Slashdot Mirror


Wal-Mart Says It Is 6-9 Months From Using Drones To Check Warehouse Inventory (yahoo.com)

Multinational retail corporation Wal-mart announced on Thursday that it is six to nine months from starting to use drones to check warehouse inventories in the United States. The drones, which are capable of operating on autopilot, fly through the aisles snapping 30 images a second, and deliver real-time data to employees about whether the correct product is shelved in the proper place. From a Reuters report: Finding ways to more efficiently warehouse, transport and deliver goods to customers has taken on new importance for Wal-Mart as it deals with wages costs while seeking to beat back price competition and boost online sales. Wal-Mart said the camera and technology on top of the drones have been custom-built for the retailer.

106 comments

  1. Gary is NOT a drone! by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

    That was a mean thing to say, Walmart.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Gary is NOT a drone! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Have you met Gary?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Gary is NOT a drone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has ADHD. It's not his fault.

    3. Re:Gary is NOT a drone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phlegm thing is a medical condition.

    4. Re: Gary is NOT a drone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You told Gary you want to eat a dick.

    5. Re:Gary is NOT a drone! by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      you got it wrong. the drone is going to terminate gary. with extreme severance.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    6. Re: Gary is NOT a drone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You told Gary you want to eat a dick.

      That night at dinner: "A duck, Gary, a duck!"

    7. Re:Gary is NOT a drone! by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The Human Snorch! I used to love that comic! "Phlegm On!"

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  2. now...the Drones of Walmart by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Funny

    taking pictures for the People of Walmart

    1. Re:now...the Drones of Walmart by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      There's a website for that. Not for the faint of heart.

      http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

    2. Re:now...the Drones of Walmart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the joke.

    3. Re:now...the Drones of Walmart by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That's the joke.

      No, that's the link. ;)

    4. Re:now...the Drones of Walmart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woooooooooooooooosh

  3. corporatespeak by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2

    as it deals with wages costs while seeking to beat back price competition

    This means "maintain high margins by laying people off"

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:corporatespeak by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      This seems like something that will add capabilities not possible or practical with their current workforce.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:corporatespeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really
      especially when compared to
      some others

    3. Re:corporatespeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, functionally it does.

      Got a problem with that? Do you truly believe the value-added by a full-time Walmart retail employee is entitled to the type of compensation to support a family?

    4. Re:corporatespeak by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      How high do you imagine their actual net margins to be? Specifically.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:corporatespeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who used to work for them and had access to how much they paid versus how much they sold them for, those margins are actually pretty high after you deduct the pay from the executives and shareholders which are pretty top heavy.

      I know, in my store, we sent on average 1 million dollars per month from our individual store to corporate and that was after paying all expenses in the store including our wages, during the holiday season I believe it jumped to something closer to 3 million.

      Give you a rough idea, annually they send roughly 2.2 BILLION to the 6 Walton heirs in dividends alone.

      Sad thing when it comes to these things, it is pretty easy to hide profit margins when you can just give it out as dividends to stockholders or give the executives pay increases to lower it.

      To look at real profit margins, you have to treat executive pay as part of it roughly or at the least do some math and break down which part of their pay is justified and which part of it is "Because we can" and then consider that part of it as profit margin as well.

    6. Re:corporatespeak by Falos · · Score: 1

      Yes, the value of labor is gone. Good luck supporting anything with it after 2030. Good luck, Prolekistan, you have nothing to export.

      And we all know what happens to populations in countries with nothing to export.

    7. Re:corporatespeak by Falos · · Score: 1

      "Superior" is the exact, "specific" height of causation, the only consequence they care about. With good reason.

    8. Re: corporatespeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds supposedly less errors. When I worked at a call center our fulfillment center certainly had errors. Maybe. But we at the operations command center had a million dollars worth of software that was supposed to replace us. Well, help us. Ha.

      And of course, if we could afford a raise we would, and we really wish we could. As has been said on here before, never hire a consultant you've used after the fact. Care to guess where he worked before he consulted? Sicromoft!

    9. Re:corporatespeak by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Do you truly believe the value-added by a full-time Walmart retail employee is entitled to the type of compensation to support a family?

      If Walmart cancelled their annual stock buybacks, they could afford to pay a living wage to employees.

