Hacker News Reader

Comment by Endlessly | Hacker News Reader

(1) Food safety issues could literally kill Starbucks

(2) Starbucks business depends on having those measurements for quality control

(3) Starbucks gets lots of vendor deals from partner companies because they are a well know brand and having them on board helps land more deals

(4) Hacker using the machines might be able to sabotage the stories; food poisoning, fires, etc

(5) The smarter the tech in store — less training required per employee on site.

(6) Starbucks has other plans for it, such as enabling customers to use their network for IoT devices

(6) etc.

View on HN

>> The smarter the tech in store — less training required per employee on site

We know that the larger the attack surface the more likely is to get hacked so if Starbucks really cares about everything you said (i.e food safety issues) it should hire more people and less machines.

Have you met people? They’re really unreliable and inconsistent, especially on minimum wage.

How would more people make their coffee more consistent?

Starbucks is a massive chain people expect the same thing at any Starbucks they go to. People are very inconsistent, if the coffee tasted different at every Starbucks they would not be as large as they are.

Using that logic, all tech with vulnerabilities should be removed.

While I understand the urge want to humanize the process, give people jobs, this is not the way to do it.

Future of human employees inside of Starbucks is clearly focused on what the baristas do best as humans, being friendly person that’s humanize the experience of getting coffee.

As for including humans in food safety procedures, what exactly are you referring too? Inserting 30-60 IoT continuous environmental and systems monitoring sensors into a store clearing makes more sense that paying a human to be in the store 24/7 and writing it down on paper. If I am recalling correctly, Starbucks has already saved millions by not letting the on site employees control the HVAC systems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com