Most active commenters
  • JustSomeNobody(4)
  • 24gttghh(3)
  • TeMPOraL(3)

←back to thread

Amazon Go

(amazon.com)
1247 points mangoman | 14 comments | 05 Dec 16 14:57 UTC | HN request time: 1.397s | source | bottom
Show context
delegate ◴[05 Dec 16 17:27 UTC] No.13107158[source]▶
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 supermarkets. The cashier in the supermarket downstairs always sings a quiet song while she scans my products, she knows my daughter and she's always nice and friendly.

The cashier in the other store talks to the customers. She stops scanning and starts talking while the line waits. Some customers might join the conversation. I know she has an old cat that eats an unlimited amount of food if allowed to do so...

There are similar stories about other shops in the neighbourhood - they come to work, they serve the people in the neighbourhood, they go home. They do this until they retire.

These people like their jobs because we respect them for what they do, so they feel useful and they work hard.

I don't mind waiting in line for 3 minutes. Or 5. It's never longer than that, even if the cashier discusses the latest news with the old lady.

The humanity of it has value for us here and that value is greater than the time we'd save by removing the people from the shops.

replies(76): >>13107202 #>>13107249 #>>13107256 #>>13107272 #>>13107284 #>>13107291 #>>13107294 #>>13107295 #>>13107308 #>>13107316 #>>13107329 #>>13107373 #>>13107387 #>>13107390 #>>13107415 #>>13107424 #>>13107462 #>>13107464 #>>13107468 #>>13107469 #>>13107472 #>>13107542 #>>13107586 #>>13107609 #>>13107618 #>>13107661 #>>13107662 #>>13107681 #>>13107693 #>>13107696 #>>13107714 #>>13107719 #>>13107725 #>>13107746 #>>13107750 #>>13107779 #>>13107801 #>>13107806 #>>13107831 #>>13107844 #>>13107851 #>>13107864 #>>13107868 #>>13107877 #>>13107976 #>>13107984 #>>13108051 #>>13108068 #>>13108198 #>>13108253 #>>13108258 #>>13108277 #>>13108316 #>>13108370 #>>13108379 #>>13108418 #>>13108444 #>>13108452 #>>13108594 #>>13108601 #>>13108708 #>>13108718 #>>13108751 #>>13108782 #>>13108793 #>>13108848 #>>13108854 #>>13108858 #>>13109030 #>>13109073 #>>13109208 #>>13109230 #>>13109238 #>>13109277 #>>13109620 #>>13110635 #
crazypyro ◴[05 Dec 16 17:37 UTC] No.13107308[source]▶
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 opinion, we'd never evolve as a society, lest we remove a need in society and with it, someones job.

replies(22): >>13107389 #>>13107397 #>>13107467 #>>13107471 #>>13107484 #>>13107592 #>>13107762 #>>13107787 #>>13107829 #>>13107949 #>>13108035 #>>13108127 #>>13108221 #>>13108260 #>>13108311 #>>13108333 #>>13108414 #>>13108541 #>>13108737 #>>13109232 #>>13109279 #>>13110594 #
JustSomeNobody ◴[05 Dec 16 17:45 UTC] No.13107397[source]▶
Evolve as a society, yet remove the social experience of shopping.

Interesting. I don't believe I want us to evolve in that direction.

replies(2): >>13107439 #>>13107487 #
1. Ph0X ◴[05 Dec 16 17:54 UTC] No.13107487[source]▶
Social experience at a grocery store feels contrived and not everyone may want it. Maybe you enjoy talking to your cashier but not everyone does, so why should everyone be forced to just because some do? It makes much more sense to keep groceries for grocery shopping, and social places such as bars for socializing.
replies(2): >>13107566 #>>13107594 #
2. 24gttghh ◴[05 Dec 16 18:01 UTC] No.13107566[source]▶
There are these other people at grocery stores besides the employees, I believe they are called "patrons" to whom you may also converse with...
replies(1): >>13108102 #
3. JustSomeNobody ◴[05 Dec 16 18:04 UTC] No.13107594[source]▶
"Social experience at <x> feels contrived and not everyone may want it."

This pretty much sums up _everything_. So, why do we even try to have societies?

Edit: You use an example of going to a bar. You realize "... not everyone may want ..." to socialize at a bar? Some just go to drink.

replies(3): >>13107697 #>>13107972 #>>13108118 #
4. crazypyro ◴[05 Dec 16 18:13 UTC] No.13107697[source]▶
I would hypothesize that wanting shopping to be focused on convenience over the social aspect is a much more common opinion (see: online shopping) than wanting to go to a loud, crowdy, noisy environment where you can pay a premium to drink alcohol and not be social.

I don't think that is a fair comparison at all. Somethings are inherently social, like going to a bar, where as others are much more of a grey area. I would argue that many of these have historically been social experiences out of necessity (no automated machines, no online shopping, etc.), not out of the need for social interaction.

replies(1): >>13107960 #
5. JustSomeNobody ◴[05 Dec 16 18:38 UTC] No.13107960{3}[source]▶
My stepfather owned a bar for some decades. It's not quite as social as you would imagine. A great many people go there to drown "around" people, but not necessarily to drown "socially".
replies(1): >>13108144 #
6. pimlottc ◴[05 Dec 16 18:39 UTC] No.13107972[source]▶
This is an excellent point. For thousands of years, the default was every interaction was social. The idea that you should be able to walk into a standardized store and converse with a clerk like they were an automated sales droid is only a fairly recent phenomenon. These faceless, purely functional transactions - they are exception, not the norm.
7. TeMPOraL ◴[05 Dec 16 18:51 UTC] No.13108102[source]▶
This is a typical sales-y way of trying to fake an interaction people actually seek. People paid to "talk" with you are not the same as honest, casual conversation with hard-working clerks.
replies(1): >>13108250 #
8. pshc ◴[05 Dec 16 18:52 UTC] No.13108118[source]▶
The point of a bar is to socialize, or at least have company. Otherwise why not buy a bottle and stay home?
replies(1): >>13108348 #
9. pimlottc ◴[05 Dec 16 18:54 UTC] No.13108144{4}[source]▶
Doesn't that even more show the value of just being around other people? It's definitely a lot cheaper to drink your own booze at home.
replies(1): >>13108330 #
10. 24gttghh ◴[05 Dec 16 19:05 UTC] No.13108250{3}[source]▶
Paid to talk to you? What kind of dystopian grocery store do you go to?
replies(1): >>13108273 #
11. TeMPOraL ◴[05 Dec 16 19:07 UTC] No.13108273{4}[source]▶
That's how I understand your comment.

Shops in the place I live in are fine, but I've heard about "greeters" in America, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if there also were paid people to talk to...

replies(1): >>13108697 #
12. TeMPOraL ◴[05 Dec 16 19:15 UTC] No.13108330{5}[source]▶
And that's what people do when e.g. they care more about economic considerations than social stigma of drinking alone.
13. JustSomeNobody ◴[05 Dec 16 19:16 UTC] No.13108348{3}[source]▶
Some people don't want to socialize, but just be "around" people. There seems to be a difference.

May be the stigma of drinking alone, where one is sometimes considered a drunk if one drinks alone.

14. 24gttghh ◴[05 Dec 16 19:48 UTC] No.13108697{5}[source]▶
haha no I've never encountered such folks. I was being sarcastic when I put "patrons" in quotes, because the GP seemed to imply the only people to socialize with at a grocery were the cashiers.