←back to thread

Amazon Go

(amazon.com)
1247 points mangoman | 1 comments | 05 Dec 16 14:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.341s | source
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 #
des429 ◴[05 Dec 16 17:38 UTC] No.13107316[source]▶
Capitalism says if the majority of people agree with you they will spend their money at the supermarkets w/ the friendly clerks.
replies(2): >>13107365 #>>13107673 #
1. barrkel ◴[05 Dec 16 18:11 UTC] No.13107673[source]▶
No, not at all. It's more subtle than that.

Suppose the minimal cost solution has a cost of c.

Suppose there is an extra "human touch" factor that costs x extra. So the total cost is c+x.

Suppose there are n customers, of which m prefer the human touch.

In a world with humans everywhere, it costs everyone c+x/n to deliver a product that satisfies everyone.

In a world where two solutions are competing, one with humans and one without, it costs c+x/m to deliver a product that satisfies m, and c to satisfy everyone else.

The subset m that prefers the human touch has to pay more. But notice there's no magical majority cutoff here; that's not how it maps out. It's a curve that gradually increases the cost the lower the m:n ratio is, until it becomes a very expensive boutique service that only very wealthy people can afford. And the increasing slope makes it hard to fight.

It is in fact people with the least sensitivity to price and preference for the human touch that will help maintain the status quo. And those people are usually in the minority.