted to levy taxes.
2. Discriminatory trade practice.

It is also naive and stupid business practice to alienate customers an what is a very competitive market, I wonder what the reaction would be here if it were a surcharge on Linux users?

[JDShu]

1. It is being charged as a tax, the government is the only body permitted to levy taxes.
2. Discriminatory trade practice.

It is also naive and stupid business practice to alienate customers an what is a very competitive market, I wonder what the reaction would be here if it were a surcharge on Linux users?

It's not literally tax, and whether it is discriminatory is definitely debatable - anybody who uses IE7 can certainly upgrade to chrome, firefox, opera, ie9 etc.

They alienate a segment of their users in exchange for massive self promotion and flattering what is probably the majority of their customer base (I'm so smart, I don't use IE7) and do not pay the cost of supporting a particularly difficult browser. Business people aren't stupid, they've probably done the cost benefit analysis.

[KiwiNZ]

It's not literally tax, and whether it is discriminatory is definitely debatable - anybody who uses IE7 can certainly upgrade to chrome, firefox, opera, ie9 etc.

They alienate a segment of their users in exchange for massive self promotion and flattering what is probably the majority of their customer base (I'm so smart, I don't use IE7) and do not pay the cost of supporting a particularly difficult browser. Business people aren't stupid, they've probably done the cost benefit analysis.

It shows on the invoice as "additional taxes" that is illegal. Than can show it as "surcharge" as long as it is very clear and stated well before the invoice stage etc, in other words the true price of purchase is transparent.

[buzzingrobot]

1. It is being charged as a tax, the government is the only body permitted to levy taxes.
2. Discriminatory trade practice.

It is also naive and stupid business practice to alienate customers an what is a very competitive market, I wonder what the reaction would be here if it were a surcharge on Linux users?

Businesses have a right to charge more for a service if a customer requires special treatment. IE 7 customers require special treatment because web sites and web applications must add unique code to deal with IE 7.

[KiwiNZ]

Businesses have a right to charge more for a service if a customer requires special treatment. IE 7 customers require special treatment because web sites and web applications must add unique code to deal with IE 7.

I didn't say they cannot charge a surcharge, I said there are requirements for that. They are not allowed to charge taxes that are non existent

[fatality_uk]

Having spent TWO FULL days adding various Internet Explorer "hacks" to a demo of a new web based business I am creating, anything that "nudges" people to understand that their using a non-standard & non-modern browser is a good idea.

[JDShu]

It shows on the invoice as "additional taxes" that is illegal. Than can show it as "surcharge" as long as it is very clear and stated well before the invoice stage etc, in other words the true price of purchase is transparent.

Given the fanfare, it seems pretty transparent to me. Also I can't find the source where it says that it shows on the invoice.

[KiwiNZ]

Given the fanfare, it seems pretty transparent to me. Also I can't find the source where it says that it shows on the invoice.

Still don't get it, it is not a tax.](*,)

[fatality_uk]

Still don't get it, it is not a tax.](*,)

Of course it's not a "TAX" per se, however from a Marketing point of view, priceless. News sites around the World have picked up on this and are running with it!

[KiwiNZ]

Of course it's not a "TAX" per se, however from a Marketing point of view, priceless. News sites around the World have picked up on this and are running with it!

Then they need to change how they are doing it, it is grossly misleading and clearly blame shifting.

Again I ask what if it were a Linux surcharge?

[JDShu]

Again I ask what if it were a Linux surcharge?

Then you would be here posting about how companies have the right to do what they want.

[kaldor]

Again I ask what if it were a Linux surcharge?

Linux browsers use the same rendering engines as on Windows and OS X. Your comparison isn't really the same. As long as you follow web standards, your site should work perfectly fine across all operating systems.

Outdated IE browsers require more maintenance. A better comparison would be a "Firefox 2.0 tax" or similar.

[Copper Bezel]

Then they need to change how they are doing it, it is grossly misleading and clearly blame shifting.
No, it's clearly for the lulz. Mostly the lulz of the 97% of visitors who are not using IE 7, natch.

Google Apps don't support IE 7, either. There's no reason to, since there's no reason not to upgrade. (IE 8 is the last version for Windows XP, so it gets a pass.)

