Bad analogies.

It would be reasonable to charge extra for anyone who enters a shop with a beautiful wooden floor wearing spikes on their shoes. Spikes induce extra maintenance costs - so does IE7.

No, that's ridiculous. This is like taxing the disabled because they cost more money.

That's equally ridiculous. Not upgrading your browser is a choice, being disabled is not.

Not really. Most people using IE7 probably didn't choose it, their IT department chose for them.

True but if there was some department disabling people, we would look very differently at disabilities I guess.

I've seen many banks that have legacy systems what ONLY work in IE6, so they can't upgrade until they apps are re-written, but those apps are so big they don't want to touch it or they have some longer term project to replace this, blah blah. Some crap littered with ActiveX plugins no doubt. I know HSBC have (what appears to me anyway) to be like this.

But yes, agree the work/personal related thing, they can easily buy at home and if the workplace has such an antiquated attitude to these things then they probably also have your internet access to watch and lock down anyway.

So then the IT department chose for them not to be able to use a certain online shop. If the online shopping is work-related, then it's the IT department's job to facilitate this and upgrade the systems. If the online shopping is not work-related, you have the option to do it in your own time, with your own browser on your own PC--the same situation as people that do not spend their working hours surfing the web (because they might not have office jobs).

Entering a shop wearing spikes is a choice. Being disabled, in contrast, isn't.

Most people aren't forced to wear spikes by their company.

Most people aren't forced to browse the web by their company.

You're not forced to enter a shop, either, but it's mighty inconvenient to be prevented from doing so.

To expand on my argument, if you have to use IE6 or IE7 because your company says you have to, then that's a restriction you have to live with while at work. It's akin to someone complaining that they can't stop off for personal shopping while they're on the clock and being paid mileage.

You're free to do whatever you want on your own personal time. You don't have to shop online while you're at work (and it's a huge security risk to do so), so complaining that it's inconvenient doesn't really fly.

Another (and more realistic) analogy would be a retailer adding a surcharge to your total when paying by credit card.

That's illegal in most states/violates all credit card agreements for the vendor.

(but still a valid comparison)

Not illegal in Australia, where kogan is from. Unfortunately there's no limit on the amount a merchant can charge for payment/card fees. For example, I believe the most popular taxi charge company here (CabCharge) charges a 10% fee when paying by credit card.

I do believe the RBA was going to investigate this [1]. If they do anything about it is something else entirely however..

[1] http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/reserve-bank-is-investigati...

In the US. My bad.

But places can just offer s "cash discount" and it ends up being exactly the same. All the gas stations around me charge 10 cents more for credit cards and it's infuriating.

How about a discount to cash then? Its the opposite, buy has the same result.

Most common (in the US) is just a minimum credit card purchase.

Many gas stations here (in California anyway) still offer a slightly lower price for cash customers.

In Europe many get away with it.

I guess the major economic difference is all those suggestions would lose you money, whereas this will probably help their sales while slightly cutting their costs.

4. All sarcastic comments get -5 starting karma