Walmart Tests Shelf-Scanning Robots In Over 50 Stores (engadget.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Walmart Tests Shelf-Scanning Robots In Over 50 Stores (engadget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Thursday October 26, 2017 @11:20AM from the automated-living dept.

Walmart is expanding a shelf-scanning robot trial to 50 additional stores, including some in its home state of Arkansas. "Machines from Bossa Nova Robotics will roam the aisles to check for stock levels, pricing and misplaced items, saving human staffers the hassle of checking everything themselves," reports Engadget. The robots will be fully autonomous, though technicians will be available in case things go awry. They employ 3D imaging to dodge obstacles and make notes to return later if their path is completely blocked. From the report: Walmart stresses that the robots are there to supplement humans, not replace them -- to eliminate drudgery and the expenses that go with it. This helps workers get to the task of filling empty shelves, and that's a job that the company doesn't see ending any time soon given the difficulty robots still have when grabbing objects. "Store associates will always be better at that," Walmart's Martin Hitch told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. And the chief of Bossa Nova rival Simbe Robotics, Brad Bogolea, added that shelf checks can cost a major retailer hundreds of millions of dollars per year. However expensive the robots may be, they could pay for themselves very quickly. Whether or not the robots see wider use will, unsurprisingly, hinge on the success of this wider trial. Walmart posted a video about the shelf-scanning robots on its YouTube page.

76 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Bossa Nova Robotics? by sexconker · 2017-10-26 11:25 · Score: 2

Soul Bossa Nova? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
1. Re: Bossa Nova Robotics? by sconeu · 2017-10-26 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  I guess if this doesn't work out they can blame it on the Bossa Nova
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
2. Re: Bossa Nova Robotics? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 14:15 · Score: 0
  
  As long as they say "Beep-Boop-Bop", the old- timers will be happy with their stereotyped presence. :-)
3. Re: Bossa Nova Robotics? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 15:00 · Score: 0
  
  It's "Beep-boop-beep" you clueless whippersnapper. Get off mah lawn!
u have 1 minute to comply... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 11:27 · Score: 0

restock it now
Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by DogDude · 2017-10-26 11:32 · Score: 2

This is not the right way to fix this problem. The right way is to have humans do this job. They're cheaper and more effective. Retail stores that don't have human employees actively working in them turn to shit very very quickly. See: most department stores in the US today.

You need humans to not only check stock levels, but to see and fix any other problems that may be around (anything on the floor, broken something, etc.).

If you're using them for ordering, you shouldn't. You should fix whatever's wrong with your POS system that can't track inventory levels.

This won't work.

--
I don't respond to AC's.
1. Re: Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  These will be treated like the timers they "use" at restaurants.
  Someone is just going to hit the button and forget.
  If it doesn't let them do that they will flat out ignore it.
  What if what's on the shelf is all that's left? Is this system going to keep annoying everyone about it?
  I've seen computer controlled inventory go unused for years at some places. They don't type the numbers in until the end of the month so it's only right for the first week of any month. For some reason ringing stuff up isn't used to keep track...probably theft aka "shrink."
2. Re: Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by slazzy · 2017-10-26 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like a good idea to me. The robot can note where there is a dirty spot on the floor, take pictures of objects like mcdonalds cups left on the shelfs, spots where items to be rearanged to dispach humans to fix the problems.
  