[codingman]

This is junk!
I'm pretty sure people who would like to do internet shopping would not use an outdated browser, and maybe since Chrome has kicked the butt of IE from having the highest market share, maybe it would kick into some people's minds that maybe they should try the top browser in the web, so then Microsoft's IE7 "tax" would FAIL.

[TeamRocket1233c]

Really dude? Who would use IE7 anymore anyways?

[KiwiNZ]

Linux browsers use the same rendering engines as on Windows and OS X. Your comparison isn't really the same. As long as you follow web standards, your site should work perfectly fine across all operating systems.

Outdated IE browsers require more maintenance. A better comparison would be a "Firefox 2.0 tax" or similar.

hmmm ok I was meaning a Linux Surcharge forget what browser, they decide to apply a Linux users surcharge

[Merk42]

No, it's clearly for the lulz. Mostly the lulz of the 97% of visitors who are not using IE 7, natch.

Google Apps don't support IE 7, either. There's no reason to, since there's no reason not to upgrade. (IE 8 is the last version for Windows XP, so it gets a pass.)
Internet Explorer 8 is supported because Google Apps supports (http://support.google.com/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=33864) {latestStableVersion} and {latestStableVersion-1}

[kaldor]

hmmm ok I was meaning a Linux Surcharge forget what browser, they decide to apply a Linux users surcharge

It would make about as much sense as charging a Windows "tax". But that's not what the point is. It's about browser compatibility and continuing to support outdated relics.

[Simian Man]

This is immoral because the people who this affects will by and large not understand the problem. Try explaining web standards to the people using old versions of internet explorer, likely on Windows XP. They are likely to either pay the extra and be mad about it, or be confused about how to fix it. How would they choose between the four suggestions? If the company wants to encourage upgrading to better browsers, they should just explain the issue nicely with a link to Firefox or Chrome.

It's also completely unprofessional. I understand the problem, but they handled it in a terrible manner.

[Copper Bezel]

It's not a problem, and they're not being professional about it. Why would they be? It's intended to be vaguely insulting. Like stores with no-children policies. (Or maybe like people perceive stores with no-children policies.)


Internet Explorer 8 is supported because Google Apps supports {latestStableVersion} and {latestStableVersion-1}
Sorry, I meant that Internet Explorer 8 gets a pass to exist. However, I sincerely doubt that Google would pull support for the last version of IE to run on XP, even if they had to bend their policy. There are a lot of XP machines and IE users in the world.

[MisterGaribaldi]

Of course, all kidding aside, I don't think a company should really describe something as a "tax" when it legally isn't, and honestly this isn't actually required since we've all seen web sites before that tell you "You have to have X, Y, or Z type of browser to view this site" so...

Why not just go with that?

I also repeat my earlier point: it's not my problem if your only means of transportation to my store is one that's not allowed to be operated. And even then that's not a perfect comparison here because you can use any web browser you want, there are several free options, and at this point if you don't know about the existence of other web browsers, you've been living under a rock.

Again, it's not the problem of the businesses out there.

[DingusFett]

I saw this yesterday, and being from Australia I found it hilarious. Sure, it's not technically a tax, more a surcharge, but the point remains. IDK why anyone would even still be using IE7; IE is junk to begin with, and 7 is well outdated.

[ExSuSEusr]

This is immoral because the people who this affects will by and large not understand the problem

Then they shouldn't be using their credit cards on the world wide web. I'll just come out and say it - if you're that dense or technologically illiterate that you can't figure out that your current browser is too old to provide the services you need - then you shouldn't be using a computer.

How hard is it to upgrade IE? Couple of clicks, a download, and a reboot? It's not rocket science.

A business should be allowed to charge what they want for the goods and services they provide. This is not an act of discrimination. Discrimination would be if they announced they were no longer going to sell to a particular race, creed, religion, so on and so forth.

They're not saying they aren't going to sell to people with IE7 - and even if they did, it's still not even close to being the same - they are simply going to charge more because they're sick of wasting time and resources supporting people whom can't seem to understand that their Tandy Color Computer is giving them [the company] too many issues.

I do agree; however, that it should NOT be called a tax. A tax can only be levied by a GOVERNMENT, not a private establishment. Calling it a tax is illegal and should be dealt with appropriately.

For those of you who remember the days of full service gas stations - you had the option - pump your own gas - or - pay a little extra for someone to pump it for you.

