> If you think this is not the case, cool! Argue that!
This is literally your role here. You are disputing what multiple people have told you. If you think that the 'other value' is enough to keep stores open, then argue that (with numbers, obviously: this is HN, not reddit). If you think that stores aren't adapting, and that's why they're failing, and if they do X they would succeeded, then argue that, and describe X (with numbers, obviously: this is HN, not reddit).
We all know that a store provides more value than a warehouse. But is said extra value able to economically sustain properly-managed stores? The evidence (store closings) points to "mostly no". Your theory says "yes", (and perhaps that the store closings are actually a result of not doing X). Your theory is thus explicitly numbers-based. So how do you expect anyone to argue against the numbers in your theory when you haven't provided any?
As it stands now, your hypothesis is on equal footing, in terms of evidence, with "they didn't pray to the right god enough", and equally unconvincing. This is HN, not reddit: let's hear the specifics, not make random unconvincing claims and insist that proving or disproving them is someone else's job.
I'll get you started on your job of convincing someone other than yourself that your theory holds water, by providing an example with which you can proceed: Let's say we have an "all the XR glasses" store that lets visitors try on different XR glasses and see what fits, and the visitors then later buy them from Amazon because the glasses are cheaper there.
Ok, now your turn: go. How do they stay alive? If you can come up with something feasible and convincing, I might even start this store and give you a cut! :)
Responding this way also is inappropriate to my comment too. My comment would lead to the claim that stores closed because they failed to adapt to a changing environment. This would consequentially lead to exactly identical settings.
If you want evidence for why you might want to believe this, look at Sears. A store that famously had a mail based catalogue. Their failure to adapt to internet markets is widely discussed as from a hindsight perspective it seems crazy that they didn't dominate. They were literally doing an "online store" before the internet existed. You can also look to Blockbuster, which is also famously written about.
The point is that what's obvious post hoc isn't obvious in situ. Sears made a great blunder underestimating the popularity of online stores and continuing operating as normal (not adapting). Given that one of the leaders in the market made such an "obvious" blunder, I don't think we can rule out that others didn't similarly miscalculate.
If you think this is not the case, cool! Argue that! But you should justify it. Say why I'm dumb. Evidence it. But I'm not going to accept your claim if it is premised on people being oracles. They aren't now, we have evidence that they weren't then, so I don't have reason to believe that happened. It also doesn't align well with the order in which businesses failed nor align with explaining why certain ones are still around. You miss that my claim has such an explanation. But you need to actually think about what I said...
I welcome you calling me an idiot. But if you're going to do it, put some serious effort into it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc