digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

TurboTax Online Charges Safari Users More

flickr.com — I decided to do my taxes today, so I open up Safari and go to turbotax.com. I decided to open up their site in Firefox as well and noticed a price difference. In Safari the price was $2 more for the Basic and $5 to $10 more for other packages. I took a screen shot of the two side by side and the layout is basically identical except for the cost.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • fittysix, on 10/12/2007, -182/+20First, that is a horrible screenshot, you can barely read the prices being the focus of the whole thing, let alone the details.

    Perhaps it has to do with development costs to support the browsers, personally I've never used the service but it's possible it relies on technologies more easily implemented in firefox than in safari. Or, perhaps this is bad browser detection in action and is assuming you're on windows if using firefox, and something on windows is easier to implement.
    • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -124/+184"Perhaps it has to do with development costs to support the browsers"

      Sorry to be harsh, but you are ignorant. If you stick to standards, there are NO extra development costs whatsoever.

    • surgen, on 10/12/2007, -78/+39"Sorry to be harsh, but you are ignorant. If you stick to standards, there are NO extra development costs whatsoever."

      Sorry to be harsh, but if you stick to standards, its NOT going to work the same in all browsers.
    • jonnyx, on 10/12/2007, -34/+8More importantly, does anybody have a working promo code for free or discounted filing on Turbotax?
    • Mr.Scientist, on 10/12/2007, -25/+194> If you stick to standards, there are NO extra development costs whatsoever.

      Spoken like someone who hasn't written a website of notable complexity. When it comes to standards, all browsers suck. They suck in different ways and some suck much more than others, but they all suck. "Stick to standards" is the kind of purity that only theory and unexperienced developers know. You don't rely on standards if you want the website to work with real browsers: Web design is 10% standards and 90% knowing where standards have no equivalence in the real world. It's sad, but there's no use denying it.
    • kjizzle, on 10/12/2007, -52/+55@theblooms

      Wow...you're a dumb ass. Try sticking to the standards when designing a site and then comparing a site in IE to one in FF. The next time you open your mouth to take a *****, you should know what you're talking about.
    • tjasond, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10johnnyx -
      If you have any accounts with State Farm and you register with their site: http://www.statefarm.com , you can use the online version of Turbo Tax for free. They did this last year as well, hopefully they'll continue to offer it. I did my taxes on it yesterday and it was actually very easy to use.
    • matgorb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+45I call *****, I can design complex layout website with 95% standard, and only 5% tweaking for cross-browser consistency (mostly targeted to IE, but I'm not bitter that's just life).
      I can understand that people from the table-era have difficulties to understand that it is feasible, but it is relatively easily achievable, once you learn or update the necessary knowledge of the trade.
      People who can't have mostly one problem : they have no proper method.
    • blaze03, on 10/12/2007, -22/+14Why are people digging theblooms up? That statement is 100% false, as any -professional- web designer can tell you.
    • leejae, on 10/12/2007, -11/+395% of computers are PC. So I guess they markup prices because of development costs that go to researching and making the stuff compatible to the rest of the 5%. It's unfortunate but reasonable.
    • MindStalker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2@jonnyx Just use IE you will be offered Free.
    • evilgold, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14At least mac people can use it. I had to use firefox in wine in order for it to work.

      http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/4492/screenshot1wa0.png
    • CryoNine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13It's most likely just random deals at random loads. Look at the URLs...

      $14.95 Federal (First visit, FireFox)
      http://turbotaxweb.turbotaxonline.intuit.com/?productid=2&customerSource=3468337910

      Same exact service as above, except free.
      http://turbotaxweb.turbotaxonline.intuit.com/?productid=512&customerSource=3468337910

      Note the productid variable. No prior visits to the site.
    • essjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9This is nothing new. Companies like Crucial have been called out for doing this before. Remember, the browser and OS you're using says an awfull lot about you and marketing types will pigeon hole you based on it.
    • Splizxer, on 10/12/2007, -15/+27Maybe they did it because Mac users are used to paying more?
    • DollaDollaBill, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5@Splizxer

      Haha... Zing!
    • aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@Mr.Scientist
      > If you stick to standards, there are NO extra development costs whatsoever.
      >>Spoken like someone who hasn't written a website of notable complexity. When it comes to standards, all browsers suck.

      Spoken like someone who does not understand the difference between an e-commerce coder/webdev and Dreamweaver/flash jockey with delusions of grandeur. Do you think flash where it's at? Do you use crappy editors like Visual Studio.net? Are you afraid of a little hand coded HTML templating?