    10. Re:corporatespeak by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      If Walmart cancelled their annual stock buybacks, they could afford to pay a living wage to employees.

      Are you saying Walmart employees are zombies?

    11. Re:corporatespeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck, Prolekistan, you have nothing to export.
      And we all know what happens to populations in countries with nothing to export.

      They get patrolled and randomly blown up by more drones while back in the United States the populace is controlled through fear of terrorists originating from there?

    12. Re:corporatespeak by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2

      This seems like something that will add capabilities not possible or practical with their current workforce.

      It will synergistically disrupt platforms while enhancing cloud value.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    13. Re:corporatespeak by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      But why do you think they should pay living wages to run a check out counter? You are quickly costing families out of a job.

      I know several families where 2 people work and make a livable wage. Raising those wages will cut at least one of them out of a job and destroy that family's income.

    14. Re:corporatespeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The population becomes the export.

    15. Re:corporatespeak by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      But why do you think they should pay living wages to run a check out counter?

      Get families off of welfare and stop taxpayers from subsidizing Walmart's profits.

      You are quickly costing families out of a job.

      Wrong! Walmart's business model need to change. Of course, Wall Street won't be happy if they stop buying back stock shares to support Main Street.

    16. Re:corporatespeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will synergistically disrupt platforms while enhancing cloud value.

      Bingo!

    17. Re:corporatespeak by lgw · · Score: 1

      Your entire argument is flawed: WalMart should give that money to me, not anyone else. I mean, if we're going to start telling companies what to do with their money, any option other than "give it all to lgw" is clearly the wrong option. Stop being so greedy!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:corporatespeak by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      This means "maintain high margins by laying people off"

      My hypocrisy detector is beeping. How many unnecessary people do you employ?

    19. Re:corporatespeak by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Get families off of welfare and stop taxpayers from subsidizing Walmart's profits.

      By providing these people with jobs, Walmart is reducing the amount of welfare they would otherwise receive. If you demand that every employee receive a "living wage" that can support a family, then Walmart is going to replace many of those employees with drones/self-checkout/stocking-robots/etc. and the welfare bill will go up, not down.

      If you go into a Walmart, you will see some employees in wheelchairs, some have Downs Syndrome. Many of these people would be otherwise unemployable. They are at the bottom of the economic ladder, and you want to kick away the lowest rung.

    20. Re:corporatespeak by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      stop taxpayers from subsidizing Walmart's profits

      Um, what?

      Reality is the precise opposite. Minimum wage is an example of government forcing Walmart, and other employers who utilize low-skilled labor, to subsidize welfare. The system quite unfairly gives an advantage to businesses who profit from highly skilled workers.

      It should be the other way around. Since the government is built to act in the interest of society, it should directly redistribute wealth within society to support welfare values. A progressive tax structure is actually a much fairer way to handle it than minimum wage.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    21. Re:corporatespeak by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Reality is the precise opposite.

      Doubt that. Walmart is a bad corporate citizen. Taxpayers have been subsidizing Walmart's profits for years.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#3301bbfa7cd8

      Taxpayers are also subsidizing security for Walmart with police calls.

      http://www.tampabay.com/projects/2016/public-safety/walmart-police/

    22. Re:corporatespeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My hypocrisy detector is beeping. How many unnecessary people do you employ?

      Two.

      Seriously. I staff at necessary +2 in order to have sufficient coverage for when someone is on vacation, and someone else calls in sick.

    23. Re:corporatespeak by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      You are missing the point.

      Walmart and other employers should bear zero responsibility for the goals of society. Walmart's only purpose for existence is to create profit for its owners... that's it! The fact that they have to employ over 2 million employees to do so, and contribute to our economy in significant ways, is simply a side-effect that happens to benefit society by helping to drive our economy.

      Society should pay for social programs. How can we do that? Taxes. Government is the primary vehicle for administering how society serves itself. We pay taxes to government for defense, we vote in government leaders and pay their salaries. Social programs are simply another societal aspect government is in a good position to administer.

