News - Browser tax levied upon Internet Explorer 7 users

[HEXUS]

In Australian online retailer Kogan.com marketing stunt.

Read more.

[cameronlite]

It seems a little bit unfair that they don't have an option to download internet explorer 9.

[aidanjt]

It seems a little bit unfair that they don't have an option to download internet explorer 9.

Is it?

[cameronlite]

Is it?

They are charging a tax because of the cost incurred in developing for Internet Explorer 7 - not because Internet Explorer is insecure. Therefore they should list Internet Explorer 9 as an alternative to IE7.

If they have a problem with IE generally they should charge a tax for all IE versions.

The fact is that many people still on IE7 aren't going to know what the other browsers are. They're most likely to just shop elsewhere.

[3dcandy]

they have always had a bit of a shock tactic though?

[CK_1985]

Interesting stunt, and they are making a valid point to be fair. But it seems like a cheap shot to not include ie9 as one of the 'better browser' options - think they might be hearing from Microsoft's lawyers on that one...

[aidanjt]

They are charging a tax because of the cost incurred in developing for Internet Explorer 7 - not because Internet Explorer is insecure. Therefore they should list Internet Explorer 9 as an alternative to IE7.

That doesn't change the fact that it isn't particularly unfair to not direct users to an IE9 download page when it still carries much of the same design flaws. There's a heap of other browsers they didn't link to either. Furthermore, if they did add an IE link, that'd just confuse the clueless even more ('but I'm already using IE MORANS!!11!!!').

If they have a problem with IE generally they should charge a tax for all IE versions.

Why? They can still have a problem with IE generally and having a more specific reason for the 'tax' scheme.

The fact is that many people still on IE7 aren't going to know what the other browsers are. They're most likely to just shop elsewhere.

I doubt that. But ultimately that's their risk to take.

[cameronlite]

That doesn't change the fact that it isn't particularly unfair to not direct users to an IE9 download page when it still carries much of the same design flaws. There's a heap of other browsers they didn't link to either. Furthermore, if they did add an IE link, that'd just confuse the clueless even more ('but I'm already using IE MORANS!!11!!!').

It's not the design flaws of IE they're complaining about, just IE7 and development! The security flaws do not concern them. They should have just said "you need a browser update to visit our website, otherwise you must pay a fee" and then linked to IE9 which would have suggested an upgrade (which people could handle) rather than an entirely new browser.

I doubt that. But ultimately that's their risk to take.

So you doubt that people with a 5 year old browser aren't aware that their browser is riddled with security problems and that there are faster more secure browsers available (IE9 included)?

[aidanjt]

It's not the design flaws of IE they're complaining about, just IE7 and development!

And? That doesn't mean they should only direct them to the IE9 page.

The security flaws do not concern them.

Nowhere in the article does it say that the flaws don't concern them. Merely what their primary motivation is.

They should have just said "you need a browser update to visit our website, otherwise you must pay a fee" and then linked to IE9 which would have suggested an upgrade (which people could handle) rather than an entirely new browser.

Why? There's no rational reason why they can't them steer users in the right direction of getting a more secure browser at the same time.

So you doubt that people with a 5 year old browser aren't aware that their browser is riddled with security problems and that there are faster more secure browsers available (IE9 included)?

No, I doubt most are simply going to disregard it. Also, since they have introduced this tax to recoup development losses, I'm pretty confident that they did so because IE7 users represent a minority of their user/consumer base and yet require special attention, and so it's an annoyance they could afford to lose.

[cameronlite]

Why? There's no rational reason why they can't them steer users in the right direction of getting a more secure browser at the same time.

My point still stands, IE9 is more secure than IE7 and as a major browser should be on the list

[Noxvayl]

IE9 is impossible to install on XP... so how does that link help them with customers using XP? They have more than likely done their research and found that not only are the people using IE7 a minority but also more than likely still stuck on XP because W7 comes with IE8 already and has the automatic updates install IE9 on the first check it does.

So not only is recommending an insecure browser a bad move it is also just plain stupid because the people you are trying to get off of IE7 are likely to be unable to install IE9 anyway.

I think it is a great idea, the internet has been held back by IE for long enough.

[cameronlite]

*Forgot about the xp bit. My bad.

[danroyle]

some serious hate for IE on here today.

[Zeven]

I wonder how much the tax is for Internet Explorer 6 users.

[g8ina]

"hugely disproportionate amount of time gets used by his web design team massaging their pages to work and display correctly within the browser."

M$ pah !

[Zeven]

Does Safari deserve a place on there? It's only second to Internet Explorer in terms of ridicule last I checked.