this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
117 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37713 readers
337 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 51 points 3 months ago (4 children)

$25 BILLION dollars wasted. Imagine how many people that could have helped. Fucking travesty.

I'm not against private commerce, but these companies sure are working hard to change my mind.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Amazon sold at a loss, but I don’t imagine the employees or suppliers and their employees feel like being paid was a waste.

[–] bl4kers@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well, sure, but I'm sure most coal miners don't feel super great about their specific job and profession generally. It's a waste of resources and capital generally, not at a zoomed in level

[–] towerful@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago

If you think coal mines are bad, wait till you see the conditions in the Alexa mines!

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I wouldn't describe it as wasted, even at a stretch. Alexa drives tonnes of money Amazon's way.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Not according to the article:

Per "former employees on the Alexa shopping team" that WSJ spoke with, however, the amount of shopping revenue tied to Alexa is insignificant.

[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Think of it like Chrome. Doesn't directly generate money, but generates a lot of money

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Except Chrome doesn't lose a ton of money, energy, etc.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Does the article say how the Alexa unit has absolutely no access control? Kids ordering dollhouses? Check. The news on TV triggering a response? Daily.

They can't expect us to link our visa cards to something that doesn't even know "this is little Billy" -- actually it can discern people -- "who should never be able to buy stuff" -- which it can't do.

The units are bad: no authorization and no auditing. Neighbor tried to order you 200 rakes as he rolled past your garage? You'll get your f'n rake back, Dennis, just fuck off and don't bug me every month.

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago

That was true when they first came out, but they have added options for a pin and auto ordering is off by default.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I agree. Plus, right now Alexa is somewhat integrated with my life. I'm constantly interacting with Amazon's ecosystem. Take that away, and it becomes another online retailer (a hugely important one, but nonetheless...) and movie rental service. I could easily step away from Amazon in a way that is more difficult today.

Multiply that across their customers and is the value 6 billion per year? I don't know, that's a lot of money, but it's not a simple cost analysis.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 5 points 3 months ago

Amazon claims to have Alexa on 100 million devices, so $6 billion/year would be $60/user/year.

It's not peanuts, but... Amazon Prime has 230 million subscribers worldwide, that is $140/user/year.

Sounds like one could be financing the other.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Hey, bud?

Maybe you should think about how they could possibly waste all that money while turning a profit. Then ask yourself what other industries are doing the same thing?

Is it, maybe, just maybe, all of them?

Is that why you're expected to work a job you hate until the day you die despite productivity being higher than it's ever been?

Like, absurdly so. Maybe ask yourself why society could function reasonably well when a farmer could feed five people but things are more or less the same but with cellphones when they feed 150 instead.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It could've helped 0 people... because people with the $25 billion want to say "Alexa, do this", instead of sitting on their sofas an reveling on how they sent $60/year to help someone they don't know, out of which 90% went to finance the people helping, not the helped ones.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Consumers didn't themselves have, or pay Amazon, the $25b. Amazon had it.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 4 points 3 months ago

It wasn't an investment round, Amazon got it from customers. Then, from among the options of:

  • Let customers say "Alexa do this"
  • Give each customer a $60/year discount coupon
  • Spend it on charity
  • Build a 300ft tall golden statue of Jeff Bezos

...Amazon decided that people would give it even more money, if it did the Alexa thing.