  --
  Website Just Down For Me? Find out
3. Re: Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  Or you know, just build a roomba in to the bottom.
4. Re: Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by FatdogHaiku · 2017-10-26 12:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  A relative of mine was head of IT for a vendor that served Walmart (and most major food retailers) and I was impressed by how he could check stock at ANY Walmart via a vendors app. Their system for inventory and ordering seemed pretty much on the ball. We actually checked a stores numbers and then visited the store to confirm and they were for the most part spot on for, say, units in the freezers. Back room I don't know about but they had never had an issue with out of stock where the home office didn't get alerts to ship more product to a warehouse. They also tracked expiration dates, as this was perishable food stuffs. I would hope that since they were doing all that already (this was 6 years ago) then any integrating of low stock warnings into the existing system would be axiomatic...
  but then, they might be fudging their sales numbers...
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
5. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by Dutch+Gun · 2017-10-26 12:27 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The entire point of using robots is because they're cheaper than humans in the long run. Human employees are essentially a indefinite rental cost, there's supplementary costs and risks involved, they can quit at any time, and they can only work eight hours a day. Robots are a fixed cost of ownership + smaller maintenance costs, which will presumably cost far less in the long run. They can work 24/7/365, minus maintenance or repair time. In pure economic terms, it's rather nonsensical to hire a human to do a job that a reasonably-priced robot can do.
  If you think this isn't the trend of the future, you're in denial. But there's certainly a question of how our society adjusts to robots "supplementing" (in reality, replacing) a portion of a currently human workforce. Certain types of jobs are constantly being phased out due to technology or automation, and while disruptive in the short term, society has adjusted. But many people are worried about the *pace* of these new technologies being a disruptive force, or the notion of AI replacing more skilled workers.
  I'm more of the opinion that it won't be catastrophically disruptive to society largely because it will also help lower costs of goods and services. Plus I believe people are over-estimating how fast the transition will occur. Some people tend to neglect to factor in the massive inertia of existing infrastructure. We'll have to see how it goes - but there's really no putting technology back in the bottle.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
6. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  Well, then the humans can focus on checking the floor or if something is broken rather than the stock levels, saving time.
7. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by thereitis · 2017-10-26 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  Call me a luddite, but after trying them a number of times I'm now avoiding self-checkout lines. Two reasons: 1) poor experience. No greeting, no thank you, no human interaction, and patronizing repetitive instructions. 2) They're going to put people out of work. These are important jobs for many people and to have them eliminated or largely reduced would affect a lot of people negatively.
8. Re: Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 16:47 · Score: 0
  
  Shoplifting. Customers misplacing products. Human workers misplacing products. Products destroyed in shop. Products gotten old. There are many human related issues that can cause errors to inventory.
9. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by slack_justyb · 2017-10-26 17:48 · Score: 1
  
  poor experience. No greeting, no thank you, no human interaction, and patronizing repetitive instructions.
  Funny, I could literally say the same thing for a Walmart cashier.
  
  They're going to put people out of work.
  Uh, yeah, I think that's the point. Go Youtube "Humans need not apply"
10. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by houghi · 2017-10-27 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is that instead of have 2 people working 40 hours each and replacing 1 person means 1 person still works 40 and get standard pay, while the other gets nothing and the owner of the robot take the other pay that was lost.
  Ideal would be to have both work 20 hours and keep their pay.
  (Yes, I know that I have put the cost of the robot at 0 in this example)
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
11. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-27 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  No greeting, no thank you, no human interaction,
  i am not sure i understand, that sounds perfect! i don't have to deal with idiot humans. and lets be fair, if most of them they weren't idiot humans they would probably have a better job than Walmart.
  
  They're going to put people out of work.
  it is going to happen anyway, so lets make sure it happens faster! lets get over this stupid notion that everyone needs to work for a living. our economy is going to need to change to accommodate a nearly entirely robotic workforce. it is only a matter of time before your current job will be replaced. that includes IT Workers. heck they are already coming for us via H1-B's anyway.
12. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by EndlessNameless · 2017-10-27 03:13 · Score: 2
  
  The right way is to have humans do this job. They're cheaper and more effective.
  The 1970s called. They want their facts back.
  
  You need humans to not only check stock levels, but to see and fix any other problems that may be around (anything on the floor, broken something, etc.).
  We have autonomous cars driving on American highways right now, and you think we can't figure this out? (Granted, they are required to have an engineer present in case the system fails, but that requirement will be gone before long.) Floor obstructions were already addressed, as the article says the robot can drive around them or schedule another visit if an area is completely blocked.
  People need to fix issues, but a combination of robots and cameras can find most things. Detecting spills and messy shelves isn't much harder than what we are already doing. As always, you'll need to rely on manual spot checks for areas where robots and cameras are not practical or not allowed.
  
