←back to thread

Amazon Go

(amazon.com)
1247 points mangoman | 1 comments | 05 Dec 16 14:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.217s | 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[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 #
digler999 ◴[05 Dec 16 17:14 UTC] No.13107006[source]▶
> if you fire entitled customers.

That would be fine in the ages before social media. Now everyone "takes to twitter" and tries to organize a social pitchfork campaign. The victimhood mentality is real. People get off on the celebrity from being wronged by a big bad corporation. It wouldn't be long before some jerk posts a video of himself leaving a roast on the cereal aisle and being '86'ed from the store, then post it straight to Youtube for all the delicious karma points. Corporate image is a big deal.

replies(2): >>13107083 #>>13107191 #
lmkg ◴[05 Dec 16 17:29 UTC] No.13107191[source]▶
Unless you make it "your thing." Take for example the Alamo Drafthouse, a chain of movies theaters that are aggressive in removing patrons that disrupt other viewers' experience. In the few times that people have tried to complain, the company has generally come out of it for the better.

I will admit this strategy won't work for everyone. Most corporations are not willing to respond to a complaint by using social media to (accurately) call the complainer an obnoxious asshole.

replies(2): >>13107541 #>>13110441 #
kem ◴[05 Dec 16 22:35 UTC] No.13110441[source]▶
The real problem, though, is that one time when the company is in the wrong over a bug in the AI. Then you basically have a faulty AI, and by extension, the store, falsely accusing the customer of vandalism or some such thing. Not a good way to go.

Maybe this is different, but my experience with recent tech innovations in brick-and-mortar payment systems haven't been positive overall. More trouble than they're worth.

This could very well be different, but the minute the store starts valuing the AI over the customer, I think the store is in for some trouble public relations-wise.

replies(2): >>13110780 #>>13110828 #
1. digler999 ◴[05 Dec 16 23:21 UTC] No.13110828[source]▶
Agreed. On a related note, I wonder with the extra efficiency gained from no checkout lines, how much it would offset lost revenue. In other words, if, say, you are able to serve 20% more customers, even if there's 4% more loss from tech bugs (not considering shoplifting), the fact that you're moving more people through the store might make up for it.

If someone buys 45 items, but 3 dont ring up, as long as the 3 were relatively cheap items like a can of beans, as opposed to a $15 jar of spices, does it really matter ? Over time, the system will learn which items "go missing" most often and focus on them specifically for better inventory mgmt.