You order a pizza - you can have it delivered or pick it up yourself. If you have it delivered you will have to pay an additional charge called a "delivery fee" because it requires the pizza shop to take extra steps to cater to your order. You don't have to pay it - you can put on your shoes and drive down to the store and pick it up your self.

To me, this is no different. The customer has a choice. Upgrade your out-of-date web browser (put on your shoe and go to the store) and save the money, or stay with it and "order delivery" and pay the additional fee.

No company should be forced to dedicate revenue, resources, or time to cater to someone's (whether a client, customer, or not) laziness.

As to whether this would happen to Linux? It's not the same -

A Ford, a Chevy, and a BMW can all pull into the gas station and fuel up. The station will sell to all three brands - they all burn the same gas. The difference is whether or not the drivers of those vehicles want to pump their own gas, or pay a little extra to have someone else pump it for them.

[scouser73]

That is illegal here and I am sure it is illegal in Australia. It is also stupid business practice.

It's blatantly not real, anyone with a sense of humour can see that.

[Simian Man]

It's not a problem, and they're not being professional about it. Why would they be? It's intended to be vaguely insulting.
Because they're running a business?


Then they shouldn't be using their credit cards on the world wide web. I'll just come out and say it - if you're that dense or technologically illiterate that you can't figure out that your current browser is too old to provide the services you need - then you shouldn't be using a computer.

How hard is it to upgrade IE? Couple of clicks, a download, and a reboot? It's not rocket science.
Since it's so easy, the site should just link to the IE download page. But charging people extra who might not understand why isn't right.

[ExSuSEusr]

I didn't say they cannot charge a surcharge, I said there are requirements for that. They are not allowed to charge taxes that are non existent

It's all right there on the home page - in "black and white."

[KiwiNZ]

Yes it is on the front page but that does not legitimize it

"Today at Kogan we've implemented the world's first "Internet Explorer 7 Tax". The new 6.8% tax comes into effect today on all products purchased from Kogan.com by anyone still......."

It is grossly misleading and blame shifting to call the surcharge a Tax.

[ExSuSEusr]

I agreed you with on that - I stated in my post that it is wrong to call it a tax.

[cprofitt]

man...

this thread needed a tl:dr warning at the end of the first post.

[MisterGaribaldi]

But charging people extra who might not understand why isn't right.

I think you need to go back and re-read ExSuSEusr's point, a point with which I'm kind of inclined to agree.

[Paqman]

It is also stupid business practice.

If the cost of supporting IE7 exceeds the lost revenue then it's actually a very hard-nosed and rational business practice. Chuck in the free advertising (that will strongly appeal to one the business' core markets) and I'd say it's a winner financially.



How hard is it to upgrade IE? Couple of clicks, a download, and a reboot? It's not rocket science.


I would imagine many people running a really old browser are doing so because they're not running a legit copy of Windows, so don't do updates at all.

[Ji Ruo]

Good on them for doing this. It was probably intended for other businesses to follow suit. But above all, it was brilliant marketing leading to free worldwide exposure.

Usually I would be apathetic but this is not something I can object to, if ie7 was no longer used then all web development would be that much more productive.

[HansKisaragi]

I see nothing wrong with this and find it clever.. Id do it myself if i had a site that people actually visited.

:lolflag:

[zombifier25]

Now if the internet implements an IE6 tax, we all win...

If this was implemented, I can see a lot of people jumping off rooftops.


Then they shouldn't be using their credit cards on the world wide web. I'll just come out and say it - if you're that dense or technologically illiterate that you can't figure out that your current browser is too old to provide the services you need - then you shouldn't be using a computer.

How hard is it to upgrade IE? Couple of clicks, a download, and a reboot? It's not rocket science.

A business should be allowed to charge what they want for the goods and services they provide. This is not an act of discrimination. Discrimination would be if they announced they were no longer going to sell to a particular race, creed, religion, so on and so forth.

They're not saying they aren't going to sell to people with IE7 - and even if they did, it's still not even close to being the same - they are simply going to charge more because they're sick of wasting time and resources supporting people whom can't seem to understand that their Tandy Color Computer is giving them [the company] too many issues.