      Walmart's job is not to pay for what we want. That's our job. And because we should pay for wealth redistribution, our government should administer it.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    24. Re:corporatespeak by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You do understand that the executive pay, and dividends, are both cash that's taxed as it goes to its recipients, right? Regardless, there are overhead issues that go WAY beyond the difference between wholesale costs and retail prices, minus paychecks/dividends.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    25. Re: corporatespeak by fizzup · · Score: 1

      5% EBIT percentage and 3% net income applicable to common stock, relative to revenue for the year ending January 31, 2016. You are welcome.

    26. Re: corporatespeak by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That is really much too much money. They should not be allowed to earn money like that. Nobody who has Walmart stock in their retirement accounts should be allowed to share in any of that enormous, evil profit. We have to Bern this down, along with any banks that help them do their evil business with those enormous profits that are keeping 47% of the people in the country from making enough money to pay income taxes.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    27. Re:corporatespeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see a very basic income. Perhaps an expansion of Social Security. Something like $500 to $600 per month/person for adults and half that for those 20 and under. For citizens and permanent residents only. I figure it'd cost around $1.2 trillion as we can ignore seniors on Social Security already receiving it plus those who on on it due to a disability.

      As for Wal-Mart. I'd like to see a two-tired minimum wage where one affects larger businesses, and the other, the status quo that is, affecting non-large businesses. I'd also like to see universal health care rather than what we have now. We also probably need rent control and property tax reform in some states.

    28. Re:corporatespeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walmart and other employers should bear zero responsibility for the goals of society. Walmart's only purpose for existence is to create profit for its owners... that's it!

      At one point corporations only existed to benefit society. Now, they are morally obligated to be leaches. Sad.

    29. Re:corporatespeak by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Yes, functionally it does.

      Got a problem with that? Do you truly believe the value-added by a full-time Walmart retail employee is entitled to the type of compensation to support a family?

      alternately, do you truly believe the value of supporting a family is equal to the compensation of a full time Walmart retail employee?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    30. Re:corporatespeak by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The population becomes the export.

      Worked for Scotland. There's a reason why every engineer on every ship on earth or in sf books is named Scotty, and it's not all due to James Doohan. (and they have whisky and woolens to export too!)

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    31. Re:corporatespeak by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Do you truly believe the value-added by a full-time Walmart retail employee is entitled to the type of compensation to support a family?

      If Walmart cancelled their annual stock buybacks, they could afford to pay a living wage to employees.

      Riders of the Living Wage

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    32. Re:corporatespeak by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      When was that time?

  4. Good Ole WallyWorld... by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

    Weren't these folks the same ones that pioneered importing everything from China back when? Now, everyone has to do it to remain "competitive". Now, robots staffing the warehouses, what next? Will they also replace the single employee that covers pretty much the entire sales floor with custom Cortana based customer service bots?

    At the end of this mad race to the bottom we call capitalism who will be left with jobs so they can, you know, shop at Wal-Mart?

    1. Re:Good Ole WallyWorld... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Will they also replace the single employee that covers pretty much the entire sales floor with custom Cortana based customer service bots?

      http://www.kurzweilai.net/imag...

    2. Re:Good Ole WallyWorld... by ickleberry · · Score: 1

      They need to replace the Waltons with a PHP script that randomly disperses small amounts of their dollars to random people till most of its gone, then keeps dispersing as it's rolling in. Thats the only way this sh1t is going to work long term

    3. Re:Good Ole WallyWorld... by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      >

      At the end of this mad race to the bottom we call capitalism who will be left with jobs so they can, you know, shop at Wal-Mart?

      I've seen that movie. It's called Idiocracy and the computers that ran Brawndo fired the CEO due to stock price drops. Even the CEO wasn't as important as the computers that ran the company.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  5. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'rere classifying employees as drones so they can pay less?

  6. Seems Too Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why wouldn't static cameras work better? Or even cameras that travel along ceiling rails and can zoom in to the specific product location. Those sound cheaper than custom-designed drones.

    1. Re:Seems Too Expensive by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Free publicity

    2. Re:Seems Too Expensive by TheDanish · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're talking about the back room of a walmart store, then maaaaaaybe. But installing static cameras and/or rails that capture EVERY location's contents accurately doesn't scale well with the 1 million sqft standalone warehouses they're talking about. The costs would far exceed any benefit. And gods forbid if you want to reconfigure your racks! Meanwhile, if you can make a $500 drone that can do inventory counts automatically, even if you have to manually program its flight path each time you change your rack layout, you've just saved a crapload of money.