      I have developed several e-comerce sites with dynamic skinning (white labelling) support for my employer. I have to say that I did not have too much difficulty maintaining compatibility with IE and Mozilla based browsers during my web development days. Standard HTML (and I really mean standard HTML) is not going to have any problems rendering on any browser. If you try to use bleeding edge CSS or javascript, you are going to have to develop some code branching in your routines to compensate for the differences but that should come par for the course. BTW, those sites still work great even in Safari even though I never tested against it. As far as I can tell, the current developer does not have access to Safari to test with but his code still works fine on most browsers.
    • tocleora, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I'm using Firefox in Linux, and I got the $16.95 price.
    • bobothn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@evilgold
      You can use firefox in linux on it. that just says that i you have an error they cant help you.
      It worked great for me i am using ubuntu 7.04herd4 with ff 2.0.0.1.
    • theotherme, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6No, its because Mac users pay overly inflated prices for everything. Its no surprise that Turbo Tax would take advantage as well.
    • HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fake the user agent in Safari maybe? Enough to trick Turbo Tax into thinking it's not Safari? Just a thought.
    • Mr.Scientist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@aristotle0dude:

      > Do you think flash where it's at?

      No. If I were making Flash websites, I'd have nothing to complain about. If Flash works, it works right. Flash has too many usability issues and search engine problems though, so it's always an add-on for me. The site has to work without it, and look nice too.

      > Do you use crappy editors like Visual Studio.net?

      No, I use a plain text editor with syntax highlighting and folding. I use external tools (some off-the-shelf, some self-made) for site management.

      > Are you afraid of a little hand coded HTML templating?

      No, it's the only way to produce lean and correct webpages.

      That said, in my experience coding to standards results in webpages that don't work anywhere, unless you have the experience to avoid the parts of the standards that are not implemented at all or not implemented right. Add an extra div here to avoid box model bugs, add a redundant class there to avoid unavailable css-selectors. 90% of the work is in the details, the obscure bugs. Even if the site validates and works in IE6, IE7 and Firefox 2, there's no guarantee it will work in Safari and Opera. Been there too often. That's not even counting the differences where there is no standard and the browser programmers are making stuff up as they go (mostly DHTML, event and plugin handling).
    • aussieNickuss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The only time it costs me to alter the look of a website is fitting in with IE. Every site I've built to standards have looked (almost) exactly the same in Firefox, Safari and Opera. It's only IE that cracks the ***** and wastes my time!

      It makes me furious.
    • schoate09, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Safari isn't standards compliant on a lot of things. Don't be fooled because Webkit passes the ACID test.
    • dieseltravis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1>>Perhaps it has to do with development costs to support the browsers
      >Sorry to be harsh, but you are ignorant. If you stick to standards, there are NO extra development costs whatsoever.

      I believe it is you who are ignorant. Even when developing standards-compliant, accessible, semantic sites, I've run into many issues with Safari. IE definitely is worse, but at least it has known, standards-compliant workarounds and hacks. I actually have an easier time supporting Opera than I do Safari. I think it goes without saying that Firefox is hands down the easiest to develop for.

      I'm sure the Mac-lovers are going to flame/digg down for this, but...
      Not to mention that you need a Mac to test in Safari. You can't put OSX in a virtual machine (legally) and Safari isn't available for any other OS. Everything else can be tested in a virtual machine. MS even gives one away for testing IE6. Whereas you have to upgrade OSX every time a new version of Safari comes out to test it.
  • scottcropper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+66Sorry, if you login to Flickr you can actually see the full size shot. Here is a link :

    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/125/394117549_06f4bf4df4_o.png

    I didn't think linking to the original size would work in the article itself and would force you to login to see it which is why I just linked to the regular flickr page.
    • fittysix, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6That works, thanks :)
    • Anand999, on 10/12/2007, -2/+47Have you tried clearing your cookies in both browsers and going back?

      There are tons of ways to get discounts at TurboTax. You might have at one point clicked through on one of these discount links and gotten a cookie in one of your browsers marking you as eligible for a specific discount. The other browser doesn't have this cookie so the discount doesn't show up.
    • Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Funny that... because when I go to the same site I get this:
      http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/949/fakexw1.png
      @Anand999
      Can't be that because the firefox prices are the default ones.
      Edit: Not the same page but you can still see the prices of the products.
    • ringo380, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Just tested it in IE vs Firefox, and ended up with a similar price difference, except that I was offered a "Free" version in Firefox, which wasn't available in the IE version.

