8 ms·

> RFID based checkouts require a store of have every single one of their suppliers integrated the tags into their product. I'm sure the same was said about the

by Daviey 3y ago

> RFID based checkouts require a store of have every single one of their suppliers integrated the tags into their product. I'm sure the same was said about the introduction of barcodes in the 1970's. How can every single manufacturer be expected to adopt a uniformed standard, where there are not clashes between standards and adoption? Well, they managed it by collaboration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GS1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GS1 The same was also said about chip-and-pin payments, and further with online payments. This was largely implemented through regulation by the EU.

avianlyric 3y ago
Barcodes are much cheaper to implement, and provided a much greater benefit compared to the alternative (no automatic way of recognising goods), compared to RFID. RFID improves the customer UX experience at self checkouts, and also the opportunity to improve stock management (stock counts could be reduced to just waving an antenna over a shelf). But that improve is pretty marginal compared to barcodes. Also RFID tags aren’t a simple to introduce as barcodes, you can just slap an RFID tag on existing packing and just expect it to work, there are issues when dealing products that contain metal etc. Not insurmountable, but one more fly in the ointment. Chip-and-pin is very poor comparison, there’s realistically only 3 major card networks in Europe. If they mandate Chip-and-PIN, then chip-and-PIN happens. They only need to update card readers, of which there is only a small number of manufacturers, and they all already are used to following strict standards, and cards can be replaced as they expire, and again only a small number of manufacturers. Simply put RFID requires a huge number of manufacturers to correctly implement RFID tags on all their products, just so a single store can implement better checkouts. Why would manufacturers voluntarily pay for that cost when there’s no clear benefit for them? For stores, why would want to cover the cost of their suppliers adding RFID infrastructure to their supply chain, when the benefits are fairly limited compared to barcodes? That’s completely to Chip-and-PIN, where only the stores need to update their readers, and they can easily change to which ever manufacturer is willing to make them. Companies like Decathlon and Uniqlo have a huge advantage, because they get huge supply and stock control benefits from RFID due to their vertical integration. Better self checkout are just the cherry on top, but won’t be the primary reason for adopting RFID tech.
- Daviey 3y ago
  It is more than just improving the customer UX, it creates massive savings for the retailers. The further reduction of manned checkouts, and the faster customer throughput (some data that it is 25x faster) meaning reduced queues, which increases volume of sales. Every bit of reduced friction for the customer, increases profit potential. Further, loss prevention is reduced as accidental scanning errors, and ease of intentional theft is reduced. The issue you raise of containing metal is a historic problem, but has been solved for many years through RAIN RFID tags, where a metal surface itself actually becomes part of the antenna, making it even stronger. Are you aware of any further current issues? I agree, the cost is higher than a barcode, but when the barcode was introduced the same argument was valid. What is the benefit to the manufacturer to get involved in stock management, when the shop was previously responsible for "pricing-up" the item themselves. Wrigley's gum was the first to do it, but how did it benefit them? With more adoption, the price will decrease, and this will become standard. Or, what is the alternative? That we use barcodes for the next 100 years? Regarding chip-and-pin, I was responsible for writing some of the middleware in ~2004 that interfaced between chip-and-pin machines and terminals (& other devices), for what was then the largest provider in this space. It's wild that you state it was as simple as you claim, it was a massive effort across the industry, requiring lots of revisions to standards, collaboration, conferences etc. You feeling it was just a case of swapping the machine over, my former colleagues and I should take as a complement that we did it so well to give that impression.
  - Digit-Al 3y ago
    Something that occurs to me might be a problem in grocery stores is vegetables sold by weight. I can purchase potatoes, carrots, tomatoes, and other vegetables by weight and the scale will print a barcode to be scanned. Can one just print off an RFID tag like that? Seems unlikely.
    - Daviey 3y ago
      My prediction is that the ability to choose-your-own will go away over the next 10 years, and it will only be the option to buy pre-packaged. For the retail outlet, weigh-your-own is slow to process and a lot of wastage. Which is a shame, because it is better for the consumer and nearly always cheaper for us to choose-our-own.

by Daviey 3y ago

avianlyric 3y ago

Barcodes are much cheaper to implement, and provided a much greater benefit compared to the alternative (no automatic way of recognising goods), compared to RFID. RFID improves the customer UX experience at self checkouts, and also the opportunity to improve stock management (stock counts could be reduced to just waving an antenna over a shelf). But that improve is pretty marginal compared to barcodes. Also RFID tags aren’t a simple to introduce as barcodes, you can just slap an RFID tag on existing packing and just expect it to work, there are issues when dealing products that contain metal etc. Not insurmountable, but one more fly in the ointment. Chip-and-pin is very poor comparison, there’s realistically only 3 major card networks in Europe. If they mandate Chip-and-PIN, then chip-and-PIN happens. They only need to update card readers, of which there is only a small number of manufacturers, and they all already are used to following strict standards, and cards can be replaced as they expire, and again only a small number of manufacturers. Simply put RFID requires a huge number of manufacturers to correctly implement RFID tags on all their products, just so a single store can implement better checkouts. Why would manufacturers voluntarily pay for that cost when there’s no clear benefit for them? For stores, why would want to cover the cost of their suppliers adding RFID infrastructure to their supply chain, when the benefits are fairly limited compared to barcodes? That’s completely to Chip-and-PIN, where only the stores need to update their readers, and they can easily change to which ever manufacturer is willing to make them. Companies like Decathlon and Uniqlo have a huge advantage, because they get huge supply and stock control benefits from RFID due to their vertical integration. Better self checkout are just the cherry on top, but won’t be the primary reason for adopting RFID tech.

Daviey 3y ago
It is more than just improving the customer UX, it creates massive savings for the retailers. The further reduction of manned checkouts, and the faster customer throughput (some data that it is 25x faster) meaning reduced queues, which increases volume of sales. Every bit of reduced friction for the customer, increases profit potential. Further, loss prevention is reduced as accidental scanning errors, and ease of intentional theft is reduced. The issue you raise of containing metal is a historic problem, but has been solved for many years through RAIN RFID tags, where a metal surface itself actually becomes part of the antenna, making it even stronger. Are you aware of any further current issues? I agree, the cost is higher than a barcode, but when the barcode was introduced the same argument was valid. What is the benefit to the manufacturer to get involved in stock management, when the shop was previously responsible for "pricing-up" the item themselves. Wrigley's gum was the first to do it, but how did it benefit them? With more adoption, the price will decrease, and this will become standard. Or, what is the alternative? That we use barcodes for the next 100 years? Regarding chip-and-pin, I was responsible for writing some of the middleware in ~2004 that interfaced between chip-and-pin machines and terminals (& other devices), for what was then the largest provider in this space. It's wild that you state it was as simple as you claim, it was a massive effort across the industry, requiring lots of revisions to standards, collaboration, conferences etc. You feeling it was just a case of swapping the machine over, my former colleagues and I should take as a complement that we did it so well to give that impression.
- Digit-Al 3y ago
  Something that occurs to me might be a problem in grocery stores is vegetables sold by weight. I can purchase potatoes, carrots, tomatoes, and other vegetables by weight and the scale will print a barcode to be scanned. Can one just print off an RFID tag like that? Seems unlikely.
  - Daviey 3y ago
    My prediction is that the ability to choose-your-own will go away over the next 10 years, and it will only be the option to buy pre-packaged. For the retail outlet, weigh-your-own is slow to process and a lot of wastage. Which is a shame, because it is better for the consumer and nearly always cheaper for us to choose-our-own.