      --
      Danish != nationality
    3. Re:Seems Too Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have to hire someone at the location in the United States to install fixed cameras or rails. Then you have to have someone service/upgrade them as they break and get old. A drone can be manufactured in whatever place is cheaper than China now and thrown away when it gets broken or outdated. Drones can be programmed (and reprogrammed, when the warehouse layout changes) in one salaried employee's unpaid overtime.

    4. Re:Seems Too Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because when they re-orient the shelves or change the aisles to be yet again narrower so they can add more crap to the store or add another tall floor-standing display of some crap, the cameras are either now in the wrong place or can't see the bottom shelves due to the floor displays. Drones can fly around stuff, get to the bottom shelf, etc.

    5. Re:Seems Too Expensive by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      How about collapsible aisles to maximize the store surface? People just punch whatever items they want on displays at the checkout counters, the required aisle opens up, a drone gets the item and the aisles collapse back together?

      To which a troll would reply "How about floating packages hosted in the cloud and brought to you by rainbow-farting unicorns?"

    6. Re:Seems Too Expensive by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't static cameras work better?

      Because you would need a lot of them. Maybe one for every pallet rack. A Walmart distribution center contains thousands of racks.

      Or even cameras that travel along ceiling rails and can zoom in to the specific product location.

      You would need rails for every aisle, and very high res cameras to see pallet barcodes from a 48 ft ceiling at a high angle. They would be way out of range of any passive RFID pallet tags.

      Those sound cheaper than custom-designed drones.

      The drones are mostly off-the-shelf. Only a few components are customized. You would only need two or three drones per warehouse (one working, and one or two backups). That would be way cheaper than a big installation of fixed or rail cameras.

    7. Re:Seems Too Expensive by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      A lot of National Part Distribution Center's(NPDC's aka the big auto company warehouses) have already tried all this stuff(cameras, RFID's, drones, fully automated systems, etc), walmart could save themselves time and effort and simply look at trials that GM/Ford/Chrysler/Honda/Toyota places and find out that none of it works and people on the ground does. Or they can just enjoy wasting the money on it. If it's one thing I've learned it's that when a company's top people get an idea in their head that something is a great idea, they'll continue to try it until it fails for them just like everyone else.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re: Seems Too Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean... Amazon?

    9. Re:Seems Too Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so

    10. Re:Seems Too Expensive by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Or they could realize that tech improves in both capability and cost effectiveness, and drone tech in particular has been improving rapidly. So it is likely a good time to revisit the idea.

      I own a quadcopter drone. I am also an embedded system programmer. I used to work in a warehouse, drove a forklift, and participated in many inventory audits. Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't see any roadblocks to making it work. The biggest obstacle would be the lack of GPS inside the warehouse, but an obvious solution would be to put waypoint barcodes on the racks, the ceiling, and/or the floor. That is already the way that many wheeled robots navigate, so many warehouses already have these waypoint markers.

  7. Amazon behind? by avandesande · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems like this would be applied readily to Amazon warehouses- you could even have drones pick small items right off the shelf.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Amazon behind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon uses robots to autonomously fulfill the warehouse orders in the first place, so I would hardly call that 'behind'

  8. snapping 30 images a second by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    AKA video.

    1. Re:snapping 30 images a second by doconnor · · Score: 1

      It's probably 29.97 tops!

  9. Wal-Mart wages by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    "... as it deals with wages costs ..."

    LOL! Wal-Mart has to "deal with wages costs!" HAHAHA! That's a good one! From the company that pays starvation wages and accompanies pay checks with info about where to apply for food stamps!

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:Wal-Mart wages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you actually look into it their hourly pay rate isn't all that out of line with a lot of other retailers, the big problem is they would much rather have everyone be part time to avoid paying benefits.

    2. Re:Wal-Mart wages by ffkom · · Score: 1

      Even more funny given Walmarts Epic Fail in Germany, where they failed to compete against other discounters paying higher wages and providing more benefits.

    3. Re:Wal-Mart wages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty surprising. Thx for info.

  10. Re:Put some in the stores too by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Can we also program the drones to crash into mobility scooters if visual analysis determines the rider to be a skinny ass punk?

