IBM RFID Chip "Shopping of the Future"

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Like people are saying, never stop those that are really determined to steal...just better stop the lazy/stupid ones Also, this is a big help with inventory (where things are in a store, how many left, when to reorder, auditing inventory)...it will save large companies millions in wasted man hourshorgen123

Not really. One idea comes to mind immediately, but for the sake of not getting moderated I won't post it directly, but I will say it involves an invention using principles discovered by Michael Faraday.

Obviously I don't condone such things and it should be noted that the use and possession of such an item has been determined as a felony in most states.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Like people are saying, never stop those that are really determined to steal...just better stop the lazy/stupid ones Also, this is a big help with inventory (where things are in a store, how many left, when to reorder, auditing inventory)...it will save large companies millions in wasted man hourshorgen123

At least at the warehouse I worked at (Sam's Club)...human errors were prevalent
-it sometimes took a very long time to locate things in the steel racks
-the computer would say we had things in stock (based on numbers sold) but the item would not be there (stolen or lost)...no signal = probably not there anymore
-had to do monthly/yearly audits that took a long time

RFID will help if not alleviate many of those problems

EX: Customer wants something...where is it?
-just find the signal, as opposed to manually looking for it

And I'd gladly give you, or anyone else who helps maintain my anonymousness my business.

Man the RFID thing gives me the chills. One of the most frightening ideas ever. I know referencing 1984 is rather cliche. But really this is like "Big Brother." (or his brother "Big Business" :P) I will flat out refuse to do this RFID thing. Send me to the grave first.

coolbeans90

I think most people are being really paranoid about nothing/or are just misinformed...as far as the current RFID goes
-it is really no different for the end consumer (except faster checkout times)
-they just replace the barcode with an RFID tag that emits a radio signal
-the same data will be complied about you as is done now (purchasing habits, etc.)

The frightening part is when they start implanting things inside people

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]And I'd gladly give you, or anyone else who helps maintain my anonymousness my business.

Man the RFID thing gives me the chills. One of the most frightening ideas ever. I know referencing 1984 is rather cliche. But really this is like "Big Brother." (or his brother "Big Business" :P) I will flat out refuse to do this RFID thing. Send me to the grave first.

rawsavon

I think most people are being really paranoid about nothing/or are just misinformed...as far as the current RFID goes
-it is really no different for the end consumer (except faster checkout times)
-they just replace the barcode with an RFID tag that emits a radio signal
-the same data will be complied about you as is done now (purchasing habits, etc.)

The frightening part is when they start implanting things inside people

Which isn't going to do a damn thing. People today are able to steal electronics and other items with the little RFID chips using the device I've already said relies on principles discovered by Michael Faraday and that I don't condone using because using or owning it amounts to a felony charge in most states.

The only way they'd be able to stop shoplifting is by implanting the chips inside people as well as in products.

So, what? Is this a chip that goes in product boxes like they already do with those shoplifting detectors? Or is it something that goes in your credit card? Or both? Or does it go in your body? Only reason I ask that last question is because that's how everyone seems to be interpreting it but I haven't really seen anything that says that's what it is.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]And I'd gladly give you, or anyone else who helps maintain my anonymousness my business.

Man the RFID thing gives me the chills. One of the most frightening ideas ever. I know referencing 1984 is rather cliche. But really this is like "Big Brother." (or his brother "Big Business" :P) I will flat out refuse to do this RFID thing. Send me to the grave first.

tycoonmike

I think most people are being really paranoid about nothing/or are just misinformed...as far as the current RFID goes
-it is really no different for the end consumer (except faster checkout times)
-they just replace the barcode with an RFID tag that emits a radio signal
-the same data will be complied about you as is done now (purchasing habits, etc.)

The frightening part is when they start implanting things inside people

Which isn't going to do a damn thing. People today are able to steal electronics and other items with the little RFID chips using the device I've already said relies on principles discovered by Michael Faraday and that I don't condone using because using or owning it amounts to a felony charge in most states.

