6 ms·

Walmart's done a good job of trying to carry as many things on its site as Amazon. I find most things listed on both sites. I also like the idea of free ship to

Walmart's done a good job of trying to carry as many things on its site as Amazon. I find most things listed on both sites. I also like the idea of free ship to store and use that. The problem is the same that Target, and Barnes and Noble all have in competing with Amazon. Their sites aren't as good. They are spartan, uninteresting, hard to navigate, difficult to find things, and often so slow as to be unusable. In short their developers, development managers, server staff, etc, aren't good enough. On Amazon I can find what I need, the site looks good in all browsers including old ones, it doesn't bog down the CPU, stall or crash the browser, and products can be found using their own search mechanism without having to resort to using Google.

theli0nheart 7y ago
I have to disagree. Target is awesome. Their iPhone app is far better than Amazon's (which feels like an embedded webview).
softwaredoug 7y ago
Barnes and Noble probably needs to realize it’s core value is the in store experience of leisurely browsing at a kind of “third place” away from home/work. Honestly I don’t know anyone who has bought a book on B&N online, but know lots of people who just want to hang out at a Barnes and Noble and read/explore. That was the appeal in the 90s, that’s still the appeal. Nook and e-commerce are just distractions from that main differentiator. I wonder how many other places are just being bad amazon clones when their core value is something different...
- TYPE_FASTER 7y ago
  Yes, I’ve definitely been stopping in at B&N to browse more recently. Honestly even though I read library books electronically, I still browse and buy physical books too. And of course magazines...and notebooks...there’s a market there.
- krapp 7y ago
  >Barnes and Noble probably needs to realize it’s core value is the in store experience of leisurely browsing at a kind of “third place” away from home/work. Being a place to wander around and browse but never purchase the merchandise is not a "core value" any retailer wants to have. Barnes and Noble is not a home away from home, it's a store, no different than any other. You're meant to buy something and get out.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    If you’re going to compete with Amazon on a “buy something and get out” basis, you’re going to have to offer me something better than Amazon. If that’s “you’re expected to drive over here and park”, you aren’t winning. If it’s “you can drop in, have a look around, maybe get a coffee in the cafe, chat with a semi-knowledgeable associate, crack a book open and sample a few pages before buying”, then you’ve got a fighting chance.
    - krapp 7y ago
      >If it’s “you can drop in, have a look around, maybe get a coffee in the cafe, chat with a semi-knowledgeable associate, crack a book open and sample a few pages before buying”, then you’ve got a fighting chance. The key part of that being "before buying." Many people will literally just browse and use the free wi-fi and some will read entire books and magazines in the store without buying anything.
      - stale2002 7y ago
        A store should still want that. Starbucks, for example, makes lots of money from people who are just there for the free WiFi.
        kbenson 7y ago
        A certain type of store should want that. I doubt a store that spend huge amounts of money in stocking their shelves with books will get as much out of it as a coffee shop. That said, my local B&N has a Starbucks inside (and a Peets 40 feet away directly across a small street), but I doubt they get more than a small fraction of the revenue from the Starbucks, and at around 4-5 times the floor space as the Peets.
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  > know lots of people who just want to hang out at a Barnes and Noble and read/explore. Maintaining a large inventory of books is a financial burden for bookshops. For that reason, most massive bookshops in North America and Western Europe have slashed their book inventory heavily compared to the 1990s. In the place of books, they prefer to sell trendy things like vinyl records, Kikkerland products, teas, etc.. However, while a customer can spend a few minutes looking at what’s available, this kind of inventory does not offer many opportunities for “exploring”. Also, even if customers would not order from B&N online, they might still order a book they see at B&N from Amazon, perhaps even while they are inside the B&N. Smartphones allowing customers to browse in your store and then order a desired item for cheaper from your competitor, were not yet a thing back in the 1990s when B&N was in its heyday.
  - softwaredoug 7y ago
    This may all be true, but I feel like the solution is somewhere in building on the brands strength (as a 3rd place) instead of trying to be bad Amazon.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
sidlls 7y ago
It's far more likely that their tech staff are simply not given sufficient resources, and are constrained by business leadership than that they "aren't good enough". Walmart is notorious for having terrible compensation for their tech staff--staff who are motivated to look elsewhere due to poor compensation aren't going to do good work no matter how good they are.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  If you play out the terrible comp, you are almost sure to get the “not good enough”. People work for a variety of things, but comp and colleagues are high on my list. If you give me crap for both and I have options to go elsewhere, you’ll be left with people who don’t have options to go elsewhere. They’re probably not going to end up being the cream of the crop.
  - pixl97 7y ago
    Eh, surprisingly enough if you give people power they accept lower compensation. Even a well paid person leaves their job if there is an ineffective structure at implementing change at a reasonable basis.
    - kbenson 7y ago
      And if you make change to easy, you get weird Frankenstein technology stacks urdened with technical debt, so you need competent managers to hit a good middle ground. And you need competent executives that can set good goals and provide enough resources to achieve them. Basically, you need competent people at every level. That said, since the competence of a level is directly controlled by the level above it, I guess it does just boil down to bad execs now or at some point in the past (or a good strategy not just working. The world isn't that deterministic).
  - realusername 7y ago
    That's exactly why companies still don't understand that you get very crappy code by using cheap outsourcing companies. If they were better developers, they would just work at a company with better compensation. In this situation you only getting people who don't have any choice.
skellera 7y ago
You find things on both sites because they both have marketplace vendors who list on both sites.