  Retail stores that don't have human employees actively working in them turn to shit very very quickly.
  It's not like they're getting rid of their entire staff. If anything, it will make them more effective. Having an updated map of shelves and what needs to be stocked will make it a lot easier to keep product available. This frees up the staff to work with customers and clean the store.
  
  --
  
  ---
  According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
13. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by avandesande · 2017-10-27 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  That's sad really and might say more about you than the employee.
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
14. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by CrimsonAvenger · 2017-10-27 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  2) They're going to put people out of work. These are important jobs for many people and to have them eliminated or largely reduced would affect a lot of people negatively.
  Good point. Assuming, of course, that you use a palanquin to get about town, of course. Or are palanquin-bearers more expendable than cashiers?
  Oh, and how do you feel about using cranes to lift heavy loads rather than a whole bunch of people heaving on the line? Another bad thing?
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
15. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by WrongMonkey · 2017-10-27 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  No greeting, no thank you, no human interaction
  That's exactly why I prefer shelf-checkout. I go to a store to exchange symbolic currency units for tangible goods, not to make friends with a high school drop out.
16. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by WrongMonkey · 2017-10-27 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  The right way to fix this problem is to eliminate retail stores entirely and replace them with distribution centers that ship goods directly to customers' homes.
17. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by Talderas · 2017-10-27 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  The only poor experiences I've had with self-checkout involve other humans using the system and not knowing what the fuck they're doing.
  These are the people that see every regular check out line has people in it and think "Oh hey, I don't have to wait to use the self-checkout!" then they proceed to spend more time at the self-checkout than if they had just waited in the shortest regular line.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
18. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-27 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  When someone has to use hyperbole to make their point, it's usually a weak case.
19. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by barbariccow · 2017-10-27 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  PLEASE PLACE THE ITEM IN THE BAGGING...... REMOVE ITEM FROM BAGGING ARE........ PLEASE PLACE........ (human overseer clicks button to "go to next item". Please scan item. PLEASE PLACE THE..... REMOVE ITEM FROM THE BAGG......
  like overzealous DRM largely ruined streaming media for a long time, and forced folks to pirate for usability, so do most of the self checkout systems I've used make me want to wait in line to just not have to stink-eye the really bored overseer at the end of the line to hit the "accept" button for literally every other item I scan because the scale is out of balance and they can't be bothered to buy a maintenance contract.
20. Re:Dumb, expensive and overly complicated by ArmoredDragon · 2017-10-29 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  The entire point of using robots is because they're cheaper than humans in the long run.
  Have you ever worked retail before? I have, and cycle counts are really shitty, tedious work. I would have loved if that job was automated, and it wouldn't have reduced the number of people employed at the store because they still needed the same number of people manning the sales floor. If you were there doing cycle counts, then you were also available to help customers, but even if you weren't doing cycle counts, then you were still helping customers.
  Alternative to cycle counts was running pull lists...again really shitty, tedious work.
  
  they can only work eight hours a day.
  Eliminating cycle counts would hardly make a dent in this.
to Supplement humans by turkeydance · 2017-10-26 11:35 · Score: 1

or humans are supplemental? reminds me of "To Serve Man" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Gotta love the spin.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 11:37 · Score: 1

âoeOh we are not cutting our workforce down. We simply wonâ(TM)t hire new peopleâ.
Self-scanning? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 11:40 · Score: 0

Self-scanning shelf-scanning robots? Or self-scanning customers who shelf-scan the robots?
saving human staffers.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 11:40 · Score: 0

some asshole exec just made a boat load (in his private account) by getting this deal done.
1. Re:saving human staffers.. by wed128 · 2017-10-27 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  And why not? He made the business more efficient. That's his job.
Retail loss prevention mgt. won't like it... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 11:43 · Score: 0