    FTFY

  11. static cameras? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't correctly placed cameras make this much less problem prone? Run the power and coax through the shelf frames so they don't get mangled by the boxes and you're in decent shape. Moving parts always fail, so removing a "flying drone" is a good idea. Plus it gets rid of the battery replacement problem.

  12. Walmart is Inexpensive by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2

    People shop there for inexpensive stuff. Some of that stuff is made in China, so substitute "cheap" for "inexpensive," but the premise is the same. I shop there when "cheap/inexpensive" is what is driving the purchase. When "quality" is driving the purchase, I shop elsewhere. I have a choice, and I make it. Some people are poor, do not have a choice, and shop at Walmart all the time. Thank God for Walmart.

    Let robots and automation take over whatever jobs they can, and free Man to do the jobs only he can do. Yeah, it will suck to be a Walmart stock clerk over the next ten years, just like it sucked to be a buggy whip manufacturer for the first ten years of the 20th century.

    Focus less upon wringing your hands that robots and automation have finally arrived, albeit ten or so years later than expected. Focus your efforts on what we need to do to educate and re-educate people with the skills needed to adapt to the new workplaces. Or do you believe a man is entitled to a job that a robot can do better and less expensively.

    >>"WallyWorld"

    Grow up!

    1. Re:Walmart is Inexpensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or do you believe a man is entitled to a job that a robot can do better and less expensively

      If you wish to demand that people MUST work, then yes, there MUST be jobs for them to do. If it impossible for everyone to achieve your categorical imperative, then you Kan't demand it.

    2. Re:Walmart is Inexpensive by tbyington · · Score: 1

      As we developed machine ability faster than we trained people for new job openings, people found out they were not the buggy whip manufacturer, they were the horse.

    3. Re:Walmart is Inexpensive by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Indeed. As Mike Rowe has pointed out, there is a shortage of good skilled trade workers out there now: plumbers, electricians, carpenters, sheet metal workers, etc.. and everything is geared towards STEM now. The trades pay pretty well, they'll probably never become obsolete, and someone has to be able to do that stuff.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    4. Re:Walmart is Inexpensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Grow up!

      Hey, even my grandmother calls it Wally World. Referring to Walmart in that fashion isn't a sign of immaturity, it's just a silly name.

  13. OK then... by no-body · · Score: 1

    gotta take an umbrella, some stick or a fly swatter with you when you go there and the things are flirring around to hit them if they come too close.

    Also, how would they count tightly stacked small boxes in rows of 1' deep shelfs?

    Wmart saving even more on sub-living hourly wages using retirees on medicare shaving off some bucks and loading it on the general population.

    Yeah! Capitalism is better than Socialism (not my statement, but another guy's who was unable to define what those terms mean and where pure forms exist successfully)

    1. Re:OK then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gotta take an umbrella, some stick or a fly swatter with you when you go there and the things are flirring around to hit them if they come too close.

      Warehouse... not the retail store -you wont be anywhere near these things.

      Also, how would they count tightly stacked small boxes in rows of 1' deep shelfs?

      RFID. I can already walk down an aisle with a scanner in hand and get a count of every sku in the aisle.

  14. Because drones by wcrowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surely they're not just relying on video alone. Maybe RFIDs play a role too. Otherwise, this seems like a really expensive and error-prone way of managing warehouse space. Other warehouse inventory systems would seem to be more accurate and cheaper (things like pick-to-light; put-to-light, etc).

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:Because drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm months away from having drones do other equally useful stuff, like brush my teeth.

    2. Re:Because drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also amazed that they can't just purchase a decent inventory tracking system, perhaps using RFIDs, but then they might feel that they are not keeping up with all the latest fads in superfluous gadgetry.

    3. Re:Because drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddy, as someone who has consulted for WalMart you have no idea what you're talking about.

    4. Re:Because drones by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      I also wondered why they would design a drone to do this instead of just using RFID tags. Back in 2003 Wal-Mart announced they were requiring their largest suppliers to integrate RFID tags into packaging.

      Did Wal-Mart love RFID to death?

  15. Wall-e by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Waaalll-eeeeee.

  16. This is so dumb they should be able to rfid things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can just rfid the whole warehouse and slopstack like amazon. Of course they're dumb and want to get "cutting edge" so some fat hick in a suit started talking about flying drones.