The only way they'd be able to stop shoplifting is by implanting the chips inside people as well as in products.

I thought we had moved on past the theft part...been there done that
-it helps the businesses in a multitude of other ways

So, what? Is this a chip that goes in product boxes like they already do with those shoplifting detectors? Or is it something that goes in your credit card? Or both? Or does it go in your body? Only reason I ask that last question is because that's how everyone seems to be interpreting it but I haven't really seen anything that says that's what it is.

gameguy6700

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

So, what? Is this a chip that goes in product boxes like they already do with those shoplifting detectors? Or is it something that goes in your credit card? Or both? Or does it go in your body? Only reason I ask that last question is because that's how everyone seems to be interpreting it but I haven't really seen anything that says that's what it is.

rawsavon

That's it? Why the hell are people freaking out over this? It's just a replacement of the barcode and isn't any different than the electronic shoplifting detectors that have been in use for decades.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

I think most people are being really paranoid about nothing/or are just misinformed...as far as the current RFID goes
-it is really no different for the end consumer (except faster checkout times)
-they just replace the barcode with an RFID tag that emits a radio signal
-the same data will be complied about you as is done now (purchasing habits, etc.)

The frightening part is when they start implanting things inside people

rawsavon

Which isn't going to do a damn thing. People today are able to steal electronics and other items with the little RFID chips using the device I've already said relies on principles discovered by Michael Faraday and that I don't condone using because using or owning it amounts to a felony charge in most states.

The only way they'd be able to stop shoplifting is by implanting the chips inside people as well as in products.

I thought we had moved on past the theft part...been there done that
-it helps the businesses in a multitude of other ways

As can normal, manual, inventory keeping. Indeed, you can do such a thing already using the bar codes on packaging as well. The little dot matrix readouts on cash registers prove that handily because whenever someone scans them into the machine it pops up with a brief description of the item. Why not just implement a common technology in a different way? I can bet it would cost far less money than would putting RFID chips in all the products would cost.

Also, considering that most stores stock a multitude of different items, I highly doubt you'd be able to single in on one active radio signal out of around 100,000 possibles. Too many signals to distinguish between.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

So, what? Is this a chip that goes in product boxes like they already do with those shoplifting detectors? Or is it something that goes in your credit card? Or both? Or does it go in your body? Only reason I ask that last question is because that's how everyone seems to be interpreting it but I haven't really seen anything that says that's what it is.

gameguy6700

That's it? Why the hell are people freaking out over this? It's just a replacement of the barcode and isn't any different than the electronic shoplifting detectors that have been in use for decades.

As can normal, manual, inventory keeping. Indeed, you can do such a thing already using the bar codes on packaging as well. The little dot matrix readouts on cash registers prove that handily because whenever someone scans them into the machine it pops up with a brief description of the item. Why not just implement a common technology in a different way? I can bet it would cost far less money than would putting RFID chips in all the products would cost.

Also, considering that most stores stock a multitude of different items, I highly doubt you'd be able to single in on one active radio signal out of around 100,000 possibles. Too many signals to distinguish between.

tycoonmike

It is obvious from your post that you have never worked in a large warehouse/retailer

When something is sold (now)...it is taken out of inventory automatically.
That is not the problem
-the problem lies in locating merchandise when needing to restock/sell it, merchandise that is lost/stolen (still in the system now...would not be with lost signal in RFID), manual audits of clubs that are thousands of square feet, checking in merchandise would be faster, less cashiers, etc
-it will save countless dollars

And yes they can single in on one signal in a huge warehouse...I have seen it work

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]And I'd gladly give you, or anyone else who helps maintain my anonymousness my business.