See subject: I used to do be one prior to computing for work & it was a large chunk of my job (checking for internal shrink on price mismatch, high or low (you wouldn't think it IF they overprice an item, but it matters to the gov't./taxman on audits)) as a loss prevention mgr. in retail...
* It wasn't just dealing w/ in-store detectives, cops & shoplifters (I even had to audit the office workers too @ times).
APK
P.S.=> Seems the "powers that be" don't want to deal w/ the human element anymore (fickle) & are willing to put up w/ the initial "shock" of purchase & testing robotics - only thing is? ROBOTS don't pay taxes OR buy inventory (generally unless it'd be replacement parts) - seems they are heading us into a "basic income" world (where you can NEVER get ahead, not really, & ever challenge them @ the top - heck, they own the lawmakers + banks - aren't those already "doing the job" on us enough?)... apk
Overengineering? by Codeyman · 2017-10-26 11:45 · Score: 2

Why are robots needed here? Wouldn't a simple series of interlinked "smart-shelves" that use the weight-differential to figure out the needed quantity of product in a particular aisle/shelf be good enough?. A ceiling mounted camera with pattern recognition engine can tell whether something is on the floor, detect if it is similar to product on the shelves and factor that into computation. Crunch the two feeds and you have an auto announcement bot yelling "Cleanup on aisle 2" and another bot updating a product counter somewhere that pings the human to replace the product if it goes below a certain threshold.
1. Re:Overengineering? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  Maintenance and the ability to simply plug-and-play these rather than going through the entire reverse logistics issue of doing away with the existing shelves.
2. Re:Overengineering? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 12:24 · Score: 0
  
  this is probably just a stop-gap until everything they stock has an embedded chip in it.
3. Re:Overengineering? by aberglas · 2017-10-26 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Given that cameras are so cheap now ($5) why not just put lots of them on the opposite shelf and keep an eye on things.
4. Re: Overengineering? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Cameras are quite expensive when you take everything into account such as wiring, tamperproof housings, replacement logistics etc.
5. Re:Overengineering? by DerekLyons · 2017-10-29 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't a simple series of interlinked "smart-shelves" that use the weight-differential to figure out the needed quantity of product in a particular aisle/shelf be good enough?
  You don't grasp that once you've turned every shelf into a (moderately expensive) scale, you've considerably increased the cost as well as no longer being "simple"?
6. Re:Overengineering? by Codeyman · 2017-10-29 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  You don't seem to grasp that any tech involving AI/Pattern recognition is going to be error prone and even a .001% error is magnified at the scale at which warehouses and stores are maintained. Logic based on scales is deterministic and fairly simple to implement.
  As for cost, a weight sensor for each shelf cost less than $30 in retail:
  http://www.ebay.com/bhp/weight...
  Let's take about 30 aisles, 20 racks per aisle, and 5 shelves per rack.. so about 3000 shelves or about $90K in sensors.
  You can get a sectional shelf for around $65:
  https://www.ebay.com/itm/Gondo...
  So for shelving, it would cost around $39K. It'd be around $130K (not taking into account the cost savings Walmart will get to get this in scale). The maintenance would be much less than that of the robot.
  The software logic would be simple, if one box of Toilet paper is 1kg, then how many toilet paper boxes are there if the weight read is 9kg... 9 boxes.. that is it.
7. Re:Overengineering? by DerekLyons · 2017-10-30 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  You don't seem to grasp that any tech involving AI/Pattern recognition is going to be error prone and even a .001% error is magnified at the scale at which warehouses and stores are maintained.
  
  And your scales, especially with the low grade sensors you've chosen, won't have any errors?
  
  It'd be around $130K (not taking into account the cost savings Walmart will get to get this in scale).
  But not the labor for installing the shelves and all the wiring needed to power them. Nor the labor for maintaining them (at this scale, they'll have to be routinely checked for accuracy).
  
