Isn't this just one step away from Amazon just being another brick-and-mortar? If this is the case, is not having an actual store that is accessible by customers (and coincidentally, the neccessary staff), that much of a operational advantage?
Or is this just a case of the more efficient company (Amazon) beating out less efficient companies (Best Buy, Barnes and Nobles, etc...)?
It's not just the staff, I think -- it's the real estate. Amazon doesn't have to have conveniently located distributed locations and the inventory headaches associated with them; they can just have one gigantic warehouse in Jersey that provides goods to all their customers in Manhattan.
No it isn't, because it's markedly less efficient. Amazon is, literally, taking the concept of the "store" and putting it online - yes they've done that already, but the instant gratification of receiving your item same-day; that's a true shopping experience that you, previously, could only really have with Brick and Mortar shops.
Instead of physically shopping inside of a store where you will have fewer selection, you shop online with a lot more selection, a powerful search based interface, recommendations, reviews, etc...; then have the items efficiently sent to you same-day.
Amazon is very successfully grounding the "internet" in the real world - and they are eating quite a few lunches.
I don't think Amazon would ever go the brick-and-mortar route, but having these facilities in major metropolitan areas might enable it to have a lot of 'Pick up at location' kind of shopping.
You fail to realize how tremendously expensive it is to operate a retail environment. The real estate, the overhead, the heating and cooling, the cleaning, the customer associates; It's absolutely huge compared with a warehouse.
Or is this just a case of the more efficient company (Amazon) beating out less efficient companies (Best Buy, Barnes and Nobles, etc...)?