Most active commenters
  • Karunamon(4)
  • DashRattlesnake(3)

←back to thread

Amazon Go

(amazon.com)
1247 points mangoman | 16 comments | | HN request time: 0.429s | source | bottom
Show context
elicash ◴[] No.13105963[source]
I worked at a grocery store for several years, and one thing I recall is customers CONSTANTLY putting items back in a random aisle, rather than where they found it.

I wonder how this tech deals with that? Maybe they figured that out, too. But I was amused in the video when I saw the customer putting it back where it belonged, because that's not how I remember that going...

All that said, this is fantastic and exciting.

Edit: I also hope they're already thinking about EBT cards and WIC.

replies(26): >>13105994 #>>13106026 #>>13106046 #>>13106095 #>>13106097 #>>13106098 #>>13106177 #>>13106252 #>>13106276 #>>13106292 #>>13106365 #>>13106391 #>>13106456 #>>13106541 #>>13106638 #>>13106641 #>>13107002 #>>13107318 #>>13107752 #>>13108231 #>>13108233 #>>13108570 #>>13110608 #>>13110959 #>>13111172 #>>13170269 #
kirykl ◴[] No.13106095[source]
Avoiding getting charged is an incentive to put it back in the right place that doesn't exist currently. Maybe not even where you picked up just a discard area
replies(4): >>13106228 #>>13106338 #>>13106366 #>>13107454 #
1. DashRattlesnake ◴[] No.13106338[source]
Honestly, that's an "incentive" that should be illegal. You should only get charged for something if you actually take it home or use it. Anything else is a cop out to push the costs of a deficient system onto the user/customer.
replies(4): >>13106498 #>>13106817 #>>13106983 #>>13107642 #
2. Karunamon ◴[] No.13106498[source]
It's the store's fault when you selfishly and silently put perishable goods in non-refrigerated areas so they can spoil? IMO the store would have the right to charge you with destruction of property, if not the cost of the goods they're now out entirely due to your actions.

The number of people that never learned "put stuff back where you got it" from their parents is astounding.

replies(4): >>13106628 #>>13107267 #>>13107518 #>>13110507 #
3. monsieurbanana ◴[] No.13106628[source]
> It's the store's fault when you selfishly and silently put perishable goods in non-refrigerated areas so they can spoil?

I find it really annoying when people put words into somebody's mouth.

Misplaced perishable goods are certainly a problem, but not the one they're discussing right now.

replies(1): >>13106740 #
4. Karunamon ◴[] No.13106740{3}[source]
We are talking about people misplacing goods in a store, are we not?

Perishable goods are a subclass of goods in a store, are they not?

replies(1): >>13107159 #
5. TulliusCicero ◴[] No.13106817[source]
Why? If it's understood that the way the system works is that it's in your 'virtual cart' as soon as you take it off the shelf, why isn't it the customer's job to put it back if they don't want it anymore? There are other checkoutless systems that use the customer scanning a barcode as they pick up each item; same deal there.
replies(2): >>13109219 #>>13109239 #
6. veritas20 ◴[] No.13106983[source]
Interesting considering the case of hotel mini-bars. In some cases, you get charged regardless of use it. If it senses that you removed the item, you will be charged.
7. ◴[] No.13107159{4}[source]
8. digler999 ◴[] No.13107267[source]
It sounds like the careless actions of the general public really bother you. Let me tell you something: grocery stores are low margin retailers who make their money by volume of sale, not enforcing conformity. The moment you open your doors to the public, you are going to get all kinds of mentally ill, aloof, high/drunk, distracted, disabled, elderly/senile, and (literally) retarded people in your store. It's futile to judge their actions using your idealist looking glasses.

The moment you start kicking people out over subjective "rule-violations", you are eating into your own profits, pissing off people, and projecting your own morality onto strangers. Aunt Minny may have set down that roast because it hurts her hip to walk across the store, and she realizes she already bought a roast yesterday. But over the last 10 years she's spent $25,000 shopping there. Some guy with Crohn's disease may literally shit on your floor if he doesn't drop his perishable item and run home/to the rest room. If both of those people are regular shoppers, sure the lost perishable item eats into your bottom line, but in the long run you are making a profit off them.

Waging an unnecessary morality war can only impede your ability to run a profitable business.

Edit: why not just give employees handheld IR thermometers, and if the temperature of the product is < $MEAT_MAX or $VEGGIE_MAX degrees then allow them to restock it.

replies(1): >>13108000 #
9. TheOneTrueKyle ◴[] No.13107518[source]
The number of people who think that people had parents growing up is astounding! -_-
10. kirykl ◴[] No.13107642[source]
if the costs of the products are reduced along with the operating and spoilage costs then its a net + to the customer, which aligns with Amazon's basic value propisition
11. Karunamon ◴[] No.13108000{3}[source]
It sounds like the careless actions of the general public really bother you.

That's accurate. Ask me how many times I wish I could find the guy that carelessly tossed a cart out in the parking lot (given easily accessible corrals) which subsequently bashed into the side of my car. Or found a packet of hamburger (with accompanying drippy juices) in with the toys. Or...

The moment you start kicking people out over subjective "rule-violations", you are eating into your own profits, pissing off people, and projecting your own morality onto strangers.

Leaving aside the misuse of the word subjective, this is why we avoid the "kicking out" part altogether and use financial incentives instead. It's no different than, say, ALDI charging you a quarter to get a cart (that you get back if, and only if, you put the cart away). Put stuff back where you found it like a civilized person, and there's never a problem.

12. ◴[] No.13109219[source]
13. DashRattlesnake ◴[] No.13109239[source]
Why is it the customer's responsibility to figure out and comply with the rules of your (nonstandard) system to avoid getting charged for something they don't intend to buy and didn't in fact use or take out of the store?

There are all kinds of reasons why that is unreasonable:

* different stores might have systems with different rules and policies, causing confusion;

* people may not remember where to return the item;

* the magic machine-learning system might glitch and not recognize the item was replaced, and you probably won't notice since there's little feedback from the "virtual cart" since you're not interacting with it directly;

* another glitch could put another customer's item in your "virtual cart", so you have nothing to return;

* etc.

Systems like this should fail in customer-friendly ways, and "item returned to the wrong place" is a kind of failure.

replies(1): >>13172434 #
14. DashRattlesnake ◴[] No.13110507[source]
> It's the store's fault when you selfishly and silently put perishable goods in non-refrigerated areas so they can spoil?

It's incorrect and misleading to talk like that malicious use case is the only one at play here.

replies(1): >>13110967 #
15. Karunamon ◴[] No.13110967{3}[source]
Malicious is probably not the right word, more like thoughtless and lazy. The same mentality that leads people to abandon carts willy nilly in the parking lot.
16. TulliusCicero ◴[] No.13172434{3}[source]
> Why is it the customer's responsibility to figure out and comply with the rules of your (nonstandard) system to avoid getting charged for something they don't intend to buy and didn't in fact use or take out of the store?

Because that's the store's policy. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to shop there.