←back to thread

Amazon Go

(amazon.com)
1247 points mangoman | 4 comments | 05 Dec 16 14:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | 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 #
mikeash ◴[05 Dec 16 17:36 UTC] No.13107291[source]▶
If that's true, then you have nothing to fear. People will pay extra to shop at stores with human cashiers, and the machine-driven stores will not be able to compete.

However, I suspect that when presented with the choice, people will take the machine store in exchange for lower prices. And I suspect that you suspect the same thing, otherwise you wouldn't be concerned.

replies(6): >>13107302 #>>13107524 #>>13107528 #>>13107548 #>>13107597 #>>13107647 #
delegate ◴[05 Dec 16 17:57 UTC] No.13107524[source]▶
Yes, I think you're right and that's why I think this is bad.

Economically it makes more sense to buy cheaper and faster. But this eats into the fabric of society and offers nothing in exchange.

And what are all these people supposed to do then ? Sleep all day ? They will fight back with their votes at first, which they are already doing in the US and Europe..

Then there's the centralisation, control and privacy part - amazon gets to decide what products your area will be supplied with, it gets to know your eating habits, your walking habits, etc. Will pretty much own you and the neighbourhood.

But then again, I don't really see an alternative - it seems that we're being 'innovated' by force into the future and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

replies(3): >>13107573 #>>13107764 #>>13107778 #
1. spuz ◴[05 Dec 16 18:19 UTC] No.13107764[source]▶
I think you're incorrectly separating the 'fabric of society' from the economy. The economy describes all things that are valuable to us as a society and that includes interactions with the staff at our local grocery shops. When you say "Economically it makes more sense to buy cheaper and faster" that is obviously not true for you and probably many others who are prepared to pay for the social interactions that local shops provide.

There will still remain room for shops with cashiers in the market just as there is still room for restaurants with waiters, tables and chairs despite the innovation of drive throughs and fast food.

As long as you are part of a large enough group who is willing to pay for traditional style shops then they will continue to exist.

replies(1): >>13108083 #
2. TeMPOraL ◴[05 Dec 16 18:49 UTC] No.13108083[source]▶
No, I think GP is totally correct. Economy does not describe "all things that are valuable to us", nor does it describe relative value between things when considering the whole picture of one's life. Economy is a system of powerful feedback loops; it amplifies momentary relative value differentials. People like the human contact, but due to financial situation prefer cheaper groceries? If shops can save on cutting nice clerks out of the loop (or working them down into zombiefication), they'll outcompete ones that try to stick to "old model", but guess what - another part of the economy is right there to take away the marginal savings you as a customer just "made", and thus you're no better than before in terms of spending money, but you've just lost another nice aspect of the society.

The economy often gives us good solutions, but it also often gives us bad ones. The economy doesn't care either way.

C.f. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/.

replies(1): >>13108386 #
3. spuz ◴[05 Dec 16 19:22 UTC] No.13108386[source]▶
Maybe I am incorrectly conflating Economics with the Economy. I understand your point about economic forces producing an outcome that is less optimal due to our failure to consider present and future effects of our decisions.

My point is that if you look at this from an economic point of view, you should be able to figure out whether or not it is good or bad (or at least know what information you need to figure out if it's good or bad). See my other comment on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108119

replies(1): >>13108527 #
4. TeMPOraL ◴[05 Dec 16 19:35 UTC] No.13108527{3}[source]▶
We could, as you say, analyze and figure out whether or not any given market "innovation" is good or bad, but the big problem is - we can't meaningfully act on such information. Coordination is superhard[0], and in the meantime we all make individual choices based on momentary value differentials - choices which the market will happily aggregate and amplify, whether we like it or not.

You're spot-on in splitting the problem into two in your other comment.

--

[0] - especially if you frown at one of its most powerful form in a large society - government regulations.