      And I doubt it has to do with cookies. I just typed turbotax.com into both windows and hit enter. First time I've ever been there or visited anything even remotely related to turbotax.
    • mtekk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You guys need to look at the "Online Products" page, not the normal turbotax page. The page you want is http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax_products/online_products.jhtml. For the "Online Products" page IE 6 and Firefox 2.0 show the same prices, no difference at all. And I have never been to intuit's site on my computer before so cookies were not an issue.
    • mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Ha. With the IE tab in firefox it charges me more in IE. It is definitely a cookies thing.
    • mtekk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@mc7winkie:
      No it is not a cookie thing. The only way it would be is if clearing your cookies produced a different result.

      You guys need to check where you are going when "verifying" this. Now if you go to turbotax.com you may be directed to different pages based on browser, but the prices are the same.

      BTW: Did anyone notice that their little secure card icon (http://turbotax.intuit.com/fragments/mbox/213_Engaging_zone_1/images/secureIcon.gif) is the "contact-new" Tango Icon with the star overlaid with a padlock?
    • Tippis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ mtekk
      "You guys need to look at the "Online Products" page, not the normal turbotax page. The page you want is http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax_products/online_products.jhtml For the "Online Products" page IE 6 and Firefox 2.0 show the same prices, no difference at all. And I have never been to intuit's site on my computer before so cookies were not an issue."

      I saw a difference between Opera 9 and FF2 on Linux -- FF2 was offered the "Basic" setup for free -- but only on the first visit. Subsequent visits gave FF2 the same pricing as in Opera, even with cookies cleared. It could very well be something on *their* side, tied to IP or referer logging, or some such.
    • tuxuser, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1enough with the turbo tax *****
    • scottcropper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In response to Anand999 and some of the other questions...

      I opened Safari and typed in turbotax.com, then did the same thing in Firefox so I wasn't getting to their site via coupon links etc.

      Yes, I'm running the latest beta of Parallels. I opened IE and Firefox on XP to see what price they would get and I think it was the same as Firefox which is why I thought they were just charging Safari users more. I continued playing around with it and finally got Federal and e-filing for free like some have pointed out as possible.

      Still, all in all its a little weird. New Mac users would have just opened Safari and paid the higher price if that actually is the default for Safari browsers.
  • The_Larch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Prices show up the same for me in either browser.

    weird.

  • MF03, on 10/12/2007, -14/+45That's called price discrimination; it's a legal method, and is profit maxizing for the firm. Safari users are willing to pay more money to pay their taxes.

    Why? you might ask, are safari users willing to pay more?
    • Dissipate, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17Perhaps because they found out that the demographics of people using Safari have a different demand curve than those using Firefox or IE.
    • posure, on 10/12/2007, -38/+71I kind of like this idea...Apple users do have a tendency to over-pay for things (such as myself, with this overrated MacBook Pro I'm currently using).
    • 0siris, on 10/12/2007, -20/+9Or maybe its to pay for the added cost of developing software for a different platform.
    • SlackerCSB, on 10/12/2007, -33/+13TurboTax figures that the average Mac user overpaid for their computer... and aren't very intelligent... so what's a few more bucks out the window.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -24/+8Because they know that Apple fanboys ar already willing to pay more for less, so for them, paying more for the SAME is a bonus.
  • poet, on 10/12/2007, -24/+7Fake. Bury this *****.
  • jeffzeiders, on 10/12/2007, -3/+52I don't think Safari users would be willing to pay more if they knew they were paying more.
  • thenomad, on 10/12/2007, -21/+1I think, the safari special development costs should somehow be recouped from number of users which are much less than that of firefox or internet exploder.
    • johnpaul191, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9yeah, that's a good precedent to set.
  • ahoag, on 10/12/2007, -25/+6Wait... Safari is used for real work?
  • g2g079, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Also I've noticed if you go to turbotax.com its 14.95 for a federal efile; however, if you search for free e-file at google, one of the advertisers is turbotax.com. It redirects you to the same site except this time free.
  • o0o0llllll0o0o, on 10/12/2007, -26/+2They assume if you don't use MSIE, you're stupid....so why not charge more...........(:-o
    • Resolver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8except the browsers in question are firefox and safari, not internet explorer and safari.
  • johnsto, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4Either fake, OR they're assuming Safari users have more money and are more frugal because they're using a Mac.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9MORE frugal? How would someone assume that people are MORE frugal if they are willing to spend more money for less of a product? And um, Apple users are not more wealthy. That is a huge myth.
    • johnsto, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5oops, yeah, i meant LESS frugal. ahem...
    • Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3>>And um, Apple users are not more wealthy. That is a huge myth.