I do agree; however, that it should NOT be called a tax. A tax can only be levied by a GOVERNMENT, not a private establishment. Calling it a tax is illegal and should be dealt with appropriately.

For those of you who remember the days of full service gas stations - you had the option - pump your own gas - or - pay a little extra for someone to pump it for you.

You order a pizza - you can have it delivered or pick it up yourself. If you have it delivered you will have to pay an additional charge called a "delivery fee" because it requires the pizza shop to take extra steps to cater to your order. You don't have to pay it - you can put on your shoes and drive down to the store and pick it up your self.

To me, this is no different. The customer has a choice. Upgrade your out-of-date web browser (put on your shoe and go to the store) and save the money, or stay with it and "order delivery" and pay the additional fee.

No company should be forced to dedicate revenue, resources, or time to cater to someone's (whether a client, customer, or not) laziness.

As to whether this would happen to Linux? It's not the same -

A Ford, a Chevy, and a BMW can all pull into the gas station and fuel up. The station will sell to all three brands - they all burn the same gas. The difference is whether or not the drivers of those vehicles want to pump their own gas, or pay a little extra to have someone else pump it for them.

Good point. The name is just wrong, but the idea is good

[Merk42]

Sorry, I meant that Internet Explorer 8 gets a pass to exist. However, I sincerely doubt that Google would pull support for the last version of IE to run on XP, even if they had to bend their policy. There are a lot of XP machines and IE users in the world.I'm guessing they'll just move it to "Sure you can use IE8...with Chrome Frame".

[Bandit]

I didn't say they cannot charge a surcharge, I said there are requirements for that. They are not allowed to charge taxes that are non existent

I think the wording of "tax" can cause issues, But if they called it a service fee. Then thats legal. I really cant say I blame them at all. Having to code for Fx,Gg or Chr isnt a big deal at all. But then just when all your gaps on your frame and overlays are just right. Alone come IE and nothing lines up. I wished EVERY website did this as thats the only thing I can think of that would force MS to start following W3C standards instead of making up their own ****.

[jonathonblake]

How hard is it to upgrade IE? Couple of clicks, a download, and a reboot? It's not rocket science.

The issue is what gets broken, when one does the upgrade.

For all practical purposes, JAWS 13 is incompatible with MIE9, and barely compatible with MI8. It is compatible with MIE7. This is not the only A11Y program that gets broken when updating MIE. (There is a major disconnect between what Freedom Scientific's sales literature says, and what their tech support people do, to fix issues end-users have.)

jonathon

[Copper Bezel]

That sucks, but Freedom Scientific and the others shouldn't be exclusively supporting a dead platform in the first place, and it certainly doesn't change the fact that IE 7 shouldn't be in ordinary use. In fact, if IE 7 just stopped working today, then FS would have to update its software.

[jonathonblake]

In fact, if IE 7 just stopped working today, then FS would have to update its software.

Why would they have to update the software?

This is an industry where party A pays, Party B produces, and Party C uses the product. What Party C thinks about the product is completely, utterly, and absolutely irrelevant.

jonathon

[Copper Bezel]

They couldn't well market a product that only worked properly with a browser that didn't exist anymore. They'd have to update their software to work properly on IE 8. That's all I was saying.

I don't follow you with the three parties involved, though. Why isn't the user the customer in this situation?

[MisterGaribaldi]

Again, and I keep saying this, but why not resolve the whole issue by only writing to strictly open, non-browser-specific standards, and leave it go at that? Maybe if people were given an incentive to use a modern, decent browser, they'd be more inclined to.

And, if they're too ignorant or stupid or whatever to do so, then maybe... just maybe... you are better off, as a business, without them as your customers. I've worked in too many companies doing too many different kinds of jobs to believe that "all customers are desirable customers". That's crap.

[forrestcupp]

1. It is being charged as a tax, the government is the only body permitted to levy taxes.
I agree with Bandit. They just need to change the wording. They don't have to change anything at all, except that one word, "tax".


I wonder what the reaction would be here if it were a surcharge on Linux users?That's not really a fair comparison. They're not charging the fee for current versions of IE. A better comparison would be a "tax" on people who use old versions of Ubuntu, like Warty Warthog. If you look at it like that, it's not really that different than what we do on these forums. Whenever someone comes on here asking for help with an old, unsupported release, we tell them it's not supported anymore, and they need to upgrade.


