5 ms·

>The core issue is that Amazon envisioned Alexa as a product that would help it increase sales. is there anything wrong with that? I kind of thought that is on

>The core issue is that Amazon envisioned Alexa as a product that would help it increase sales. is there anything wrong with that? I kind of thought that is one of the main reasons for the existence of companies, that is, to increase sales, and hopefully, profits.

smt88 2y ago
What's wrong with it is that it was a stupid idea. People don't shop with their voices and never have. They need to see things.
- dambi0 2y ago
  Restaurants?
  - tempest_ 2y ago
    Often give or display a menu with prices.
    - dambi0 2y ago
      Often or always? Is reading a generic description of a product (menu) seeing the thing? What about alcoholic drinks in pubs or bars “2 pints of your best and a glass of house red”. Alexa may not be great for purchasing from Amazon but this isn’t because humans have never shopped using only their voices. Nor is seeing things required.
      - smt88 2y ago
        People who can see and read almost never use voice-only to shop. Restaurants and catalogs have menus. Street vendors show you their goods. You don't need to take my word for it. No one uses Alexa this way. The proof is in the outcome.
        dambi0 2y ago
        The dash button doesn’t use voice it hasn’t proved popular either. Various other threads suggest stability of pricing as an issue. Voice ordering may be part of the issue, as might being unable to see the goods. There is likely a number of issues. The fact something doesn’t work doesn’t prove a single explanation.
- fuzztester 2y ago
  >People don't shop with their voices and never have. >They need to see things. Nyet. Non. Nada. What world do you live in? People seeing things and then shopping with their voices are not mutually exclusive actions. Not only are they complementary, they are very common, and must have been from the dawn of shops. How many billions of times, worldwide, must people have looked around at some products there, and said "give me 5 foos and 10 bars" at their neighbourhood store or other shop?
  - smt88 2y ago
    Alexa shopping was intended to be voice only. Of course people order things with their voice after they've seen them or read a menu.
    - fuzztester 2y ago
      how about IVR? or an advanced, literally voice-only version of it, where you don't even have to press any digit keys to respond to voice menus? heh. maybe I should become a consultant to Jeff, charge him gigabucks.
      - NotMichaelBay 2y ago
        IVR is not a good example because it's an annoying interface that people sometimes have to deal with when calling companies. It actually offers pretty poor UX, because users sometimes know what they want when calling but have to wait to hear the options before making a selection. But it's the best we have for over-the-phone interfaces. Are you someone who orders things using the Echo? If not, are you just playing devil's advocate?
        fuzztester 2y ago
        I do know that IVR has poor UX, since I use it a good amount on my mobile phone. but did you notice that I also said: >or an advanced, literally voice-only version of it, where you don't even have to press any digit keys to respond to voice menus? above?
akira2501 2y ago
> is there anything wrong with that? Yes. They are losing billions on the deal and consumers didn't have their expectations met. > is one of the main reasons for the existence of companies, that is, to increase sales, and hopefully, profits You're describing the main reason for owning one. This has nothing to do with why we collectively allow them to exist.
- fuzztester 2y ago
  >> is there anything wrong with that? >Yes. They are losing billions on the deal biz 101: losses in business commonly happen anytime. losses are not wrong or right. they just happen, for various reasons. it is called an occupational hazard. if getting profits all the time was guaranteed, every tom, dick and harry would be running a business. so companies know about the possibility of losses before they start up. >and consumers didn't have their expectations met. naive. companies don't do businesses for that reason. that is kind of a side effect, although a desirable one for companies, because it makes customers continue as customers. companies do business to make money (i.e. profits, not even just sales), plain and simple. whether we like that or not, and whether their behaviour is ethical or not, and legal or not, are separate, though related issues. how many times has this been stated on hn, even if in other words? plenty, I bet. apart from that, it is sheer common knowledge. >>is one of the main reasons for the existence of companies, that is, to increase sales, and hopefully, profits >You're describing the main reason for owning one. Yes. Is that not obvious? >This has nothing to do with why we collectively allow them to exist. you are jumping around, and skirting my question. you, i, or we, may or may not wish to allow them to exist, but what the heck does that have to do with my original question? : >>>The core issue is that Amazon envisioned Alexa as a product that would help it increase sales. >>is there anything wrong with that? I kind of thought that is one of the main reasons for the existence of companies, that is, to increase sales, and hopefully, profits. I doubt that there is any company that envisions a product that will decrease sales, or even keep them flat. then why go to the trouble?
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > biz 101 Don't make 8 generations of products that do not profit while simultaneously changing nothing other than their form factor. > companies don't do businesses for that reason. I didn't say they did. Perhaps you should slow down and use fewer insults while you craft your replies. In any case, if you are losing money and customers are happy, that's certainly different than losing money and customers are not happy. Would you not agree this is "sheer common knowledge" as well? > and skirting my question. The product is a full decade old. This does not seem to factor into your question or arguments at all. Perhaps it should?

