If you are creating a Windows binary and expect a user to download it, you should be signing the binary. Period. It's not just IE that considers unsigned downloads suspect, many antivirus programs do as well. If you are proud of your work, sign it.
This is one of the things that infuriates me about StackOverflow and its army of article closing moderators. A real community will change its practices and perceptions over time according to the needs of the community. If you have a subset of people who decide what a site is for, forever and ever without change, then it's not a community, it's a cast. Or it's a system of castes.
That said, their customer service has been very good and very prompt.
It is at least 55 dolars too high.
$60 sounds a little high to me, but if you think you could do it for substantially less, why not set yourself up in competition with them?
If you're on Windows, one thing to keep in mind is to use IE or Firefox when buying the cert. After the purchase is approved, you need to navigate to the site in the same browser that you purchased it, and only IE and FF are supported.
My family taught me to always do the right thing, which, most of the time, is neither the most convenient nor the most profitable.
It should be trivial to provide a free binary signing service that required some steps to prove the person (or website) is the person asking the binary to be signed (much like Google asks me to upload a file or setup a DNS record) and match the file signature to the URL of the download. Let's not forget every one who would rely on it already paid for a license of Windows.
Of course, this would probably kill download sites, but the internet would be better off without them anyway.
It's obvious in hindsight, but since I hadn't released many Windows applications in the past, I didn't realize what I didn't know.