5 ms·

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 custome

by 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.
avianlyric 3y ago
> The issue you raise of containing metal is a historic problem, but has been solved for many years through RAIN RFID tags Yes I know it’s solved. But it’s not as simple as barcodes. Each product needs to be evaluated to decide if you’re gonna put a tag on it that works well on metal surfaces, because those tags tend to be marginally more expensive than the alternatives. > 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. Simple, there’s an obvious cost reduction for shops, no more need for labels or hours of pricing up, makes it easier for a store to eat the costs for their manufacturers. For manufacturers, the improved stock management at stores would allow this store to carry a large variety of brands, which makes it easier for manufacturers to get their products onto shelves. > 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? The price of RFID tags isn’t expected to get any lower. General consensus is that there’s already enough demand for RFID tags that they’ve more or less hit their lower possible price, and any further reduction are not going to be meaningful. What’s wrong with using barcodes? It’s a well proven technology, you could update them to 2D barcodes if you want more encoded data. There’s no reason to get rid of technology that works perfectly well just for the sake of using a “newer” technology. Most retailers are looking at Amazon fresh stores and wondering if that can be made to scale to grocery stores. > Further, loss prevention is reduced as accidental scanning errors, and ease of intentional theft is reduced. The types of thefts you’re referring to aren’t meaningful compared to theft carried out by organised crime, and by the staff themselves. RFID tags aren’t going to stop people walking into stores and simply picking up and entire rack of clothes, or sweeping all stakes in the meat section, and walking out. That kind of theft is a real problem, and store staff deliberately don’t stop those thieves because the risk of violence is far too high. > 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. I’m very aware of the complexities involved in any kind of change to the EMV standards, or simple changes in payment network rules. I’ve been involved in both the negotiations and technical implementation of those changes. The difference is the number of parties and teams involved. A single grocer will have hundreds of suppliers each, and likely thousands of manufacturers. The number of parties involved is substantially greater than the number of issuers and acquirers in the world. So yes, I do think stuff like Chip-and-PIN was simpler to implement than RFID. It’s all relative.

by Daviey 3y ago

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.

avianlyric 3y ago

> The issue you raise of containing metal is a historic problem, but has been solved for many years through RAIN RFID tags Yes I know it’s solved. But it’s not as simple as barcodes. Each product needs to be evaluated to decide if you’re gonna put a tag on it that works well on metal surfaces, because those tags tend to be marginally more expensive than the alternatives. > 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. Simple, there’s an obvious cost reduction for shops, no more need for labels or hours of pricing up, makes it easier for a store to eat the costs for their manufacturers. For manufacturers, the improved stock management at stores would allow this store to carry a large variety of brands, which makes it easier for manufacturers to get their products onto shelves. > 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? The price of RFID tags isn’t expected to get any lower. General consensus is that there’s already enough demand for RFID tags that they’ve more or less hit their lower possible price, and any further reduction are not going to be meaningful. What’s wrong with using barcodes? It’s a well proven technology, you could update them to 2D barcodes if you want more encoded data. There’s no reason to get rid of technology that works perfectly well just for the sake of using a “newer” technology. Most retailers are looking at Amazon fresh stores and wondering if that can be made to scale to grocery stores. > Further, loss prevention is reduced as accidental scanning errors, and ease of intentional theft is reduced. The types of thefts you’re referring to aren’t meaningful compared to theft carried out by organised crime, and by the staff themselves. RFID tags aren’t going to stop people walking into stores and simply picking up and entire rack of clothes, or sweeping all stakes in the meat section, and walking out. That kind of theft is a real problem, and store staff deliberately don’t stop those thieves because the risk of violence is far too high. > 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. I’m very aware of the complexities involved in any kind of change to the EMV standards, or simple changes in payment network rules. I’ve been involved in both the negotiations and technical implementation of those changes. The difference is the number of parties and teams involved. A single grocer will have hundreds of suppliers each, and likely thousands of manufacturers. The number of parties involved is substantially greater than the number of issuers and acquirers in the world. So yes, I do think stuff like Chip-and-PIN was simpler to implement than RFID. It’s all relative.