Print
When browsers overstay their welcome they not only become a security concern, but they also make cross-browser compatibility a tall order for web developers. In recent times, silent updates have emerged as an effective means of tackling this problem. Recently, Microsoft too jumped on the silent update bandwagon. While the move seems to be yielding the desired result where IE8 is concerned—IE9 is gaining market share at the expense of IE8—it has had little or no effect on IE6 and IE7. An Australian online retailer is so frustrated with all this that it has decided to take things in its own hands.
In an unprecedented move, Australian online retailer Kogan has announced a 6.8-percent tax on all products purchased using the “antique browser.” Avoiding taxes is usually very tough (and often criminal), but as Kogan pointed out in its announcement, the “Internet Explorer 7 Tax” can be avoided simply by updating away from IE7, which is estimated to command anywhere between 1.5-5% share of the browser market despite being released in 2006.
“The way we've been able to keep our prices so low is by using technology to make our business efficient and streamlined. One of the things stopping that is our web team having to spend a lot of time making our new website look normal on IE7,” Kogan said in a blog post.
“This is an extremely old browser, so from today, anyone buying from the site who uses IE7 will be lumped with a 6.8% surcharge - that's 0.1% for each month IE7 has been on the market.”
Comments are closed on this article
pac789
June 17, 2012 at 6:57pm
my roomate's aunt makes $83/hr on the laptop. She has been without work for 8 months but last month her pay was $8682 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site...NuttyRich.com
Abeauter
June 18, 2012 at 4:46am
Why come here and advertise? It's good sights like these and YouTube that become less and less pleasent when people advertise, please take your lame scam somewhere else!
Jox
June 15, 2012 at 1:59pm
Why limit this to IE7? Wouldn't it make more sense to apply this to all versions of IE?
-Jox
livebriand
June 15, 2012 at 6:28pm
+1
Strangely enough, I faked an IE6 user agent, and wasn't charged a fee. (I don't know if the site will render properly there though - I was actually using Firefox.) I did get the fee when faking IE7 though.
alabasterdragon
June 15, 2012 at 11:48am
One problem I see with this is the innocence that will suffer. Perhaps they will suffer enough and cause a big enough stick to get the problem fixed.
The problem: I deal with medical clients that have products that must be approved my the FDA. These products must under go a lengthy testing and safety check that takes years. "New" stuff that requires IE6 that has just recently passed the FDA has started rolling out in the last year. Hell it's only been about 3 years since government agencies like Medicaid stopped insisting people use 9600 baud modems to connect and transfer data to them. (Because the internet was not secure enough.) And yet the needed security enhancements are prevented from progressing my other government agencies like the FDA.
This falls under the misguided idea that the FDA is primarily trying to protect the public and that total government control is a good idea. Mean while technological advancements are regularly knee caped by the fed's under the premise that it might not be safe.
Outside of that...I say go for it. Charge a fee (aka tax) for stupidity/laziness/ignorance or what ever sorry excuses people might have for their lack of updates.
livebriand
June 15, 2012 at 6:31pm
Keep in mind that IE doesn't auto-update to a new version it seems. My grandparents' computers were both running IE7 for quite a while, even after IE9 had come out I think. I had to manually update those. (both XP machines)
whr4usa
June 15, 2012 at 11:59am
I think you missed the point of this article
think "Apple tax" not Federal Income Tax lol
Jeffrey Deutsch
June 15, 2012 at 10:41am
One more factor in Chrome's favor...
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/11/whats-in-your-wallet.html
Have a great weekend!
Jeff Deutsch
warptek2010
June 15, 2012 at 10:35am
I don't know Australian law but I bet the only authority in Australia that can impose a TAX is their Parliament. Kogans can charge a fee for IE7 users probably but someone needs to tell them to stop calling it a tax.
alabasterdragon
June 15, 2012 at 11:52am
That is merely a matter of semantics. This is the same argument to has been going on for several years with the wording of the Obama care bill. Are the "fees" fees or taxes. Either way, it ends up in people being screwed out of money, and often for things out of their personal control.
gmvolk
June 15, 2012 at 7:25am
What a load of bull! I would boycott the site if I lived there. I was thinking along the lines of livebriand, what if you changed you user agent? Obviously there are ways around it, but this is still a load. Looking at their site, it does not even look all that complicated to even have problems running on IE6.
brigor
June 14, 2012 at 9:17pm
Just stop investing in backwards compatibility and let nature decide. Either way you'll annoy & likely lose customers but why be jerks about it?
whr4usa
June 15, 2012 at 11:19am
that'd be much more dumb than the current scheme
this way they generate additional revenue to fund 'unnecessary' developement in an innovative way without blocking customers out of their site while simultaneously informing technically-ignorant customers of err in their habits of apathy
I like this innovative approach though it'd likely be shot down in court here with the stupidity of some of our "consumer protections" lol.
livebriand
June 15, 2012 at 6:32pm
Fyi, I just tested this - I get taxed if I fake an IE7 user agent, but not if I fake an IE6 one. Lol... (if the site even renders correctly in IE6... I didn't bother actually trying it)