  The software logic would be simple, if one box of Toilet paper is 1kg, then how many toilet paper boxes are there if the weight read is 9kg... 9 boxes.. that is it.
  Presuming a single shelf held a single product. That's rarely true. Nor does your (laughably stupid) system account for a product removed and replaced on the wrong shelf. (Or to put it another way, on top of the many clues you lack, is just what's involved here.)
  
  Or, to put it another way, go away and come back when you have even a fraction of a clue as to what you're talking about.
Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 11:48 · Score: 1

Those stock people will all go on to lucrative careers in the field of robotics, so this will create jobs!
Decide to make a statement. by wHartHog(69) · 2017-10-26 11:51 · Score: 1

Easy fix. Everytime you go to Walmart (why do you go to Walmart?), stop in the mens department, pick up a 3 or 4x hanging shirt, then put it on the robot as you walk by. Blind robot can't see. Or... just walk between the robot and the shelves. At some point, Walmart management will figure it out and scrap the program.
1. Re: Decide to make a statement. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 12:17 · Score: 0
  
  What?? Nobody who goes to Walmart would behave like that!
2. Re:Decide to make a statement. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  Robots will be equipped with VERY loud tamper alarms. The customer will be tracked down from overhead video surveillance and asked to leave and never return. Facial recognition will then flag that customer if they enter another Walmart. Customer will be given a warning the first two times, and then they'll just start calling the cops.
  tl;dr: Tampering with the robots will just get you banned from Walmart.
3. Re:Decide to make a statement. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 14:33 · Score: 0
  
  I predict that you will be arrested and spend a few months in county.
4. Re:Decide to make a statement. by barbariccow · 2017-10-27 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  I've never been punished for any kind of phreaking, with robots, people, or otherwise.
Why not just use scale to measure weight? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 11:55 · Score: 0

Just put scales that transmit the total weight of each product on your sales floor, and you can record all your product instantly, anytime/anywhere. Surely this is a faster alternative to robots?
1. Re: Why not just use scale to measure weight? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  robot can be deployed for under $2000, is modular and easily repaired. your solution requires ripping out all the shelving and replacing with expensive custom stuff
Walmart saving jobs by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-10-26 12:29 · Score: 1

"Walmart stresses that the robots are there to supplement humans, not replace them
Oh, bullshit. Walmart does not do a damn thing that isn't geared to replacing as many of the enemy - AKA employees- as possible.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
1. Re: Walmart saving jobs by Thundercat007 · 2017-10-26 12:44 · Score: 2
  
  As big of a predator Walmart is to local economy, still amuses me they're complaining about Amazon and how "unfair" they are. The day I see robots flying around Walmart, is the day I exclusively buy from Amazon. Suck it Walmart,
2. Re: Walmart saving jobs by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-10-26 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  As big of a predator Walmart is to local economy, still amuses me they're complaining about Amazon and how "unfair" they are. The day I see robots flying around Walmart, is the day I exclusively buy from Amazon. Suck it Walmart,
  Just imagine when corporatism finally achieves it's goal of no employees. They'll really make a lot of money then.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
3. Re: Walmart saving jobs by ClickOnThis · 2017-10-26 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  Just imagine when corporatism finally achieves it's goal of no employees. They'll really make a lot of money then.
  They'll be making it off other robots who shop in the store. Eventually the owners of the store will be robots. And so on, robots all the way down.
  Fast-forward several millennia, when aliens arrive on Planet Earth, and find it teeming with robots following the mindless, perfunctory patters of the society of humans who built them. The aliens will scratch their bulbous heads in confusion, turn around to go back to their ship, when one of them will say "hey, we could use a set of nut-drivers."
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
4. Re: Walmart saving jobs by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-10-26 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  Just imagine when corporatism finally achieves it's goal of no employees. They'll really make a lot of money then.
  They'll be making it off other robots who shop in the store. Eventually the owners of the store will be robots. And so on, robots all the way down.
  Fast-forward several millennia, when aliens arrive on Planet Earth, and find it teeming with robots following the mindless, perfunctory patters of the society of humans who built them. The aliens will scratch their bulbous heads in confusion, turn around to go back to their ship, when one of them will say "hey, we could use a set of nut-drivers."
  I found nothing in that that I could refute, so I'm gonna go with that as well..8^)
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
5. Re:Walmart saving jobs by nasch · 2017-10-28 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, this doesn't add up.
  