  17. Won't do any good by hambone142 · · Score: 1

    Their problem seems to be related to the inability to move their products from their store warehouse to their shelves so the public can actually purchase the products.

    1. Re:Won't do any good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's actually one of the things that originally made Walmart unique. They have no back room with stock. Their computer system was designed to deliver items to the store exactly when they were needed. This let them keep stock up without having to have storage at every store. They could make the store larger than a competitor's would be in the same space. Initially, this was a huge thing for Walmart.

      Of course, this plan fell to shit at some point Now because of their lack of storage at the stores they've resorted to storing pallets of crap in the aisles, and staff cutbacks have made it next to impossible for them to get the items off of the pallets and into their space on the shelves in a timely manner. This is why Walmarts now have aisles blocked with pallets of crap while their shelves are empty.

  18. Wouldn't it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be cheaper to rfid everything and then have sensors regularly throughout the warehouse? I swear there were crazy cheap rfid (paper?) being touted a few years back.

  19. Walmart has employees? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Whenever I encounter a blue-uniformed worker in the store other than at checkout, it's a vendor doing the employees' work for them.

  20. Hope you're happy.... by erp_consultant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    all you out there clamoring for $15/hr minimum wage. This is the beginning of the end of low paying/entry level jobs. We're seeing this in the fast food industry as well with automated french fry machines, and probably burger makers soon too. When government decides to get involved and try to tell businesses how to do things this is the predictable response.

    When you are in a low margin business like fast food, or WalMart for that matter, you simply can't make a profit paying people $15/hr for entry level jobs that require little to no skill. So they turn to cheaper robots. So instead of a bunch of $10/hr jobs you end up with zero, or close to zero, $15/hr jobs.

    1. Re:Hope you're happy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep on pretending, shilly boy. If the minimum wage hadn't gone up, the price of drones would have come down. The only thing that changes is how much more the drone companies can charge while still being cheaper than the dozens of employees they replaced.

    2. Re:Hope you're happy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except these companies were going to automate anyway; they'd be stupid not to regardless of minimum wage. Even $1/hr is too much compared to a robot.

    3. Re:Hope you're happy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying increasing the minimum wage would increase per person productivity and make it so fewer people are wasting their lives flipping burgers... I don't really see the downside. As long as technology keeps getting cheaper/better and people stay the same price automation WILL happen where it can happen eventually. The question is only "when it will happen". If we try to slow automation then that just give places like China who will automate every chance they get a greater comparative advantage than they already have. Yes in the short run fewer people will have jobs but that issue is also solvable by automation.

    4. Re:Hope you're happy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep on dreaming, Marxy boy.

    5. Re:Hope you're happy.... by LiquidAvatar · · Score: 2

      Let's do a thought experiment with some made up, but representative numbers.

      We have French Fries 'r Us, which is open 16 hours per day. Each day, they have 2 employees dedicated to making the french fries (each doing an 8 hour shift), and the owner is considering automation to eliminate the position of Fry Frier. He finds that the French Fry Machine can be purchased for $180k.

      Paying each of his 2 full time Fry Friers $15/hour comes to ~$62k per year. So, the machine has a 3 year ROI, what a deal! He decides to eliminate the positions and personally reaps the financial rewards (after 3 years).

      Paying each of his 2 full time Fry Friers $10/hour comes to ~$42k per year. So, the machine has about a 4 and a quarter year ROI... what a deal! He decides to eliminate the positions and personally reaps the financial rewards (after 4 and a quarter years).

      This is simplified, ignoring things like the costs of employee benefits, employment taxes, the impact of sick days or of employees just not showing up... and maintenance costs for the machine... but you get the point. Automation is coming; every day we build better machines that can do more work, and every day the cost of those machines goes down as we figure out better ways to build them.

      The only way to keep those menial jobs around is to *reduce* the minimum wage so that human labor becomes cheaper than automated labor (which is constantly becoming cheaper). And there's a dangerous situation; we are financially incentivizing the degradation of humans, while pulling business away from the people who are inventing better/more efficient machines.

