advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Will Charging IE7 Shoppers More Finally Kill This Dead Browser?

Written by Evan Schuman
June 20th, 2012

Given a choice, most developers would rather avoid writing apps or a site for versions of Internet Explorer—especially older versions—mostly because of IE’s tendency to go its own way. The same code that would be fine for Chrome, Firefox, Safari and Opera often requires major changes for IE. This is part of the IE legacy, started a decade ago when the browser controlled some 95 percent of the market. Its share today is, at best, maybe 55 percent, with Chrome and Firefox trying to overtake.

But what choice does a retailer have? Even though it’s a hassle, a chain can’t simply opt to not support the leading browser, can it? Maybe not, but one Australian E-tailer has opted to fight back against one version of Internet Explorer: It’s now charging customers a 6.8 percent IE7 tax. Honest. Customers who visit the site using that browser version will have that extra amount automatically added to their cart.

Kogan, the privately held consumer electronics shop which said it expects to book $150 million in revenue this year from more than 600,000 shoppers, posted a delicious graphic on its homepage. The image has an official-looking tax notice from the “Department of Internet Justice.” It tells shoppers: “It appears you or your systems administrator has been in a coma for more than five years and you are still using IE7. To help make the Internet a better place, you will be charged a 6.8 percent tax on your purchase from Kogan.com. This is necessary due to the amount of time required to make Web pages appear correctly in IE7.”

The graphic then shows icons for Firefox, Safari, Opera and Chrome and says, “Avoid the tax. Use a better browser.”

The move is wonderful for so many reasons. First, one of the main reasons so many users are running on older browsers is laziness. As long as developers keep making all current sites run well on older browsers, there’s not much of an incentive for someone to upgrade. Kogan’s move makes users wake up and upgrade. Money has a wonderful way of motivating people.

But it’s not about money. I doubt Kogan will make much from this move, nor did it likely even want to make money. The wakeup call—and, hopefully, the resultant upgrades or switches—is truly the goal.

(Update from original post:: Kogan CEO/Founder Rusland Kogan confirmed that he never really expected—nor wanted—to generate any revenue from this. His goal was to make a point and hopefully see a lot of people upgrading or changing browsers. “Hopefully, no people actually pay the ‘tax.’ It was a bit of humor and like all good humor, there is a lot of truth behind it,” Kogan said in an E-mail reply to StorefrontBacktalk. “The response has been tremendous. We seem to have hit a real soft spot with anyone around the world that works with the Internet and technology.”)

At a more minor level, this is the voice of IT screaming, “Things that take more money cost more money. If IE costs more to support than other browsers and its functionality is not any better, why are we doing this?” Corporate always encourages IT to think more about ROI, except when it comes to how the department internally bills.

Kogan’s blog describes its efforts even more bluntly: IE development “is not only costing us a huge amount, it’s affecting any business with an online presence, and costing the Internet economy millions. As Internet citizens, we all have a responsibility to make the Internet a better place. By taking these measures, we are doing our bit. This will help us increase our efficiency, help keep prices for all smart shoppers down, and hopefully help eradicate the world of the pain in the rear that is IE7.”

Will this Kogan campaign ultimately make a difference? Will it make Microsoft easier to work with? OK, that question was unrealistic. But will the campaign maybe encourage Microsoft to fall in line? Will it get lots of shoppers to upgrade or change browsers?

The answers are most likely not dependent on either Redmond or consumers; rather, it’s other E-tailers and especially the sites of major chains. Kogan doing this gets some attention. But until it is joined by Amazon, Walmart.com, Staples.com, Apple.com and the like, this campaign can only have a very limited impact.

(Note: According to our stats, about 46 percent of StorefrontBacktalk visitors use some version of Internet Explorer, with 10 percent using IE7. We’re not going to charge you more, but would a little upgrade or switch truly hurt?)


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.