3 ms·

I would argue that Amazon's UI could garner more sales and reconstruct more of its slowly fading popularity if it simply stopped being such a dumpster fire of b

I would argue that Amazon's UI could garner more sales and reconstruct more of its slowly fading popularity if it simply stopped being such a dumpster fire of bad design, confusion, chaos, searches that barely work and of course, rampant links to attempts at sales fraud. The confusion, coupled with Amazon's reputation inertia, does probably drive some bulk sales metrics, but it's a poison pill of scrounging what you can from existing users while potential new ones trickle away to sites that are simply better, easier to navigate and just less likely to sell you falsely packaged shit.

nine_k 2y ago
What are these sites that are simply better? Also, Amazon's retail empire is very much buttressed by its speedy delivery service, and thus warehouses and the truck fleet. A much better web site sometimes cannot compete with next-day delivery. (And sometimes can, of course!)
- themacguffinman 2y ago
  Etsy is pretty slick, although lately I've heard it has similar (but not the same) product/seller trust issues as Amazon. iHerb has a somewhat Amazon-like UI but noticeably less cluttered and more structured. It highlights a minimum "best by" date, which is also a guarantee that goes beyond pure UI design but provides the kind of customer-friendly interface that informs rather than confuses. I usually find Webstaurant product listings pretty informative and much cleaner. From Big Tech, Google & Apple may not have a comparable physical goods marketplace but the marketplaces they do have - books and applications - are much cleaner and more focused than their Amazon counterparts. Of course, the gold standard is McMaster-Carr. I know Amazon is more successful than those examples. Microsoft Windows is also much more successful than its competitors, but I don't think most people would see that and argue "the point of an OS/software is not to be easy to use or convenient or understandable". Certainly it's not the point of Windows but I'd say that's because competition involves factors unrelated to quality and quality is multi-dimensional, not because quality is "not the point".
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  well, for anything related to photographic equipment, try B&H, much better. Decent search too and without all the ridiculous crud of false buy leads that Amazon dumps on you despite being one of the world's biggest companies and perfectly capable of providing a clean product search that¿s reliable. Or, for random products, even damn walmart does better, and that's just embarrassing. I could go on with this but if you're defending the obviously broken interface that Amazon provides for buying products, I suspect your motives. The one single thing I continue to use them for is book reviews, not buys, but just reviews, and that's a low bar indeed.
n4r9 2y ago
I'm dubious. Investing in development and design is one of the more expensive ways for a company to increase returns. Plus, Amazon are in such a dominant e-commerce market position [0] that they don't need to worry about UX beyond the ability to click "buy". Despite the poor design, their share is forecast to continue growing past 40% this year [1]. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/274255/market-share-of-the-leading-retailers-in-us-e-commerce/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/274255/market-share-of-t... (I'm not sure why ebay isn't in this chart?) [1] https://www.emarketer.com/content/amazon-will-surpass-40-of-us-ecommerce-sales-this-year https://www.emarketer.com/content/amazon-will-surpass-40-of-...
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  Yes but in arguing that you miss the point entirely. If Amazon's only motives in how it designes its customer interface are "hah, who gives a shit, we're so big that they'll keep buying even if we mistreat them and expose them to rampant fraud", that speaks of a shitty company which will eventually be eaten by the market. Consumer tolerance is finite, and smarter people than me have noticed the same thing and are working to chip away at it with shoppers. I'd also hope for something a little bit more honest from Amazon, given all their multi-decade spiels about customer service, but here we are.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    > that speaks of a shitty company which will eventually be eaten by the market Agreed! Although "eventually" takes a very long time, possibly decades. In the meantime there are a host of cheaper tactics for maintaining and draining market share: acquisitions, exploitative terms (like Amazon's "best buy" conditions), regulatory capture etc... . The issue is that the current system of shareholder capitalism strongly encourages short-term gains in lieu of sustainability. It's very difficult to justify spending on ease of use when you already have the users and there are things you could do to milk them like making ads more subtle.

nine_k 2y ago

What are these sites that are simply better? Also, Amazon's retail empire is very much buttressed by its speedy delivery service, and thus warehouses and the truck fleet. A much better web site sometimes cannot compete with next-day delivery. (And sometimes can, of course!)

themacguffinman 2y ago
Etsy is pretty slick, although lately I've heard it has similar (but not the same) product/seller trust issues as Amazon. iHerb has a somewhat Amazon-like UI but noticeably less cluttered and more structured. It highlights a minimum "best by" date, which is also a guarantee that goes beyond pure UI design but provides the kind of customer-friendly interface that informs rather than confuses. I usually find Webstaurant product listings pretty informative and much cleaner. From Big Tech, Google & Apple may not have a comparable physical goods marketplace but the marketplaces they do have - books and applications - are much cleaner and more focused than their Amazon counterparts. Of course, the gold standard is McMaster-Carr. I know Amazon is more successful than those examples. Microsoft Windows is also much more successful than its competitors, but I don't think most people would see that and argue "the point of an OS/software is not to be easy to use or convenient or understandable". Certainly it's not the point of Windows but I'd say that's because competition involves factors unrelated to quality and quality is multi-dimensional, not because quality is "not the point".
southernplaces7 2y ago
well, for anything related to photographic equipment, try B&H, much better. Decent search too and without all the ridiculous crud of false buy leads that Amazon dumps on you despite being one of the world's biggest companies and perfectly capable of providing a clean product search that¿s reliable. Or, for random products, even damn walmart does better, and that's just embarrassing. I could go on with this but if you're defending the obviously broken interface that Amazon provides for buying products, I suspect your motives. The one single thing I continue to use them for is book reviews, not buys, but just reviews, and that's a low bar indeed.

n4r9 2y ago

I'm dubious. Investing in development and design is one of the more expensive ways for a company to increase returns. Plus, Amazon are in such a dominant e-commerce market position [0] that they don't need to worry about UX beyond the ability to click "buy". Despite the poor design, their share is forecast to continue growing past 40% this year [1]. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/274255/market-share-of-the-leading-retailers-in-us-e-commerce/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/274255/market-share-of-t... (I'm not sure why ebay isn't in this chart?) [1] https://www.emarketer.com/content/amazon-will-surpass-40-of-us-ecommerce-sales-this-year https://www.emarketer.com/content/amazon-will-surpass-40-of-...

southernplaces7 2y ago
Yes but in arguing that you miss the point entirely. If Amazon's only motives in how it designes its customer interface are "hah, who gives a shit, we're so big that they'll keep buying even if we mistreat them and expose them to rampant fraud", that speaks of a shitty company which will eventually be eaten by the market. Consumer tolerance is finite, and smarter people than me have noticed the same thing and are working to chip away at it with shoppers. I'd also hope for something a little bit more honest from Amazon, given all their multi-decade spiels about customer service, but here we are.
- n4r9 2y ago
  > that speaks of a shitty company which will eventually be eaten by the market Agreed! Although "eventually" takes a very long time, possibly decades. In the meantime there are a host of cheaper tactics for maintaining and draining market share: acquisitions, exploitative terms (like Amazon's "best buy" conditions), regulatory capture etc... . The issue is that the current system of shareholder capitalism strongly encourages short-term gains in lieu of sustainability. It's very difficult to justify spending on ease of use when you already have the users and there are things you could do to milk them like making ads more subtle.