Man the RFID thing gives me the chills. One of the most frightening ideas ever. I know referencing 1984 is rather cliche. But really this is like "Big Brother." (or his brother "Big Business" :P) I will flat out refuse to do this RFID thing. Send me to the grave first.

rawsavon

I think most people are being really paranoid about nothing/or are just misinformed...as far as the current RFID goes
-it is really no different for the end consumer (except faster checkout times)
-they just replace the barcode with an RFID tag that emits a radio signal
-the same data will be complied about you as is done now (purchasing habits, etc.)

The frightening part is when they start implanting things inside people

That's the impression I got from the video. Perhaps it just gave me the wrong idea. It looked like the guy's credit card was swiped as he walked through the checkout. (which I thought was a RFID implant) The bar codes being replaced by RFID's doesn't bother me as long as I can remove them once an item is purchased.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]As can normal, manual, inventory keeping. Indeed, you can do such a thing already using the bar codes on packaging as well. The little dot matrix readouts on cash registers prove that handily because whenever someone scans them into the machine it pops up with a brief description of the item. Why not just implement a common technology in a different way? I can bet it would cost far less money than would putting RFID chips in all the products would cost.

Also, considering that most stores stock a multitude of different items, I highly doubt you'd be able to single in on one active radio signal out of around 100,000 possibles. Too many signals to distinguish between.

rawsavon

It is obvious from your post that you have never worked in a large warehouse/retailer

When something is sold (now)...it is taken out of inventory automatically.
That is not the problem
-the problem lies in locating merchandise when needing to restock/sell it, merchandise that is lost/stolen (still in the system now...would not be with lost signal in RFID), manual audits of clubs that are thousands of square feet, checking in merchandise would be faster, less cashiers, etc
-it will save countless dollars

And yes they can single in on one signal in a huge warehouse...I have seen it work

Out of how many signals? Hundreds of thousands or perhaps one out of a hundred? Besides, how do you propose we power those active radio signals? Batteries? Inefficient and expensive. You're telling me you can hone in on a specific product broadcasting a SINGLE radio frequency 100% of the time?

Locating Merchandise to Restock or Sell: Why would you need to spend a lot of time to locate it if the inventory process is already in an efficient state?

Stolen Merchandise: Can't that already be alleviated by using the present system of those little magnetized strips of metal?

Saving Money: To implement a technology that few people are familiar with?

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]And I'd gladly give you, or anyone else who helps maintain my anonymousness my business.

Man the RFID thing gives me the chills. One of the most frightening ideas ever. I know referencing 1984 is rather cliche. But really this is like "Big Brother." (or his brother "Big Business" :P) I will flat out refuse to do this RFID thing. Send me to the grave first.

coolbeans90

I think most people are being really paranoid about nothing/or are just misinformed...as far as the current RFID goes
-it is really no different for the end consumer (except faster checkout times)
-they just replace the barcode with an RFID tag that emits a radio signal
-the same data will be complied about you as is done now (purchasing habits, etc.)

The frightening part is when they start implanting things inside people

That's the impression I got from the video. Perhaps it just gave me the wrong idea. It looked like the guy's credit card was swiped as he walked through the checkout. (which I thought was a RFID implant) The bar codes being replaced by RFID's doesn't bother me as long as I can remove them once an item is purchased.

Ya...his credit card is just one of the new swipe ones (just wave in front of the checkout)
-even if you can't remove an RFID, there will be products to neutralize them (as has been mentioned in this thread for shoplifters)

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

So, what? Is this a chip that goes in product boxes like they already do with those shoplifting detectors? Or is it something that goes in your credit card? Or both? Or does it go in your body? Only reason I ask that last question is because that's how everyone seems to be interpreting it but I haven't really seen anything that says that's what it is.

gameguy6700

That's it? Why the hell are people freaking out over this? It's just a replacement of the barcode and isn't any different than the electronic shoplifting detectors that have been in use for decades.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]As can normal, manual, inventory keeping. Indeed, you can do such a thing already using the bar codes on packaging as well. The little dot matrix readouts on cash registers prove that handily because whenever someone scans them into the machine it pops up with a brief description of the item. Why not just implement a common technology in a different way? I can bet it would cost far less money than would putting RFID chips in all the products would cost.

