The End of the Bar Code 468
valdean writes "The University of Wisconsin RFID Lab, principally funded by a dozen Wal-mart suppliers including 3M, Kraft Foods, and S.C. Johnson & Son, believes that RFID could spell the end of the ubiquitous bar code. The big draw? Speeding up supply-chain management. Wal-mart's warehouse conveyor belts presently move products at 600 feet per minute... but they want to be faster. And better informed."
600 feet per minute = (Score:3, Informative)
It took bar codes 50+ years to mature... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:600 feet per minute = (Score:3, Informative)
Go ahead, set your treadmill to it.
With RFID... (Score:3, Informative)
And what about boxes that have multiple barcodes? Cell phones are one example - they have serial numbers, ESN's, etc. that all need to be scanned at different times for different reasons. How do you do this with RFID? I suppose you could say that the RFID that begins with one prefix is a serial number, with another prefix is an ESN, etc. but then you put a lot more in the way of constraints on the manufactureres, and I doubt they'd like that.
limits of RFID (Score:2, Informative)
Moreover, their biggest limitiation is bad data design. For example that chip Tommy Thompson seems to be backing away from inserting... I heard on Wisconsin Public radio it only gives a unique 8 digit identifier to be entered into a website to obtain the medical info. A number that small wouldn't come close to being able to give a unique number to the US population let alone the world's -- it seems like it would be too easy to get the wrong info on someone, let alone be able to wardial the database for fun and profit.
RFID seems to be a great way to manage drygoods, but medical applications can be dangerous. What do you do if the chip gets lost in the body as frequently happens with dogs? Even worse, what do you do with the thing when you get an MRI? Would it rocket out of your body to the strong magnet?
I think down the road there will be many useful applications, but we are still trying to figure out how to do simple things with them -- which is why Walmart's deadline to have everything RFID is long gone and forgotten as even the big players are trying to figure out how to get the things to work. Ethical concerns aside, the technology is still too new to be reliable but it does show promise.
Re:600 feet per minute... (Score:3, Informative)
I seen the whole Wal-Mart distribution system, and your part was the insignificant ass-end of what the product goes through to get to the shelf. Any speedups in the distribution and import centers will vastly improve things for Wal-Mart.
Re:N.O. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Commercial (Score:2, Informative)
Re:With RFID... (Score:5, Informative)
No, and it won't. Because that's not the target, I think. Cheap items, small pieces will still carry the barcode, at least in the next years. RFID will take over in warehouses (useful in tracking a pallet of bags) and in high added value objects (think about a sweater that interacts with your washing machine).
And what about boxes that have multiple barcodes?
The RFID broadcasts a signal, is up to the operator (or the receiver) to decode the signal and pick the important part of the message.
I know some RFID implementations in the food supply. Each different operator needs differen type of informations (the producer needs warehouse informations, the distributor needs the destination address, the customer needs expiry date and storage conditions). All these info can be stored on a single RFID. Each element of the chain can catch the signal and get his info.
supply chain != consumer products (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think all the references to how you'll get scanned out of the grocery store faster don't apply.
GreasyBloater
Re:I know... (Score:3, Informative)
The speed they talk about in the article is for warehousing, shipping, and distribution.
Cashiers will still be needed at the store, as some of the other responders to your post have mentioned.
Two of the reasons I didn't see mentioned:
Loss prevention.
Image.
Without face-to-face contact, shoppers are much more likely to try to "pull a fast one." It's much more cost-effective to prevent theft than it is to prosecute it, so even RFID scanners at exits won't be cost-effective at preventing loss.
As for image, shoppers like face-to-face contact (with exceptions, of course). It's hard to maintain your image as the friendly neighborhood megastore without having local employees in visible positions.
Re:600 feet per minute... (Score:3, Informative)
(600 ft/min * 60 min/hr) / 5280 ft/mile = 6.818 miles/hr
Re:600 feet per minute... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Technoutopia, here we come! (Score:3, Informative)
Unlikely. Argentina was essentially the victim of pump-n'-dump by securities firms. Much like the dot com companies of the same era, the country's financial prospects were terrible; but euphoric cheerleading fueled overinvestment in a system that was already doomed to collapse. Come on, they were engaging in "stupid economist tricks" like tying the Argentine peso to the dollar (1 peso = 1 dollar) to curb inflation! The US doesn't have the same pipe-dream economy Argentina had in the 90's.
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Informative)
Ever been to a Costco? Up until only 4-6 years ago they still did everything based on a 5 digit number. No scanners or conveyor belts. One person would move items from one cart to another and tell another person the number, who would then key it into the register.
Sounds cumbersome, but it was actually a pretty efficient system. Since then there's times I would swear that the conveyor belt and barcode scanner has actually slowed down checkout lines at Costco. The difference comes when you compare new experienced employees (who know where the numbers are and have many of them memorized) and new ones who have to check each item.