  Walmart stresses that the robots are there to supplement humans, not replace them... shelf checks can cost a major retailer hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
  
  So either they are going to save hundreds of millions of dollars a year by paying employees less (fewer hours or fewer employees), or they're going to have them start doing things with their time that they aren't doing now. Which seems more likely?
6. Re:Walmart saving jobs by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-10-28 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, this doesn't add up.
  
  Walmart stresses that the robots are there to supplement humans, not replace them... shelf checks can cost a major retailer hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
  So either they are going to save hundreds of millions of dollars a year by paying employees less (fewer hours or fewer employees), or they're going to have them start doing things with their time that they aren't doing now. Which seems more likely?
  Wally World is now run hard by accountants, and they don't make a move that isn't designed to increase profits. The problem of course is that you can increase profits in the short term that harms you long term. People permantly unemployed arent much at shopping, and we cant have everyone living off the government.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That "hassle" is known as a "job" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 12:49 · Score: 0

The real hassle is paying a human to do it.
"Not replace humans"? BS. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 12:52 · Score: 0

I worked at Walmart until recently. The scanning of outs (missing items), finding misplaced items (founds) and so on are definitely tasks. CAP1 does the scanning, for example.
They're probably looking to automate most of CAP1 so they spend more time stocking.
The same Walmart that was to RFID tag everything? by RhettLivingston · 2017-10-26 13:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
In 2003, Walmart announced plans to RFID tag everything in the store and track it to the shelf it was on 24/7. So, I'll believe it when I see it.
- Supply Chain Comment: Did Walmart's Failed Case Tagging Program Set RFID Back or Move it Forward?
- Did Wal-Mart love RFID to death?
What they should be doing as well: by LoTonah · 2017-10-26 13:03 · Score: 1

Why hasn't any major retailer in North America dug into this technology yet?
http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?4737
That is my biggest peeve when I go to a store. Bad or missing price tags. Companies spend buttloads of time trying to keep up with price changes, sales, changing inventory, etc. So why not use RFID shelf tags? They are about $5 for each digital tag now. The ability to change prices from a server room would probably save them money within the first few months of deployment.
1. Re:What they should be doing as well: by Dutch+Gun · 2017-10-26 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  They are about $5 for each digital tag now.
  That seemed ridiculously pricey, so I looked it up. RFID tags currently cost between 7 and 15 cents. Typo?
  RFID tags seem a bit like a solution in search of a problem. Bar codes are pretty much "good enough", as I haven't really experienced frustrations like you describe in stores I frequent. But I'd bet the real issue is that manufactures probably aren't terribly interested in losing 7-15 cents per unit when margins on low-cost items are already razor-thin, for the sole purpose of making things easier and cheaper for the retailers.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
2. Re:What they should be doing as well: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-27 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  I believe that your RFID tags are different from the Electronic Shelf Tags the OP was talking about...
3. Re:What they should be doing as well: by barbariccow · 2017-10-27 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  But think about it, with RFID on everything you could obsolete cashiers altogether. Just drive the card through the door, scan all the RFID's in the cart, and the RFID on your credit card, all good-to-go.
Even for robots, Walmart is a special place by hyades1 · 2017-10-26 13:17 · Score: 1

As this photo of the prototype of Walmart's shelf-scanning robot shows, prolonged exposure to such a work environment is not without consequences.
https://funnypictures.toofunny.pics/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/walmart-visitors1.jpg

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Re: Retail loss prevention mgt. won't like it... a by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-26 14:07 · Score: 0

You used to do be?
Hey man it's cool, lots of us do be around here. It's even legal in some states now!
Don't worry - supplement, not replace by seven+of+five · 2017-10-26 14:16 · Score: 1

... and they all lived happily ever after!

