While I think that they're overdramatizing the problem, perhaps Amazon should worry about this since I feel like the search is the only way to actually interact with Amazon. The quality of the metadata they use for browsing by category and filtering on features is so poor that any way of finding things on amazon besides search seems just unusable. I regularly "showroom" on other websites with better product browsing before searching for a specific product on Amazon to check their pricing.
I didn't read the whole article. When I got to the page I was presented with a modal for something I didn't care about. Read the first paragraph scrolled a tiny bit and another modal popped up so I just closed the page. You know what kills sites, an annoying user experience.
My dream for an online store is the following:<p>A magic list that I can add <i>any</i> item to, select a delivery date, and have the backend automatically fulfill each item, at the cheapest price, on time. I want to completely abstract away the concept of a store. I want a to-do list that automatically delivers stuff to me. Additionally, I want a standardized return policy no matter who fulfills it.<p>I want to be able to say:<p>- (3) Organic Roma tomatoes<p>- (6) Sonicare replacement brush heads<p>- (1) Patagonia Down Sweater, Black, Medium<p>- (1) Bookshelf assembly service, in-home, 3/16/19<p>and magically have it fulfilled. One could have a slider to make the tradeoff between speed of fulfillment and cost.<p>Amazon already sort of does this, but not at the best prices. One would hope that in the magic to-do list model, local retailers would be able to outbid non-local retailers, as their shipping costs would be inherently lower.
Not better managing 3rd party sellers is what's going to kill Amazon. It's pretty common to see orders sit two weeks without shipping, or marked as "shipped" with no tracking number, or counterfeit items, items different than what's pictured/described, etc.<p>Banning the crap sellers would also make search easier. Less duplicate listings.
I'm not sure why I'm replying to click-bait PR, but here it is anyway:<p>Maybe I'm alone here, but I have an extreme distaste for personalized search results. I know what I want to see; it's pretty rare search knows what I want to see when it's trying.<p>Take the "chips" example from the interview--maybe I'm tired of eating the same fucking chips every day. Maybe I just want to know what the most popular options out there are without having to scroll a lot. Not to mention that I have a preference for Pringles, I'm going to type the brand name into the search when I want to find it. (If I'm a dog lover, I don't expect Google to rank dog results first when I type in "animals." I expect information about animals in general.)
The best way to currently search Amazon is through Google. But if we're being honest, how many sites can really say that ISN'T the case? Search is hard. It's a problem that a company with the resources of Amazon should have fixed but to say it's a potential killer is more than a bit overblown. All the subpar 3rd party sellers probably have a more significant impact on bottom line.
Eli & his team are very smart -- personalized search is incredibly difficult, and very few people actually do it. But realistically speaking, there's not a product out there that wouldn't benefit (as long as the price point is ok).<p>Looking forward to see AI search grow in popularity and become democratized for developers.
If site search is something that Amazon does that badly (which they do), then why would you think that doing it well is the key to beating them? If it's not <i>necessary</i> to be a sales giant, then why assume it's <i>sufficient</i>?