Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Doorman's Fallacy in action

rozumem.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 326 posts

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#71

Post by hoherd »

cactacea wrote: post #24

> But when 6 people simultaneously tried to pay their share of the bill, chaos ensued. I'm guessing the author has never worked as a server themselves... Is there any part of the world you can have a six top with individual checks when you didn't tell them up front to split the bill? As an American this just seems obvious to me but maybe the expectation is different in Dubai.

Before electronic POS systems accounted for this, we'd just split the bill evenly. I didn't like that solution either though because it rewarded people who ordered expensive food or lots of food, and that was never me. I even quit going to lunch with big groups of coworkers because of that.

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#72

Post by Joker_vD »

godelski wrote: post #57
rwmj wrote: post #5

What the article misses is that money is saved for the company by moving the work to the customer / end user. It's the same thing with sending parcels, where I must now sit on my computer at home filling in a complicated online form and printing out my own labels. This takes me like 30 minutes, but saves time and money for the Post Office (not for me!) There's no downside for the company here, especially when they ar…

> that money is saved for the company Sure, but you're not taking into account how much it costs the company. This is the definition of "penny wise, pound foolish". Nothing is really "free" Here's a good example: you know how every terminal begs for tips? And the percentage is increasing? (In San Jose I saw by middle number as 25%!!). It looks free, but guess what, I'm more likely to not come back and press "no tip"…

> Nothing is really "free".

There are economies of scale though, plus expertise. That's why we normally buy clothes instead of spinning, cutting, and sewing textiles ourselves.

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#73

Post by cyclotron3k »

rwmj wrote: post #5

What the article misses is that money is saved for the company by moving the work to the customer / end user. It's the same thing with sending parcels, where I must now sit on my computer at home filling in a complicated online form and printing out my own labels. This takes me like 30 minutes, but saves time and money for the Post Office (not for me!) There's no downside for the company here, especially when they ar…

> What the article misses is that money is saved for the company by moving the work to the customer / end user.

It doesn't miss it. The whole framing of the article is the Dooman Fallacy - an organisation trying to save money by shifting [apparently] menial work to the customer ends up losing more than they save.

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#74

Post by paxys »

The real fallacy is your assumption that the business doesn’t expect the hit in customer experience. In reality they have thought about the consequence and made the conscious decision to not care.

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#75

Post by cyclotron3k »

jcoletti wrote: post #8

I agree, but multiple people can scan a QR code simultaneously.

This article doesn't land for me. The author complains about having to scan the code in sequence, but overlooks the fact that a waiter/waitress/till can only serve one person at time. And as you say, multiple people can scan a QR code, _and_ it would be trivial to print more.

Maybe I missed the point, but the aside about parking metres seems irrelevant. Just makes me think this is an anti-technology rant.

And again, the gripe about splitting up the bill. Not only is that a problem with existing systems, it's a problem that is solved by QR codes (if implemented correctly).

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#76

Post by milesvp »

mhb wrote: post #27
devindotcom wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget self check out at the grocery store. I don't mind personally (I find ways to make it worth my while..) but it's a version of the same thing. Shifting labor under the guise of convenience. Like all the other versions of this, the savings are absorbed by the company, not passed on to the consumer. It's rare that the opposite happens.

> the savings are absorbed by the company, not passed on to the consumer How do you come to this conclusion without a deep dive into a supermarket's finances?

You don’t need a deep dive to see supermarket consolidation that keeps happening year after year. When there is less competition to drive down prices, it is very safe to say to assume that consumers will get less and less surplus for any change a grocery makes.

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#77

Post by senordevnyc »

saulpw wrote: post #28
orangecat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self checkout is absolutely more convenient if you're not buying a lot. (I find ways to make it worth my while..) If that means what it sounds like, congratulations on accelerating the descent to a low-trust society.

Blaming this individual for 'accelerating the descent' is like blaming a hobo for catching a ride on a runaway train going downhill. The ensuing trainwreck is already inevitable, at least you can get part of a ride out of it!

The trainwreck is only "inevitable" (which, incidentally, it isn't, but put that aside for now) because of individuals making choices that benefit them personally at the expense of the common good.

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#78

Post by chowells »

irjustin wrote: post #68

I am on the other end of the spectrum. I enjoy QR ordering. I dislike talking to people. Upselling me is not a thing. I can take as long as I want. I don't have to flag/bother someone. No one screws it up except me. I see exactly what's on my bill.

You're describing an interaction with a good server at a good business. (Off of peak hours, if you can take hours and they don'thave anything to say about it.) What do QR codes add except for technical issues?

I honestly cannot recall the last time a server tried to upsell me with even as much as a "do you want a dessert?". But... I suppose that's selection bias. I only go to restaurants that don't require servers to do that BS. They don't want to do it either, you know?

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#79

Post by jordwest »

margalabargala wrote: post #56
saulpw wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming this individual for 'accelerating the descent' is like blaming a hobo for catching a ride on a runaway train going downhill. The ensuing trainwreck is already inevitable, at least you can get part of a ride out of it!

The trainwreck isn't inevitable, though it's caused by mass theft, or in your analogy too many hobos on the train.

It's not at all caused by the train company hiking their fees while neglecting maintenance to increase profit margins to railway shareholders

Re: The Doorman's Fallacy in action

#80

Post by senordevnyc »

DanHulton wrote: post #70
rwmj wrote: post #5

What the article misses is that money is saved for the company by moving the work to the customer / end user. It's the same thing with sending parcels, where I must now sit on my computer at home filling in a complicated online form and printing out my own labels. This takes me like 30 minutes, but saves time and money for the Post Office (not for me!) There's no downside for the company here, especially when they ar…

> What the article misses is that money is saved for the company by moving the work to the customer / end user. What? No, you're making the Doorman fallacy here, explicitly. The company THINKS they're saving money by pushing the work to the customer/end user, but there's more to wait staff than just taking orders and payment - they provide the ability to smooth over any difficulties experienced during the meal, they…

Someone giving a pretty basic idea a catchy name like the doorman fallacy doesn't mean that any replacement of humans with automation is a net loss for the company. Lots of automation can be very profitable, even if some positive things are lost in the bargain.

Incidentally, the vast, vast majority of residential buildings don't have doormen, and wouldn't be more profitable by the addition of one.

Post reply on HN