      I think that the ideal end-goal is to have a population that is entirely capable of doing interesting, meaningful work... such as improving the automation of menial tasks. Rather than focusing on how to protect menial tasks for our unskilled labor force, let's focus on how those people can live decent lives while developing the skills that they need to actually contribute to society.

      --
      It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
      -Voltaire
    6. Re:Hope you're happy.... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting analysis. Tasks that can be automated WILL be automated. It's only a matter of when and to what extent. In the Auto industry we have seen what it might look like already. You have robots that can create thousands of perfect welds, better than any human could do. Then you have a human to inspect the welds to make sure nothing was missed. That's the model. Robot makes the fries, human inspects the fries before they get served to anyone.

      As you pointed out above, raising the minimum wage (or shaming companies into doing so) simply accelerates the process. The real question is what happens to all these newly displaced workers? Many of the fast food workers are high school kids so they can just deliver pizzas or something. But what about semi skilled workers? Retraining is difficult and costly. Government led retraining efforts have historically been dismal failures. My fear is that 10% unemployment will become the "new normal". Obviously this will put a tremendous strain on an already strained entitlement system. Which will lead to even higher taxes on the middle class (the upper class always finds a way to evade paying their fair share).

  21. Re:Put some in the stores too by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The test for whether or not someone ought to be provided a mobility scooter is "can they comfortably walk through a Wal-Mart in order to retrieve the item they want to purchase?", and has nothing to do with what the specific reason for their being uncomfortable with walking that far might be.

    Wal-Mart's prime competitor is one which requires zero walking, so it makes sense to offer a reduced-walking option for any customer who might desire it.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  22. Counterintuitively, counting inventory sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As anyone who knows pretty much anything about warehousing and SCM knows, the absolute worst possible way of determining the contents of your operational warehouse is to go and try to physically count what is there (i'm not kidding.) Seriously, even the most basic in/out inventory system will have a better idea. Every time I've had a client go and try to count what is physically there, they have made such a complete James Hunt of it as for the effort to have been entirely wasted.

    Getting a drone to do this? Yeah, right.

  23. of course by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    the drones will be made in china

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  24. make america shop again by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    I will build the greatest Walmart that you've ever seen. And I would never do this myself. But I hope it will be so -- actually, it will even look great. I already know what it should look like. You know, the other day, they were saying, I was watching these characters -- politicians that are running against me -- you can't get Mexico to pay for the Walmart! Of course you can. They can't because they never would even think of it.
    Do you know how much Mexico is making from the United States? That's peanuts, the Walmart. And then they say, you can't build a Walmart! It's too big, it doesn't work. Well, 3,000 years ago -- right? The Great Walmart of China was built. We would like to have that Walmart. That Walmart, nobody gets through. That I can tell you. And that's 13,000 miles. right? And that was done between -- did it take them 500 years in all fairness. A pretty long time. They don't stop. We need tough people to negotiate with the Chinese. They don't stop. But The Great Walmart of China was built.
    In Mexico, they were complaining 13,000 miles. It doesn't work. They have these Walmarts built. They said people go over these Walmarts with a ladder. Do you know how tall the Walmart is? Like this. It is not a Walmart. It is a little fence. People put up a ladder that they buy at home depot and they jump and that's the end of it. I'm talking about a Walmart. See that ceiling there? higher. Did you ever see -- okay. Did you ever see the plank for parking garages? As an example. Not a big deal.
    I'm a great builder. What do I best in life, I build. Your infrastructure is crumbling. Isn't it nice to have a builder? A real builder. So you take precast plank. It comes 30 feet long, 40 feet long, 50 feet long. You see the highways where they can span 50, 60 feet, even longer than that, right? And do you a beautiful nice precast plank with beautiful everything. Just perfect. I want it to be so beautiful because maybe someday they'll call it The Trump Walmart. Maybe. So I have to make sure it's beautiful, right? I'll be very proud of that Walmart. If they call at this The Trump Walmart, it has to be beautiful. And you put that plank up and you dig your footings. And you put that plank up -- there's no ladder going over that. If they ever go up there, they're in trouble, because here's no way to get down. Maybe a rope.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  25. Re:Put some in the stores too by Bathroom+Humor · · Score: 1

    Wal-Mart's prime competitor

    I bet next you'll tell us that was unintentional.