      Of course not -- they spent all their money on their computer. :P
  • mikeylopez, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6instead of calling this ***** moron why don't you try it., This same thing happens to IE users, they are charged more than Firefox users.
    • Ghengis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Not on my windows system... IE and FFox showed the same prices.
  • mbeast, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Why is there a Windows XP start menu on your Mac?
    • erikhensarling, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33Parallels Coherence Goodness
    • Ricapar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Because he is running Parallels.
    • JeffrySG, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3yeah, um... that's a bit odd.... ;-)
    • rolosworld, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15because he is using the new Mac OSXP!
    • TruckStuff, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6See the Parallels logo next to the clock? Its a virtualized version of XP.
  • zmigliozzi, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4video cards cost more in MACs as well, nothing new there.
  • mrosson, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4Could it be that they charge Firefox users less because they are smarter and are more likely to shop around for better alternatives? And the IE/Safari price is their normal price?
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Your comment proves that Firefox users are not smarter.
    • mrosson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3How does that make any less sense than them charging more for Safari users because they think they are stupider?
    • mozzep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1mrosson,

      those are two of the most absolutely ***** ridiculous comments I've ever read. Wow. You should leave your house occasionally.
  • gk128, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3Why is there a Windows XP task bar at the bottom and a OSX tool bar at the top?

    These are obviously Mac versions of the apps, but the Windows task bar at the bottom is weird.

    EDIT: I see above it's Parallels. That explains it.
    • m1ss1ontomars, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2"Why is there a Windows XP task bar at the bottom and a OSX tool bar at the top?"

      I really hope you're not serious.
    • greenldr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1If you had read the comments above yours you would see that the Windows task bar is because he is running XP using Parallels virtual software. That's right, on a Mac, you can run Mac OS X and Windows at the same time, or you can boot natively into either operating system.

      edit: you already figured it out...
  • benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4What no turbotax/microsoft conspiracy accusations?
    • manifestdata, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I'm waiting for it too benito, front page and not a single Bush or Microsoft accusation. Guess all the mac users went outside for once.
    • Beaver6813, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Bill Gates told them to up the prices for IE because he was told to by Bush because the majority of users use IE at the moment and Bush wants to keep people thinking that taxes are hard things to sort out :) Theres a conspiracy
  • ibeetle, on 10/12/2007, -13/+12Either fake or a mistake.

    I just checked it out. Firefox, and Safari show the site with the same prices. I even fired up Parallels and looked at Turbo Tax with IE and Firefox (Windows version). Same price as well.

    Marked Inaccurate.

    Sad this made the front page.
    • Kishoba, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3It's true. Firefox and IE have very different prices.
    • tuxracer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Actually I can confirm this. In fact I don't even get the option of the "Free" version when using Safari. (Oh, and the reason the guy has a Windows start menu on his screenshot is because he is using Parallels Desktop in coherence mode)

      http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=394555892&size=l
  • MrFoof82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I ran into this a few weeks ago. I had a "free" option under IE, but $15 under Safari, and a $25 option under Firefox.

    I started filing under IE, and turned off the Windows box. Went back to the Mac and continued using Firefox, and filing federal was still free (state filing still cost money, but it did under all the plans). You can't "downgrade" your plan once you start, so if you're already on a more expensive route, you'll need to create a new ID (and will have no history from other IDs from previous years).

    The other kick in the teeth is you can't print anything properly unless Acrobat Reader is installed. Nope, Preview doesn't count. So in some cases I was able to use Preview, and in others where I couldn't, I had to switch to Windows because I wasn't going to bog down my G4 Mini with Acrobat Reader. Royal PITA.
    • IllBeBack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Your computer is so slow that you can't even put Acrobat Reader software on it? WTF?
  • manifestdata, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Is digg the new place for people to whine about absolutely everything? This is going to sound really weird to you scott but have you tried ***** GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE. You could try doing it yourself, I think it costs somewhere around $0. But you are right, it is probably easier to come here to digg and hope that everyones tears can collectively save you $2.
    • coldfusion1970, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think hes doing everyone a service by pointing this out.
      If i needed this service i would now be aware that i cant use Safari or IE.
  • LaurenceHerbert, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3This is fake.
  • motherwell, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3use Firefox. Safari is garbage
  • edm1950, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0It's the special apple price. Why would one overpay for their computer then scrimp on software? Sheesh
  • loqqq, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5"Stupid" tax.
    • NoNameHere, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3If only we had one that were well-applied.
    • PalmerEldritch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There is a stupid tax... it's called the lottery which is basically a tax on people who are bad at math.
  • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5First of all, I love how they are charging $15 to fill out the 1040EZ form.