theli0nheart 7y ago

I have to disagree. Target is awesome. Their iPhone app is far better than Amazon's (which feels like an embedded webview).

softwaredoug 7y ago

Barnes and Noble probably needs to realize it’s core value is the in store experience of leisurely browsing at a kind of “third place” away from home/work. Honestly I don’t know anyone who has bought a book on B&N online, but know lots of people who just want to hang out at a Barnes and Noble and read/explore. That was the appeal in the 90s, that’s still the appeal. Nook and e-commerce are just distractions from that main differentiator. I wonder how many other places are just being bad amazon clones when their core value is something different...

TYPE_FASTER 7y ago
Yes, I’ve definitely been stopping in at B&N to browse more recently. Honestly even though I read library books electronically, I still browse and buy physical books too. And of course magazines...and notebooks...there’s a market there.
krapp 7y ago
>Barnes and Noble probably needs to realize it’s core value is the in store experience of leisurely browsing at a kind of “third place” away from home/work. Being a place to wander around and browse but never purchase the merchandise is not a "core value" any retailer wants to have. Barnes and Noble is not a home away from home, it's a store, no different than any other. You're meant to buy something and get out.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  If you’re going to compete with Amazon on a “buy something and get out” basis, you’re going to have to offer me something better than Amazon. If that’s “you’re expected to drive over here and park”, you aren’t winning. If it’s “you can drop in, have a look around, maybe get a coffee in the cafe, chat with a semi-knowledgeable associate, crack a book open and sample a few pages before buying”, then you’ve got a fighting chance.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >If it’s “you can drop in, have a look around, maybe get a coffee in the cafe, chat with a semi-knowledgeable associate, crack a book open and sample a few pages before buying”, then you’ve got a fighting chance. The key part of that being "before buying." Many people will literally just browse and use the free wi-fi and some will read entire books and magazines in the store without buying anything.
    - stale2002 7y ago
      A store should still want that. Starbucks, for example, makes lots of money from people who are just there for the free WiFi.
      - kbenson 7y ago
        A certain type of store should want that. I doubt a store that spend huge amounts of money in stocking their shelves with books will get as much out of it as a coffee shop. That said, my local B&N has a Starbucks inside (and a Peets 40 feet away directly across a small street), but I doubt they get more than a small fraction of the revenue from the Starbucks, and at around 4-5 times the floor space as the Peets.
Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> know lots of people who just want to hang out at a Barnes and Noble and read/explore. Maintaining a large inventory of books is a financial burden for bookshops. For that reason, most massive bookshops in North America and Western Europe have slashed their book inventory heavily compared to the 1990s. In the place of books, they prefer to sell trendy things like vinyl records, Kikkerland products, teas, etc.. However, while a customer can spend a few minutes looking at what’s available, this kind of inventory does not offer many opportunities for “exploring”. Also, even if customers would not order from B&N online, they might still order a book they see at B&N from Amazon, perhaps even while they are inside the B&N. Smartphones allowing customers to browse in your store and then order a desired item for cheaper from your competitor, were not yet a thing back in the 1990s when B&N was in its heyday.
- softwaredoug 7y ago
  This may all be true, but I feel like the solution is somewhere in building on the brands strength (as a 3rd place) instead of trying to be bad Amazon.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

sidlls 7y ago

It's far more likely that their tech staff are simply not given sufficient resources, and are constrained by business leadership than that they "aren't good enough". Walmart is notorious for having terrible compensation for their tech staff--staff who are motivated to look elsewhere due to poor compensation aren't going to do good work no matter how good they are.

sokoloff 7y ago
If you play out the terrible comp, you are almost sure to get the “not good enough”. People work for a variety of things, but comp and colleagues are high on my list. If you give me crap for both and I have options to go elsewhere, you’ll be left with people who don’t have options to go elsewhere. They’re probably not going to end up being the cream of the crop.
- pixl97 7y ago
  Eh, surprisingly enough if you give people power they accept lower compensation. Even a well paid person leaves their job if there is an ineffective structure at implementing change at a reasonable basis.
  - kbenson 7y ago
    And if you make change to easy, you get weird Frankenstein technology stacks urdened with technical debt, so you need competent managers to hit a good middle ground. And you need competent executives that can set good goals and provide enough resources to achieve them. Basically, you need competent people at every level. That said, since the competence of a level is directly controlled by the level above it, I guess it does just boil down to bad execs now or at some point in the past (or a good strategy not just working. The world isn't that deterministic).
- realusername 7y ago
  That's exactly why companies still don't understand that you get very crappy code by using cheap outsourcing companies. If they were better developers, they would just work at a company with better compensation. In this situation you only getting people who don't have any choice.

skellera 7y ago

You find things on both sites because they both have marketplace vendors who list on both sites.