As a consumer, I’m outraged; yet as a designer/ developer, I’m tempted to stand up and slow clap. Aussie online retailer Kogan has imposed a 6.8% tax on all purchases by visitors who view their site on Internet Explorer 7. Customers who do choose to visit Kogan’s site via IE7 are greeted with a blatant, slightly snarky popup explaining that if they proceed to make a purchase they will incur an extra 6.8% fee on their goods.
It’s actually a fairly ingenious way to get around having to deal with the grueling process of cross-browser compatibility for those who insist on using outdated software (or are too computer-illiterate to know better). More importantly, if Kogan’s idea catches fire and other sites begin adopting similar policies, that could potentially accelerate the glacial rate of adoption for new browser versions across the web- and with the exciting features of HTML5, WebGL and other new web tech moving painfully slowly towards mainstream adoption, I for one am excited to see someone finally taking a real stab at browser standards enforcement.
Besides, every browser’s updates are free, and for those too inept to figure out how to do it themselves, the site’s popup contains handy links to the latest versions of the most popular browsers, so the tradeoff between disrupting customer satisfaction and working with outdated technology is pretty well balanced in this case. And doesn’t it make sense to encourage everyone to update who still runs a browser not capable of doing so itself? There’s virtually no way that those who update from IE7 would see any meaningful drawbacks from a newer browser, at least not in the long run, and doing so just once makes the entire web an easier place to build for.
After all, a rising tide raises all boats (except, ironically enough, for Netscape Navigator).
As it turns out, having an “$” in your name makes it a whole lot easier to be generous in paying for your mistakes, as evidenced by “Micro$oft”‘s latest in a series of costly apologies to customers. When called out over a bug which disabled the split-screen multiplayer feature of the 360 release of Minecraft for some users, Xbox corporate offered affected users a full refund. Say what you will about the Microsoft company history, but their Games Division’s ability to guilt trip their higher-ups into doing right by their mistakes continues to impress me.
As a soon-to-be-former RIT student(!), I’ve interacted with Microsoft’s games division on multiple occasions. Far from representing the cutthroat corporate culture the company became synonymous with in the 1990’s, these Microsoft guys were relaxed, fun, innovative, creative… the total antithesis of the Microsoft I grew up with.
Nowhere is this better illustrated than in their reaction to the homebrewing cottage industry which sprang up in the wake of Kinect’s release. 90’s Microsoft would’ve responded with Cease-and-Desist’s; last year’s Microsoft cheered on when a tech company put out a bounty to the first person or group to successfully create open-source drivers for the peripheral (although to be fair, they did flip-flop a bit first). 90’s M$ would have bought out all the startups working with their licensed tech, and gutted them; today’s MS houses several companies working on Kinect apps.
They may not be perfect, but I think Microsoft deserves a decent amount of credit for trying to change their ways, and for giving the Xbox division the freedom it needs to earn the trust and respect of this generation of gamers.
This is a great article, right here. The author, Richard Gaywood of TUAW, raises a very interesting and tense issue in regards to software licensing: does removing the features from an app already paid for by the customer, and moving them to a more expensive “Pro” version, constitute “double dipping”? Do the legal implications of software ownership, outweigh the ethical implications of being a scumbag? Fascinating. No, wait- the other thing. Shitty.
Look, I get that Instacast could very well be within their rights by removing said features from their paid app, as outlined by software licensing agreements. But that still doesn’t make what they’re doing okay, as evidenced by any one of the myriad 1-star reviews the app is now being avalanched with on the App Store from angry customers.
The argument of actual software ownership versus perceived software ownership doesn’t really matter here- at the end of the day, this is an issue of doing right by customers. Shazam did it right when they changed their app’s pricing model: they grandfathered loyal customers of their app into the new feature set, free of charge. Did they technically have to do that? Probably not. Did they see a firestorm of 1-star reviews on the App Store as a result? Absolutely not- in fact, they saw the opposite, receiving a swell of high praise from customers who appreciated the respect shown to them.
And that’s really what this issue is about: respect. In this digital age, people are very, very protective over their perceived ownership of software, since there isn’t such a thing as a “boxed copy”, or any sense of tangible ownership that comes with a physical product. Pulling the rug out from under your own customers may not break any laws, but it violates the hell out of the law of common sense.
Both THQ and Ubisoft have now learned a valuable lesson: The casual market may be good for a quick infusion of cash and a high initial ROI on a product, but in the long run it's the core gamers who will be carrying your bottom line across console generations.
Sounds like they were trying to do you a favor in asking you to hide your identity, Christoforo- no one in their right mind would hire you as Paul Christoforo.
What Is?
Hey! I'm Mike, this is my blog. and my dream is to use my middling tech skills to make the world a better place (not in the techno-libertarian, "the world is a better place if I get mine" sense, but in the actual, "I want to help" sense).