smt88 2y ago

What's wrong with it is that it was a stupid idea. People don't shop with their voices and never have. They need to see things.

dambi0 2y ago
Restaurants?
- tempest_ 2y ago
  Often give or display a menu with prices.
  - dambi0 2y ago
    Often or always? Is reading a generic description of a product (menu) seeing the thing? What about alcoholic drinks in pubs or bars “2 pints of your best and a glass of house red”. Alexa may not be great for purchasing from Amazon but this isn’t because humans have never shopped using only their voices. Nor is seeing things required.
    - smt88 2y ago
      People who can see and read almost never use voice-only to shop. Restaurants and catalogs have menus. Street vendors show you their goods. You don't need to take my word for it. No one uses Alexa this way. The proof is in the outcome.
      - dambi0 2y ago
        The dash button doesn’t use voice it hasn’t proved popular either. Various other threads suggest stability of pricing as an issue. Voice ordering may be part of the issue, as might being unable to see the goods. There is likely a number of issues. The fact something doesn’t work doesn’t prove a single explanation.
fuzztester 2y ago
>People don't shop with their voices and never have. >They need to see things. Nyet. Non. Nada. What world do you live in? People seeing things and then shopping with their voices are not mutually exclusive actions. Not only are they complementary, they are very common, and must have been from the dawn of shops. How many billions of times, worldwide, must people have looked around at some products there, and said "give me 5 foos and 10 bars" at their neighbourhood store or other shop?
- smt88 2y ago
  Alexa shopping was intended to be voice only. Of course people order things with their voice after they've seen them or read a menu.
  - fuzztester 2y ago
    how about IVR? or an advanced, literally voice-only version of it, where you don't even have to press any digit keys to respond to voice menus? heh. maybe I should become a consultant to Jeff, charge him gigabucks.
    - NotMichaelBay 2y ago
      IVR is not a good example because it's an annoying interface that people sometimes have to deal with when calling companies. It actually offers pretty poor UX, because users sometimes know what they want when calling but have to wait to hear the options before making a selection. But it's the best we have for over-the-phone interfaces. Are you someone who orders things using the Echo? If not, are you just playing devil's advocate?
      - fuzztester 2y ago
        I do know that IVR has poor UX, since I use it a good amount on my mobile phone. but did you notice that I also said: >or an advanced, literally voice-only version of it, where you don't even have to press any digit keys to respond to voice menus? above?

akira2501 2y ago

> is there anything wrong with that? Yes. They are losing billions on the deal and consumers didn't have their expectations met. > is one of the main reasons for the existence of companies, that is, to increase sales, and hopefully, profits You're describing the main reason for owning one. This has nothing to do with why we collectively allow them to exist.

fuzztester 2y ago
>> is there anything wrong with that? >Yes. They are losing billions on the deal biz 101: losses in business commonly happen anytime. losses are not wrong or right. they just happen, for various reasons. it is called an occupational hazard. if getting profits all the time was guaranteed, every tom, dick and harry would be running a business. so companies know about the possibility of losses before they start up. >and consumers didn't have their expectations met. naive. companies don't do businesses for that reason. that is kind of a side effect, although a desirable one for companies, because it makes customers continue as customers. companies do business to make money (i.e. profits, not even just sales), plain and simple. whether we like that or not, and whether their behaviour is ethical or not, and legal or not, are separate, though related issues. how many times has this been stated on hn, even if in other words? plenty, I bet. apart from that, it is sheer common knowledge. >>is one of the main reasons for the existence of companies, that is, to increase sales, and hopefully, profits >You're describing the main reason for owning one. Yes. Is that not obvious? >This has nothing to do with why we collectively allow them to exist. you are jumping around, and skirting my question. you, i, or we, may or may not wish to allow them to exist, but what the heck does that have to do with my original question? : >>>The core issue is that Amazon envisioned Alexa as a product that would help it increase sales. >>is there anything wrong with that? I kind of thought that is one of the main reasons for the existence of companies, that is, to increase sales, and hopefully, profits. I doubt that there is any company that envisions a product that will decrease sales, or even keep them flat. then why go to the trouble?
- akira2501 2y ago
  > biz 101 Don't make 8 generations of products that do not profit while simultaneously changing nothing other than their form factor. > companies don't do businesses for that reason. I didn't say they did. Perhaps you should slow down and use fewer insults while you craft your replies. In any case, if you are losing money and customers are happy, that's certainly different than losing money and customers are not happy. Would you not agree this is "sheer common knowledge" as well? > and skirting my question. The product is a full decade old. This does not seem to factor into your question or arguments at all. Perhaps it should?