    If people can't figure out how to fill out the 1040EZ form by themselves, then they don't make enough money to pay that $15. When I still qualified for the 1040EZ, I would ave my taxes done the day after all my forms arrived and had my tax refund by mid-February.
    • m1ss1ontomars, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3either that, or they don't deserve that $15 they made.
  • mtributino, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3R all u guys morons? This is fake, i tried it. Why would someone be running parralels to compare price quotes on turbotax.com? Bury
    • m1ss1ontomars, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7He wasn't running Parallels to quote the prices; it happened to be running in the background when he took the screenshot. Parallels has nothing to do with whether this screenshot is fake. Not only that, but it doesn't matter if it's fake. If we see a $34.95 price for the second one, we open another browser. If we don't, we buy it.

      Also realize that the software in question is spelled "Parallels" (see the parallel Ls in the middle?). Clearly, you're the moron here.
  • justinwalden, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This might simply be Turbo Tax testing out new prices. This happens all the time. Whenever Netflix announced that they were offering video streaming, I noticed that in firefox it told me the starting price for Netflix was $5.99, in IE it was $4.99. It was the other way around on another computer. I imagine they test to see what percent buy at what prices and then do calculations to find the highest yield.

    I somehow doubt that this is a purely Safari thing, although it'd be interesting seeing that Safari users are probably more willing to pay premiums.
    • CybrMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree, probably just testing pricing.
  • jeffzeiders, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I just checked and I received the opposite results. Firefox was more expensive than Safari - looks like something is buggy with TurboTax's site.

    Screenshot:
    http://www.jeffzeiders.com/turbotax.png
  • metafore, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5LOL.

    it's about time marketers exploit the fact that mac users are willing to pay more for the chicness of using a mac :)
    much love to my mac friends.
  • m1ss1ontomars, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3bury this.
  • hman2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Now it appears that there's no basic option in Safari, only a free one, while there's a 14.95 basic option in Firefox.
  • mtributino, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Digg is being ruined by this garbage making it to the front page. This site has become "popular" and now morons come and post dumb sh*ty stories about anything. I remember when this was a "tech" site. This is total bullsh*t. F*ck Digg.
  • RomeyRome, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Mine was only $9.99 (Safari).
  • CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Mac users are used to paying more for things anyways. How is this news?
  • justinwalden, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sorry to double post, however I was eventually able to get my computer to do something similar.
    Notice how firefox gets the $15 IE option for free. Interestingly, you might notice the descriptions are different too.
    (In regards to that Netflix anecdote, Netflix actually changed their price to $4.99 presumably after their price testing)

    My shoddy screenshot:
    http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1371/untitledwa5.jpg
    • theratster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Maybe its because firefox users are generally more tech-savvy than internet explorer users, and so they know that FF users would be looking harder to find a good deal/coupons etc.
    • thereisnospoon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3http://i15.tinypic.com/30aghle.png

      4 browsers - 3 different prices

      Firefox (top left) and Camino (bottom left) were the same 14.95...
      Safari (top right) shows 16.95 and Opera (bottom right) shows the Free one...

      weird
  • lashner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I used to work for Turbo's competition. I'm sure they're doing something similar to what we did.

    They're trying to figure out what price points will get the highest conversion ratio. Nothing more. We called it A/B testing. You have a control and then a number of variations of the control. Each version gets a percentage of the traffic. Numbers are crunched and the "winner" is chosen.

    Has nothing to do with browser/OS and everything to do with them trying to make the most money.
    • justinwalden, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There's even a variable called splitABTestPriorityCode. Can't seem to manipulate it to get the different prices. But if anybody cared to get the cheapest prices: just keep clearing your cookies and trying again, seems to be completely random and not based on useragent. I've been able to get 3-4 different combinations of prices in the same browser.

