←back to thread

Amazon Go

(amazon.com)
1247 points mangoman | 6 comments | 05 Dec 16 14:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.256s | 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 #
CrLf ◴[05 Dec 16 17:44 UTC] No.13107389[source]▶
I am unsure we are evolving. We have evolved in many areas that solve real problems, like healthcare and such, but I'm not sure today's society is any better for all the technology that allows us to save a couple of minutes in a queue.

To improve the efficiency of a particular group, we create problems elsewhere. The result may not be net positive. In fact, I think it isn't, since those saved "couple of minutes" will probably be spent browsing Facebook.

replies(8): >>13107425 #>>13107453 #>>13107636 #>>13107672 #>>13108078 #>>13108146 #>>13108249 #>>13108387 #
Ph0X ◴[05 Dec 16 17:51 UTC] No.13107453[source]▶
The point isn't that we save 2 minutes, it's that there's now 10 less job we need. And that may seem as a negative at first, but the idea is that as more and more job get automated, prices should go down until the point where people will not have to work full weeks anymore, or rather, focus on learning and reaching higher education, rather than doing dummy work all day (aka just scanning items non stop for 8 hours).
replies(10): >>13107516 #>>13107552 #>>13107576 #>>13107578 #>>13107581 #>>13107601 #>>13107606 #>>13107805 #>>13108001 #>>13108377 #
CrLf ◴[05 Dec 16 18:00 UTC] No.13107552[source]▶
The Earth's population isn't getting any lower, those 10 jobs lost mean 10 people that will need support from the rest of society, just to survive.

It's utopian to think job losses mean everybody gets their workload reduced, as this has never happened before. Automation has never reduced anybody's workloads. In fact, every reduction has happened to either eliminate de-facto slaves (industrial revolution) or because excessive workloads actually reduce productivity.

replies(3): >>13107821 #>>13107841 #>>13108020 #
1. guntars ◴[05 Dec 16 18:27 UTC] No.13107841[source]▶
They already need the support of the rest of society. No one survives on their own anymore. Automating a job like this gives more time and money back to people who buy groceries, which is almost everyone. Some of that can be used to support the lost jobs while they find something else to do.
replies(2): >>13107958 #>>13108264 #
2. pbhjpbhj ◴[05 Dec 16 18:38 UTC] No.13107958[source]▶
>Some of that can be used to support the lost jobs //

It can, that's clear, the problem is convincing the people who didn't lose their jobs that they should take a take hike to support the others; that's not an easy sell in Western Capitalism at least.

3. falcolas ◴[05 Dec 16 19:06 UTC] No.13108264[source]▶
> Automating a job like this gives more [...] money back to people who buy groceries

Honestly, I think this is never going to actually be the case. Why would a grocery store lower prices just because their costs went down a bit? Neither the demand nor the supply has changed, nor has the price people are willing to pay for their groceries.

If nothing has changed but your costs, why lower the prices when you can simply report increased revenue to your shareholders? If competition comes along, a quick "we're premium, they are cheap" marketing campaign (or buying them out) would probably cost less than lowering the prices to match.

replies(2): >>13109123 #>>13109974 #
4. aianus ◴[05 Dec 16 20:27 UTC] No.13109123[source]▶
Just look at Walmart. They're dirt cheap because their costs and their margins are the lowest and consumers flock to their stores.
replies(1): >>13109734 #
5. falcolas ◴[05 Dec 16 21:20 UTC] No.13109734{3}[source]▶
Funny enough, if you find the same products at other stores, they are the same price. I think Walmart thrives by offering a diverse selection of inexpensive offerings, not by pricing identical items lower (to reflect their lower workforce costs). For example, videogames cost the same at Walmart as they do at Target. To see a different price for a specific item, you have to go to a very different type of store (Sam's Club/Costco).

I think it's fair to say that even if Walmart could half their operating costs with technology, those savings would not find their way into the pockets of consumers.

6. handzhiev ◴[05 Dec 16 21:44 UTC] No.13109974[source]▶
You'll have to lower the prices if you can because the next store in the neighbourhood will do it to outcompete you anyway.