The End!

Thanks, Wal-Mart! Please tell us another one!
"Store associates will always be better at that," by SpaceCracker · 2017-10-26 14:36 · Score: 1

Yup. And 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

--
sigo ergo sum
Fine with me, and I work in retail by RubberDogBone · 2017-10-26 14:45 · Score: 4, Informative

Since I haven't found a job in my former and varied IT field, I am currently working in a retail store. It's as bad as they say but it beats unemployment.
One of my duties is identifying where we need to restock. It's a major PIA and takes a long time. In theory, we know what we had at last inventory and we know what we have sold, and this should tell us what we need to restock. And our district warehouse tries to send us what we need to keep pace with sales.
BUT this doesn't help us with products picked up from one shelf and put down somewhere else, or tell us anything about pilfered items. We recently discovered one of our shelves HAS been nearly entirely stolen, because we haven't sold much from that area. We do check it but we have a whole store to check. So nobody noticed everything was vanishing until I blew the whistle a few days ago. All that did was make my boss mad at me for finding it. Like it was my fault.
We have a huge problem in my store of not having items inventory says we should have. It's so bad, customers calling to see if we have something generally ask us to go put hands on it.
So it would be amazing if a robot could come into our store even once a week and do as much checking as possible. We workers would rather have a list of stuff to go fetch and move back to proper locations than trying to do both the find part and replace part. We would also LOVE having an idea of what we need to restock. We don't like not having stuff to sell.

--
Sig for hire.
1. Re:Fine with me, and I work in retail by houghi · 2017-10-27 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  So how much time do you spend doing that and get paid for it. So say that it amounts to one person doing it all the time. They will not need that one person anymore. You can be that one person. See if you like unemployment better than doing that PIA restock stuff that took such a long time.
  And if you say "But it is only 1 hour a day" then they will cut one hour of your day, so you earn less.
  There is a reason that I never use the self checkout. It is my idea of helping the people hold on to their jobs.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
2. Re:Fine with me, and I work in retail by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-27 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  I avoid self checkout, too, but that's just because I don't want to do the cashier's job. Shame on you, retailers, for trying to make me into an unpaid cashier!
3. Re: Fine with me, and I work in retail by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-27 09:12 · Score: 0
  
  If you have 10 employees and each spend 10% of their time doing inventory. How many employyes do you need if inventory is done by robots. Assuming the amount of work stays the same?
Boring job by backslashdot · 2017-10-26 21:17 · Score: 1

That job sounds really boring. It should be banned. Human beings have a insane computer in their brain and we are paying people to walk around checking store shelves? What does it say about our civilization that we have humans doing this task? Any aliens assigned to watch Earth must be laughing their asses off at us (they are aliens so literally their mouth could be in their ass). Anyway, why the hell are there people trying to preserve this kind of work? Itâ(TM)s criminal to relegate humans to doing manual repetive stupid labor.
Force the companies to pay a tax or dividend to humans instead of forcing companies to pay for workers â" it is a form of taxation to make a company unnecessarily hire people. Let the tax pay humans to sit at home raising kids or watching TV or learning quantum mechanics. There a good career for humans become a quantum mechanic.
Yeah right by coofercat · 2017-10-27 00:17 · Score: 1

> This helps workers get to the task of filling empty shelves, and that's a job that the company doesn't see ending any time soon ...and yet the Japanese have been doing this for years. If Walmart can't see that coming "soon", they're not looking very hard.
it works! by cascadingstylesheet · 2017-10-27 03:00 · Score: 1

That has to be the best stocked Walmart I've ever seen - it works!!
Re: Retail loss prevention mgt. won't like it... a by barbariccow · 2017-10-27 13:44 · Score: 1

do be do be do. doo wap de dop bop shibbity shabbity top hat on the cat!
"humans will always be better at that" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 02:02 · Score: 0

this guy... no they wont. they'll be better at it for another 5 years or so.
then you're going to have a bunch of folks who don't have anything to do but hang out at walmart in their pajamas.