      (And for the love of god people, this isn't a "glitch" nor does it have anything to do with apple users)
    • RandoTheKing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well that honestly wouldn't yeld great results considering more than 60% (pretty sure it's a lot more than that actually) of internet users still use IE...
    • theantix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@lashner: thank you for being the only reasonable commenter on this whole page. Web based companies do this sort of thing all the time, I know the one I work for uses it to test customer reactions to different discounts, ads, page layouts. It's a much better way to determine customer behaviour than focus groups, you can actually see what people really do rather than what you think they will do or what they say they would do.
  • gallyjh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I never had this problem when I used it. In fact I also used these coupons:

    http://www.dealtaker.com/turbotaxcoupon.html
  • landmonster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That happened to me before buying RAM from one of the biggest online RAM dealers. At the same desk with a Windows machine and a Mac the Mac was more expensive for exactly the same product.
  • madeingermany, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Submit a Tax Rap Video"
    what have they been smoking?
  • dupswapdrop, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Apple people just like to pay more for their stuff, it helps them feel less inferior!
  • andocom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I just tried with IE7 and FF on XP and there was indeed different prices, Deluxe is $34.95 in IE and $29.95 in FF. Both pages were loaded from the top result in a google search, so referrer was the the same.

    It does indeed look like they are quoting less based on browser, which is pretty crazy if true. I imagine someone might be getting a "WTF" call from Microsoft.
  • YEMandy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1It's the same price for me in both Firefox and Safari on my mac. Can we burry this now?
  • haveacigar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Maby they just figure mac users can afford more?

    Im not mac bashing.. i was surprisingly impressed when i tried one out today at pcworld...
  • brw3245, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I don't really think that those who think Apple users pay more for their computers and "get less" understand. First getting less would mean that we are somehow buying an inferior product. I can assure you, I have been a PC user since I was 14 years old and have never had more dependable computers than since I switched to Mac.

    Second, as an example I will share something that happened just this week. I was casually browsing ebay for a MacBook Pro to replace my MacBook (not that there was anything wrong with it, I just wanted something more powerful). I found an excellent deal and ultimately won the auction for the MBP. Because I no longer needed the MB, I sold it for $1000. Which is only $300 less than I paid for it. Now you tell me anywhere where you can sell a PC for anywhere close to the what was paid for it.

    Mac user's aren't stupid. I for one happen to enjoy superior products that hold their value and provide stable reliable computing experiences. I am not trying to convert anyone here because I could care less what you look at your porn on, but seriously, all the comments about Apple user's paying too much are obviously coming from the mouths of people who are ignorant of the topic. Are BMW owners paying too much? I would say no. While you could buy a KIA and have the same utility ( the KIA and the BMW will get you from point A to point B) the value and user experience is different. So PC users... enjoy your KIA's)

    Now back to the topic, I use safari and I didn't pay anything to turbo tax except for 9.95 for efile.
    • pseudosoma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Thank you. There seems to be a lot of blind Mac hate and love on this site. I thought it was going to be a site for non-biased discussions by people in the tech field but I guess I was mistaken. Anyhow, I don't get where people get the belief that Mac users don't mind overpaying. See, we don't think we are overpaying. If you price notebooks there are a few Core 2 Duo notebooks cheaper than a Mac Book but, at least in my opinion, you don't get the overall quality. But, that's just my opinion. Anyhow, there seems to be something wrong with the site and/or people are getting to the site through discounted links.
  • mehtajr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I filed my taxes with Turbotax in Safari this week-- $14.95 for federal, same as the "Firefox price." Must be a glitch.
  • austintexasguy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Actually this isn't a bad idea. People like to bitch when a company's site doesn't work on anything but IE, so why not just have the users that use non-standard web browsers pay for the support of their client. TurboTax for Lynx anyone? :D
  • madbeatchemist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1i noticed this too, IE was 14.95 and firefox was free, and this was using Windows XP. Damn and I was surely hoping Intuit was charging Mac users up the ass for this one. Oh well!

    My screenshot:
    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/394561107_03f10eb99a_b.jpg
  • kolanos, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3It's well known amongst objective minded people that Mac users are willing to spend more for the same product/service that they can get elsewhere.
    • crossthread, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It's well known that asshats like yourself believe that.
  • truegodofwar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is weird. Firefox is actually cheaper.

    http://img380.imageshack.us/my.php?image=turbotaxpriceta1.png
  • jumpglider, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I just checked using safari and got the same price as the "firefox" user.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.