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

Amazon Go

amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: Amazon Go

#491

Post by delegate »

mikeash wrote: post #423
delegate wrote: post #387

Look, I know this might not be a popular view here on HN, but I think this is useless. And bad. I'm not talking about the technology behind it (I think it's an amazing achievement).. I live in Barcelona and I have at least 5 medium-sized supermarkets within 5 minutes walking distance from my home. Plus there are several smaller shops that sell fruits and vegetables. I know all the people who work in these supermarket…

If that's true, then you have nothing to fear. People will pay extra to shop at stores with human cashiers, and the machine-driven stores will not be able to compete. However, I suspect that when presented with the choice, people will take the machine store in exchange for lower prices. And I suspect that you suspect the same thing, otherwise you wouldn't be concerned.

Yes, I think you're right and that's why I think this is bad.

Economically it makes more sense to buy cheaper and faster. But this eats into the fabric of society and offers nothing in exchange.

And what are all these people supposed to do then ? Sleep all day ? They will fight back with their votes at first, which they are already doing in the US and Europe..

Then there's the centralisation, control and privacy part - amazon gets to decide what products your area will be supplied with, it gets to know your eating habits, your walking habits, etc. Will pretty much own you and the neighbourhood.

But then again, I don't really see an alternative - it seems that we're being 'innovated' by force into the future and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

Re: Amazon Go

#492

Post by jarjoura »

mikeash wrote: post #423
delegate wrote: post #387

Look, I know this might not be a popular view here on HN, but I think this is useless. And bad. I'm not talking about the technology behind it (I think it's an amazing achievement).. I live in Barcelona and I have at least 5 medium-sized supermarkets within 5 minutes walking distance from my home. Plus there are several smaller shops that sell fruits and vegetables. I know all the people who work in these supermarket…

If that's true, then you have nothing to fear. People will pay extra to shop at stores with human cashiers, and the machine-driven stores will not be able to compete. However, I suspect that when presented with the choice, people will take the machine store in exchange for lower prices. And I suspect that you suspect the same thing, otherwise you wouldn't be concerned.

I don't actually think it'll be a difference in monetary value. I suspect machine run markets will feel cold and lifeless, while human run ones will feel warm and welcoming.

I've been to restaurants where you order from a terminal and your only human contact is someone who delivers your food without a word. There were a bunch of them at one point and they all closed down, and I don't remember thinking they were cheaper or more expensive at the time. I just remember feeling like the experience of going out with friends to a restaurant felt diminished.

Also at one point, Home Depot and Lowes switched to a majority of self checkout lines, but all that did was move everyone over to the "old fashioned" lines that ended up taking 3x as long to check out, but people continue to do this.

Re: Amazon Go

#493

Post by [deleted] »

giarc wrote: post #117
bluelu wrote: post #81

Maybe they also weight you when enter and leave the store. They can then cross check your weight with the weight of the items you have bought.

I can't tell if your comment is tongue in cheek or not, but I highly doubt they will make people weigh themselves when they walk in. If they aren't confident in their image recognition technology they would improve it rather than throw in an additional method of tracking.

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Go

#494

Post by throwaway77127 »

If the merchandise is as bad as the books they ship (faded pages, water damage, ..), no thanks.

I don't need Deep Learning[tm] when I go to a supermarket. Also, they should really have integrated The Blockchain[tm] in the buzzwords.

Nevertheless, this is good for Bitcoin.

Re: Amazon Go

#495

Post by amscanne »

Spare_account wrote: post #143
mankyd wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are non-shoplifters going to be turned into shoplifters without a checkout? One could respond that you can never truly shop lift if you follow the rules. First, you have to check in when you enter. Second, they tell you to grab and go. As long as you don't try to be malicious about it, then it's on Amazon to figure out what to charge you for. If they fail to see something, that's on them.

Presumably there will be some terms and conditions that require you to examine the receipt for the visit and make good any omissions. I don't suppose it would be impossible for Amazon to protect themselves from this kind of loss.

It seems to be that as long as you're malicious (I.e. deliberately hiding items), then that's on them. At least that's what the implied contract is to me. Otherwise it's just a "self checkout" app.

Re: Amazon Go

#496

Post by davidw »

subdane wrote: post #473
crazypyro wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to save jobs that are no longer the most efficient way of solving a problem is not the way to promote the value of humanity, in my opinion. People want groceries as cheap and fast as possible. They don't go to the grocery store for social interaction and forcing the majority of people to pay extra for something that only the minority get value out of is not a competitive strategy. If humanity were to take your…

This makes sense from a suburban, car-based perspective. From a walking, city-based lens, neighborhoods and social interactions make a lot of sense. It's why coffee shops haven't been made obsolete by vending machines - at least here in New York. Point is, it depends on your perspective.

I think it makes sense whatever way you get around. If people value something, by and large, they'll pay for it.

Most people want to get their shopping done quickly and efficiently.

However, I could easily see niches keeping people around. The first thing that comes to mind is a higher end sort of place where customers want some knowledgeable help in selecting what they're buying. Spend some money on a few people who know their products well and give good advice, and maybe have time for some chit chat.

Re: Amazon Go

#497

Post by digler999 »

lmkg wrote: post #398
digler999 wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you fire entitled customers. That would be fine in the ages before social media. Now everyone "takes to twitter" and tries to organize a social pitchfork campaign. The victimhood mentality is real. People get off on the celebrity from being wronged by a big bad corporation. It wouldn't be long before some jerk posts a video of himself leaving a roast on the cereal aisle and being '86'ed from the store, then post…

Unless you make it "your thing." Take for example the Alamo Drafthouse, a chain of movies theaters that are aggressive in removing patrons that disrupt other viewers' experience. In the few times that people have tried to complain, the company has generally come out of it for the better. I will admit this strategy won't work for everyone. Most corporations are not willing to respond to a complaint by using social med…

who's got more profit: Alamo Drafthouse or Regal Cinemas ? Or rather, if you own X-thousand shares of XYZ corp, do you want them to "aggressively wage morality war" at the cost of $1.00/share, or maximize profits ?

Re: Amazon Go

#498

Post by alvil »

delegate wrote: post #387

Look, I know this might not be a popular view here on HN, but I think this is useless. And bad. I'm not talking about the technology behind it (I think it's an amazing achievement).. I live in Barcelona and I have at least 5 medium-sized supermarkets within 5 minutes walking distance from my home. Plus there are several smaller shops that sell fruits and vegetables. I know all the people who work in these supermarket…

Sorry I can upvote your comment only once!

Re: Amazon Go

#499

Post by zepto »

mikeash wrote: post #423
delegate wrote: post #387

Look, I know this might not be a popular view here on HN, but I think this is useless. And bad. I'm not talking about the technology behind it (I think it's an amazing achievement).. I live in Barcelona and I have at least 5 medium-sized supermarkets within 5 minutes walking distance from my home. Plus there are several smaller shops that sell fruits and vegetables. I know all the people who work in these supermarket…

If that's true, then you have nothing to fear. People will pay extra to shop at stores with human cashiers, and the machine-driven stores will not be able to compete. However, I suspect that when presented with the choice, people will take the machine store in exchange for lower prices. And I suspect that you suspect the same thing, otherwise you wouldn't be concerned.

Your logic doesn't hold.

The unstated assumption is that the people using the stores have sufficient capital to value interaction with people over lower prices.

You can imagine that if the shoppers also worked in jobs where their humanity was valued, they might have this capital, but that's not the case for most of us because we work in systems that trade humanity for efficiency and the value extracted is captured by a tiny elite.

If you look at what that elite spends money on, it is exactly more personalized human interaction.

The problem is an artifact of people making choices in a system that concentrates wealth in the hands of a tiny few, and nothing to do with what people in general prefer.

Re: Amazon Go

#500

Post by CrLf »

Ph0X wrote: post #469
CrLf wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am unsure we are evolving. We have evolved in many areas that solve real problems, like healthcare and such, but I'm not sure today's society is any better for all the technology that allows us to save a couple of minutes in a queue. To improve the efficiency of a particular group, we create problems elsewhere. The result may not be net positive. In fact, I think it isn't, since those saved "couple of minutes" will…

The point isn't that we save 2 minutes, it's that there's now 10 less job we need. And that may seem as a negative at first, but the idea is that as more and more job get automated, prices should go down until the point where people will not have to work full weeks anymore, or rather, focus on learning and reaching higher education, rather than doing dummy work all day (aka just scanning items non stop for 8 hours).

The Earth's population isn't getting any lower, those 10 jobs lost mean 10 people that will need support from the rest of society, just to survive.

It's utopian to think job losses mean everybody gets their workload reduced, as this has never happened before. Automation has never reduced anybody's workloads. In fact, every reduction has happened to either eliminate de-facto slaves (industrial revolution) or because excessive workloads actually reduce productivity.

Post reply on HN