This is immoral because the people who this affects will by and large not understand the problem.This is a decent point. The only people who are still using IE 7 are the ones who are using old versions of Windows, and they don't even know they are supposed to upgrade their browsers.


Again, and I keep saying this, but why not resolve the whole issue by only writing to strictly open, non-browser-specific standards, and leave it go at that? Maybe if people were given an incentive to use a modern, decent browser, they'd be more inclined to.The issue is that older browsers can't even handle some of the things that are standard today. I recently upgraded my mother-in-law's Firefox from 3.x to the latest version, and it completely changed how Gmail functioned, so much that I had to explain to her how to use it. Some people get good use out of their computers, but they're not technically minded enough to live on the bleeding edge with all their updates. Things change pretty quickly. The proof is that we're already 10 versions ahead of the Firefox that I recently upgraded on her computer.



And, if they're too ignorant or stupid or whatever to do so, then maybe... just maybe... you are better off, as a business, without them as your customers. I've worked in too many companies doing too many different kinds of jobs to believe that "all customers are desirable customers". That's crap.When you're a business, you're not better off without certain people as customers. I'd rather sell my product to ignorant idiots than to no one at all.

[MisterGaribaldi]

In some situations, customer A costs a LOT more to do business with than customer B, C, D... Z. And, in that case, I'd rather have 25 profitable customers than 26 less profitable ones. You cut your losses.

[forrestcupp]

In some situations, customer A costs a LOT more to do business with than customer B, C, D... Z. And, in that case, I'd rather have 25 profitable customers than 26 less profitable ones. You cut your losses.
You just have to really discern whether that's the case before you cut your losses, though. Sometimes it is best to cut your losses. Other times you take your losses because you know they're going to tell 25 of their profitable friends how awesome you are, and if you cut them, they'll tell those 25 profitable friends how bad you are.

In this particular case, it probably doesn't matter.

[jonathonblake]

They'd have to update their software to work properly on IE 8. That's all I was saying.

In the A11Y world, there is NO economic incentive for any of the players to support current software.


I don't follow you with the three parties involved, though. Why isn't the user the customer in this situation?

The user simply can't afford to purchase the product. (When the economy is doing well, 70% of the blind population is unemployed. When the economy is not doing well, that figure can hit 95%.)

Consequently, users do not purchase the software, but rely on organizations to purchase the software to give them.

jonathon

[jonathonblake]

You just have to really discern whether that's the case before you cut your losses, though.

Having been on the sidelines of several businesses and organizations that did fire customers, the hardest part of the process is determing how to do so, without anybody realizing that that was what was done.

Done properly, the fired customer continues to promote your customer to their freinds and customers.

One of the most subtle ways I've seen to fire a customer, was a process that took the company three years, and roughly US$10,000,000 to execute. A decade after that customer was fired, one of the executives at the organization was asked what happened in that business relationship. Virtually nobody in the industry, much less the fired company, believed the executive when he said that they had fired the customer.


and if you cut them, they'll tell those 25 profitable friends how bad you are

The only time that happens, is when the firing process is poorly planed, and executed.

The only time it might be appropriate to bluntly tell a customer that they are fired, is when there is no way for the customer to spin their story so that it does not make the customer "look good".

jonathon

[ikt]

It is also stupid business practice.

They don't want to pay their web developers to update the site to support IE7 so they took the easy way out, I'm not sure what % of hits their website is getting from IE7, but I imagine it would be pretty low, I haven't seen IE7 with over 1% of hits years.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version_partially_combined-ww-daily-20120101-20120430

edit: Ok apparently it's 2.7%.

[Lucradia]

I think it's a good idea, it'll force people to upgrade so they can have better security.

[MisterGaribaldi]

Just because I believe that word-of-mouth is the most effective advertising, it does not follow that I believe just because someone bitches about a given company, that everyone else quits doing business with them. In fact, the examples of that not happening are so insanely more numerous than any examples to the contrary, that I actually don't even care to give them any credence at all.

Usually, people know when someone complaining to them is full of the fun, brown stuff, and as such, those acts of "negative advertising" are automatically ignored.

So, if I did fire one customer out of twenty-six, it wouldn't actually worry me at all.

[lepip]

Why not use MSN.COM.it works perfectly and is just like explorer.