←back to thread

Amazon Go

(amazon.com)
1247 points mangoman | 1 comments | 05 Dec 16 14:57 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
elicash ◴[05 Dec 16 15:31 UTC] 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 #
makecheck ◴[05 Dec 16 16:28 UTC] No.13106541[source]▶
One interesting benefit of the “detect removal from shelf” concept is that there might finally be a time stamp associated with the removal of the item.

Right now, if you see a random perishable item sitting on a shelf, you HAVE to throw it away because it could have been there for a long time. On the other hand, if you can see that some Frozen Peas were only taken off the shelf 2 minutes ago, you can just put them back and they’ll be fine.

Although, what I’d really want is not only the time stamp but the customer. I’m sorry but if you cost the store $25 by leaving a damned ROAST in the cereal aisle, I would be perfectly happy to never let you in the store again.

replies(5): >>13106589 #>>13106649 #>>13106687 #>>13107061 #>>13107485 #
0xfeba ◴[05 Dec 16 16:39 UTC] No.13106649[source]▶
> I'm sorry but if you cost the store $25 by leaving a damned ROAST in the cereal aisle, I would be perfectly happy to never let you in the store again.

Wouldn't a better solution be to charge the customer for the roast and if they complain, you explain: "sorry, you didn't put it on the proper shelf, the technology considers that as a purchase", and possibly eat the cost in the form of some incentive to come back to try to keep them. The ones that don't complain either didn't notice, or they don't care enough to stop shopping, or they won't come back like you suggest.

The ones that complain get it taken care of, the ones that don't don't cost you anything. Win-win-break even?

replies(6): >>13106753 #>>13106784 #>>13106998 #>>13107074 #>>13107356 #>>13108549 #
cpmsmith ◴[05 Dec 16 16:49 UTC] No.13106753{3}[source]▶
IMO, any messaging in the format "sorry, $thingYouDid, the technology considers that as $notWhatYouDid" is a recipe for customer loss.
replies(3): >>13106774 #>>13106852 #>>13107049 #
Declanomous ◴[05 Dec 16 16:57 UTC] No.13106852[source]▶
I agree with your point, but at the same time, you should be charged the price of the food if you grab perishable food and place it in an area that renders it unsafe. I worked in retail and at theme parks, and I'm personally of the opinion that it's better for everyone in the long run if you fire entitled customers.
replies(2): >>13106902 #>>13107006 #
iamdave ◴[05 Dec 16 17:02 UTC] No.13106902{5}[source]▶
, you should be charged the price of the food if you grab perishable food and place it in an area that renders it unsafe

That'd constitute a massive retooling of consumer behavior and logic and would require quite a bit of conditioning over many years, no?

replies(3): >>13106921 #>>13107360 #>>13108526 #
1. Veedrac ◴[05 Dec 16 17:04 UTC] No.13106921{6}[source]▶
That sounds like exactly what Amazon are trying!