I wouldn't charge people for using IE7. Don't they suffer enough with the constant "Internet Explorer has stopped working" messages?

I knew that, mate. I only answered to make you laugh.

It's not illegal at all. The customer can choose not to purchase from the website thus negating the surcharge.

No, he doesn't, but then he could always implement a code barring access to IE7, with a short, simple message to users to upgrade should they wish to use the site's services... it would be the simplest, most cost effective way... without this IE7 tax bullshit publicity stunt.  Yes, publicity stunt! 

Rusian Kogan frequently goes on Australian TV to justify his own business practices or condemn other traders for theirs.  He regularly takes out full-page newspaper ads... not to advertise his wares, but to stick it to other traders [like JB Hi-Fi or Harvey Norman]  And this latest stunt is more of the same.

The cost of supporting IE7 isn't even peanuts, compared to his multi-million dollar annual income, so he could easily absorb the small cost involved and hardly notice a difference.  Like I said, it's free publicity. If the cost of supporting IE7 was effectively reducing his profit to any noticeable degree, and I say IF, which I very much doubt, he could simply add a half percent to his already heavily discounted prices and nobody would be the wiser... in other words, the mention of an IE7 tax IS totally unnecessary.

Yes, I've been to those stores, but I always pay cash for everything. I refuse to pay extra on my purchases to cover greedy bank charges, which is exactly what they are.  However, your analogy is not appropriate.  Those stores are recouping external charges levied upon them by banks, whereas Kogan isn't.  It is still HIS storefront... and HIS to maintain.  If he does not then customers may not access his wares and he goes broke... his choice.

In answer to the other questions... I do not have a credit card... despite my bank's repeated offers of one. The cost of operating a credit card would add hundreds [why the hell can't people see that] to my regular living expenses, and when it comes to money I'm as tight as a fish's arse... and that's watertight.

Kogan have said the surcharge is to recover cost of allowing ie7 users to buy goods. If a customer has to pay more for that access than another then it's price gouging. They have to give you a fair cost.

Not entirely.  The 'levy' does NOT match.  You are charged typically MORE by the store/service/co than the bank levies on that institution.

Any bank 'account' has charges/fees....a credit card need not be any more expensive to 'have' than any other account....particularly when it's 55 days Interest free and thus YOU can profit by NOT paying for 54 days....

Again, no.  'price gouging' is specifically what IKEA does.  They charge the maximum the market can put up with without them sourcing an alternative.

Kogan's IE7 customers have an alternative option to purchase at the 'normal' price.

IKEA customers do not.

It is patently ABSURD that a desk made in Asia....just off our coast can be shipped from there to the US and then purchased FROM the US and shipped to Australia for considerably LESS than the AUS IKEA store 5 minutes down the road.

In a global market sense Australian IKEA customers are SUBSIDISING US IKEA customers.

I trust America is appreciative....

The thing is, IE7 users will be charge different amounts of surcharge for cost recovery. A IE7 customer can argue that their surcharge of buying a product from Kogan should be the same as another IE7 customer. Kogan will have to justify why that customer has to pay more ...

Ah, yes....within the er... subset of 'Kogan-IE7 customers there's an apparent inequity as it's not a flat fee but a percentage.

He probably "should" make it a flat rate - fixed fee.

But....

On the other hand....were it TOO 'fair' it wouldn't attract all this free publicity.

Method in the madness....

From the OP.

Why should he charge a flat fee? Seems to me that would be objectionable for the buyer of a small ticket item. Not a "progressive" fee at all, doing it that way.

If he can soak someone who is too stubborn or (face it) stupid to upgrade a browser? Why is it even being discussed? If someone is too thick to upgrade a browser, and too thick to get to a mate whose computer has a more modern browser, let him pay the price.

As for IKEA? That really should be looked into. I bet IKEA is getting some sort of profit kickback from the shipper as well as from the Australian franchised operation.

My point was/is that there is an external cost with the credit card scenario... there isn't with Kogan's 'so-called' tax.  Of course stores will seek to profit from the bank charges by passing more on to the consumers, but then that wasn't my point.  Well not directly!  My point is that Kogan made a mountain out of a pathetic little molehill and used it as free publicity to increase his profit base from it.... given more people now know about his operation.  Saw him on 'Good Morning Australia' once, thought he was a slimy bastard, and this further enhances that opinion of him.

Quite right ... Perhaps I should not of said the ACCC will 'kick their arse', more likely to send a 'Who's a naughty boy' letter and a slap on the wrist.

Well....it's everyone ELSE making the mountain.

All Kogan did was impose a fee.....

Truth is, IKEA isn't the only company trying to extract the maximum it thinks the market can bear.  All companies are guilty of this, even Kogan, who heavily discounts his wares.  How can I say this about Kogan, a heavy discounter?  Because he researched, identified who he could exploit, and caters to his intended market... poor buggers who have eff all to begin with  He knows their purchasing options are very restricted [despite the we won't be beaten on price, Hardly Normal is still way out of their price range] so yes, he too has a captive market. He may have to share it with other discounters who have identified the and exploit same demographic, but he is still doing an IKEA.

Ah, but they do... they just have to think a little differently and they cease to be IKEA customers. My mother once bought some kitchen furniture from IKEA and thought she'd gotten a bargain... until I took her to a nearby store that sourced local products. Not only was the furniture cheaper, it also looked nicer... and there were no issues with compatibility or replacements, as there was with the IKEA kitchen setting.  Hence she became a former IKEA customer.  Me, I've never purchased from IKEA, never will.  I have 2 large furniture outlets nearby, both very competitive on price, and one has free delivery within 5k, which I am.

It is only one of many absurdities I've seen in the business/purchasing world.  For example, back when I was traveling between Queensland and Tassie, I could buy a Queensland brewed carton of 30 cans of Powers Bitter for $19.95 in Launceston, yet that same carton of Queensland brew would cost $29.95 here in Brisbane. And the same was true of Boags Bitter. I could get that up here for $24.95 for 24 stubbies, yet in Launceston it was usually around the $36.95 mark.  How stupid, a carton of beer can travel across 3 states and still be cheaper than its place of origin.  Well that was the case until Coles and Woolworths bought into the liquor trade... now its being sold at the maximum rate they think the various state beer drinkers will pay... no cheap interstate beer for anyone. 

Another absurdity is Tasmanian grown potatoes going to a Victorian plant to be processed, shipped back again and being sold for half the price of the same producers potatoes that were processed locally.  Same with my brother-in-law's sheep/lambs.... slaughtered in Tasmania, sent to Victoria for packaging, then sent back and sold by Woolies for cheaper prices than the local butcher could hope to match.  But that's always the way with Woolies and Coles, killing off the small businesses and stifling competition.

Yes, I'm very cynical when it comes to big business[men], but then I've been around the traps enough to have heard enough businessman's thoughts and ideas on how they could screw customers and/or the competition to have an informed opinion.  Like when a Woolworths store manager happily tried to send me around to a greengrocer's in the same shopping centre to compare prices to undercut him, and to a butcher's to do the same, I'm fully aware that the order actually came from above and it's a nationwide practice intended to wipe out nearby small businesses.  I refused and was threatened with the sack, which didn't happen, but I quit anyway because working there no longer appealed.

That was only one of numerous things I despised about the various big businessmen I've known, and from what I've seen they're all pretty much tarred with the same brush, so yeah, businessmen in general deserve my distaste and cynicism, and I won't apologise for it, either.

Although Brad isn't as bad as most business people.  As far as businessmen go, Brad is better than most.