3 ms·

They're aggregators. There's value in going to a single shop to buy everything instead of going to 200 individual suppliers for your weekly shopping.

• sytelus 9y ago
  Aggregation, filtering, sorting, recommendations could be best handled by machines. All businesses specializing in this using human efforts are at grave risk.
  • brango 9y ago
    Yeah but presumably as the end user you'd still want to interface with a single entity, even if behind the scenes they're then aggregating, filtering, etc. But yeah any humans employed by them doing that work are probably at risk.
  • have_faith 9y ago
    > best handled by machines I don't think best is correct in a lot of contexts, but just good enough is enough in most cases.
  • yardie 9y ago
    > Aggregation, filtering, sorting, recommendations could be best handled by machines. That only changes who those middlemen are and their scope. Based on what I'm currently seeing on search machines can only deliver exactly what I'm asking for. Rarely do they recommendations that aren't patterns. For example, I was looking for backup software a few months ago, I get tons of ad pages on backup software now. I purchased that software months ago and no longer need backup software. It's probably going to be many more months before my search history cycles out of ad networks. Another example. A road was recently converted to pedestrian only in my neighborhood. Would you like to know the number of Lyft/Uber drivers that follow Google Maps end up at a dead end and have to double back? And that is coming from the world's most powerful search engine.
  • bsenftner 9y ago
    Do you foresee middlemen like Amazon eventually going away, or being even more essential?
    • omarchowdhury 9y ago
      Middlemen will go away, The Middleman will stay.
  • Spivak 9y ago
    Potentially but when you're at a store you can immediately tell the if the store has a good or bad purchasing department. It does provide tangible positive value. You're silly if you think that the industry isn't already using large data analysis to do this job. There's still plenty of value by having a human at the end of the tunnel to actually interpret it though.
  • rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
    I disagree. Amazon is an utter failure when I don’t know the exact product I want to buy: reviews are faked and many of the products are of low quality, with no way to test them except for a terribly inconvenient return process. I’d rather just try on clothes in a store and not buy ones that I don’t like instead of having to sigh and package them up and wait for a refund. You may see retail employees as unnecessary middlemen, but they provide a value a machine cannot. I can talk to GameStop employees about which new games they played to see if they’ll be fun; I can talk to petsmart employees about proper pet care; I can go over installation prodcedures with the Geek Squad folks at BestBuy; I can get recommendations on outfits at the upscale men’s clothing store I frequent...and so on. There is no superior specialization in this regard. Many of these examples are because of the relationships I have cultivated with long-term retail employees, who know me and my preferences far better than any machine learning algorithm has attempted to match.
• excalibur 9y ago
  It's not really relevant, but I'm having a hard time picturing a household that consumes 200 unique items every week. Must be pretty fancy.
  • mjevans 9y ago
    Try to think of a house using ingredients and some portion of 200 complete items. Also the odd item you occasionally need when something goes out of stock locally (like a trash bag, clothing reaches end of useful life etc).
  • bsenftner 9y ago
    200 unique items is just a basic house. You are forgetting all the essential products used to operate said house as well as all the family members inside, plus pets. 200 is average.
  • hinkley 9y ago
    Well the number was pulled out of the air, but you don’t think a family of four has 200 distinct items in their trash + recycling every week?
    • gorbachev 9y ago
      Durable goods would take that number way up from 200 for an average US family.
      • hinkley 9y ago
        After I posted I had the same thought. But then I realized that durable goods from a store usually come in packaging, so measuring outgoing material isn’t as inaccurate as it sounds as first. Most of us are really pretty bad at tracking our purchases. We don’t want to look at them because it means admitting we have a problem. But we know the trash is full all the time and don’t think about how that correlated with consumption. Basically I was trying to trick people into an honest conversation about something nobody likes to be honest about. And at any rate if the quantity is “more than 200” then it just reinforces GGP’s point.
• agumonkey 9y ago
  Fair point but this function grants them immoral control of both ends of the market. Often they lie to producers to lower prices then lie to consumers by selling these deal at the usual rate (or faking a false discount week for appearances and then put back products back on the normal shelves). As other said, economic and information asymmetry is not good. Honestly .. aggregators should be a national thing, there's almost no competition to be had there. Kinda like internet, it should be way more neutral, except maybe on safety check (again, something to nationalize).
  • gremlinsinc 9y ago
    There's already a national aggregator... Amazon. Anything more 'nationalized' would smell of socialism and nobody's ready for that.. Though I wouldn't mind socialized medicine/education personally.
    • agumonkey 9y ago
      Come on, I'm talking about a storage space, not controlling peoples life.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]