4 ms·

To be fair, this technology could have been introduced in a way that benefits the customer. Some products are smaller than the others, making them harder to sp

• Nextgrid 3y ago
  On the other hand, displaying products in a uniform size with a front 2D view means you lose a lot of the context that you subconsciously use to spot a product, so while it might make otherwise hard-to-notice products easier to spot the first time, it makes it way harder to find it again because everything kinda just blends in together.
• bayindirh 3y ago
  However, most fridges are stocked with the same order, so I can just sub-cortically go to the fridge and look to the exact point to see whatever I want is there or not. I do my shopping like that. First fridge set, third fridge, bottom shelf: Milk. Same set, last fridge, second shelf, right: My favorite cheese. That's time efficient.
• wakeupcall 3y ago
  At least where I shop, on a shelf if a product itself is smaller, more rows of them are used to that the space on the shelf is roughly the same, even though each row might not be stocked to the full depth of the shelf. In most cases at least. Upper/lower rows are generally where you can find smaller/niche products are more random on that front. Like the article explains, the shelf placement has in most cases been negotiated and/or maximized for profit. The screens will not help: I expect them doing exactly the same: scale products to subtly promote/demote depending on agreements. They will do this in addition to what is currently being already done, so it's likely a net loss for consumers.
• the_gipsy 3y ago
  There is basically nothing that would net improve UX here. Amazing that they managed to raise millions.
  • projektfu 3y ago
    "invest in people, not ideas"
  • thih9 3y ago
    Again, I feel like improving discoverability / readability could be it. E.g. I like reading ingredients of various products. I’d be happy to look at them on a giant screen somehow, as opposed to reading small text while holding a freezing item. Similar with showing price per weight, total numbers of inventory (so that I know that there are 5 ice creams available), etc. But yes, this won’t happen, we’ll get ads instead.
  • psd1 3y ago
    Parasitism. Evolve into an ecological niche where your prey has no defence against you, and suck nutrients from the prey, up to a maximal level where you don't quote kill it outright. We treat parasite infections with toxic chemicals. 50,000 litres of permethrin into the dwellings of the founders of this cooler door startup should be effective. Make sure you get all the larvae.
• 9dev 3y ago
  We’re a few decades into a climate catastrophe; the world consumes far too many resources and energy. If nothing changes fundamentally, our grandchildren are going to live in a dystopian wasteland. And yet somehow screens in front of fridges seem to be a good idea to some?
  • Denvercoder9 3y ago
    Putting screens in front of fridges could actually reduce energy consumption, if they allow the badly isolated glass doors to be replaced by thick, well-isolated doors.
    • 9dev 3y ago
      This isn’t just about the isolation; adding screens where none are necessary to display a few more ads, wasting precious metals AND energy for a net negative to society is so despicable, I‘m at a loss of words.
      • psd1 3y ago
        Yes, and... Glass doors may perform worse than opaque alternatives when closed, but their time open is shorter.
• psd1 3y ago
  > Some products are smaller than the others, making them harder to spot I fear that even this is not an actualisable benefit. Size is probably the easiest visual differentiator to perceive. You can differentiate between eyedrops and shampoo far faster than between different brands of shampoo.