Like, how long I hesitated before I picked up something, what I had already in my "cart" at the time, what deals I looked at but passed on, etc.
Like, how long I hesitated before I picked up something, what I had already in my "cart" at the time, what deals I looked at but passed on, etc.
I'm not sure it buys them anything, though. That's a very noisy signal against the loud-and-clear signal of what the measurements say when you come in to the doctor. Who cares what your shopping habits say when you come in with high blood pressure and morbid obesity, or good blood pressure and normal weight?
The change is specifically in in-store behavior. And even that's more because Amazon has the money and skillset to fund the software; the supermarkets already have the data in the sense that they have the video streams, they just don't have the money to fund people running beyond-cutting-edge vision research on it to get that level of analysis.
And they are not technology companies.
I agree with you, a lot of that data would already be available. The question is how much more willing Amazon would be to sell the data, compared to supermarket chains. Probably it's not difference.
I was just extrapolating what the OP meant.
I personally would really love shopping like that.
>Information about our customers is an important part of our business, and we are not in the business of selling it to others.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...
Amazon, and many other companies, do plenty of things that don't "make sense".
But still I generally pay with cc/debit cards so the banks still know where, not necessarily what, but how much I spent.
They don't have to give up the core data asset to be useful to insurance companies in this case. They just have to do something like give people a health score or something similar.