Also, considering that most stores stock a multitude of different items, I highly doubt you'd be able to single in on one active radio signal out of around 100,000 possibles. Too many signals to distinguish between.

tycoonmike

It is obvious from your post that you have never worked in a large warehouse/retailer

When something is sold (now)...it is taken out of inventory automatically.
That is not the problem
-the problem lies in locating merchandise when needing to restock/sell it, merchandise that is lost/stolen (still in the system now...would not be with lost signal in RFID), manual audits of clubs that are thousands of square feet, checking in merchandise would be faster, less cashiers, etc
-it will save countless dollars

And yes they can single in on one signal in a huge warehouse...I have seen it work

Out of how many signals? Hundreds of thousands or perhaps one out of a hundred? Besides, how do you propose we power those active radio signals? Batteries? Inefficient and expensive.

Locating Merchandise to Restock or Sell: Why would you need to spend a lot of time to locate it if the inventory process is already in an efficient state?

Stolen Merchandise: Can't that already be alleviated by using the present system of those little magnetized strips of metal?

Saving Money: To implement a technology that few people are familiar with?

As I said, it apparent that you have not worked in that environment...

Things are not kept in the most efficent manner...such is reality
-walmart/other retailers do not build their stores big enough to hold things in an efficient manner...they would be twice the size they are now...they built just to hold the merchandise...there is a difference
-work there and you will see
-that is what takes so long when you buy a big item...it is locating it, not getting it

Apparently it is cost effective, the biggest retailer world is already using them for their distribution centers, just waiting for manufactuerers to catch up
-in fact they are trying to impose a deadline (like they did with bar codes)
-yes, walmart has that much power

When something is stolen now, you do not know till a manual audit (tags can be neutralized)...with this you would know as soon as the signal is gone that it was lost/stolen/bought/damaged

If the largest retailer world (that is known as the low cost operator) thinks it is cost effective...then it is

As I said, it apparent that you have not worked in that environment...

Things are not kept in the most efficent manner...such is reality
-walmart/other retailers do not build their stores big enough to hold things in an efficient manner...they would be twice the size they are now...they built just to hold the merchandise...there is a difference
-work there and you will see
-that is what takes so long when you buy a big item...it is locating it, not getting it

Apparently it is cost effective, the biggest retailer world is already using them for their distribution centers, just waiting for manufactuerers to catch up
-in fact they are trying to impose a deadline (like they did with bar codes)
-yes, walmart has that much power

When something is stolen now, you do not know till a manual audit (tags can be neutralized)...with this you would know as soon as the signal is gone that it was lost/stolen/bought/damaged

If the largest retailer world (that is known as the low cost operator) thinks it is cost effective...then it is

rawsavon

Bold- I don't know about you but I've never had problems at Walmart or any other major retailer. Maybe because they actually know what they're doing rather than relying on technology?

Italicized- :| Then it's not simply efficiency that has others clamoring onto the RFID bandwagon, it's Walmart bullying other retailers to do it their way. Just as they did with bar codes.

Underlined- :| :| And they do the exact same thing nowadays with electronics. That's why they rub them along those demagnetization strips.

You still haven't answered my question: why can't they do this with bar codes? I would think you'd be able to network cash registers to some big database with a store's inventory on it and the computer would be able to say, "five of product one have been bought, so we have five less of it." Not to mention that we can still catch shoplifters with those magnetized strips. And besides, I can think of a very easy way to disable both plans: computer viruses. Yeah, it takes longer, yeah it may be less efficient, but a system that isn't unified is far less susceptible to attack, whether direct (fire, shoplifters, etc.) or indirect (viruses, user error, etc.).

Bold- I don't know about you but I've never had problems at Walmart or any other major retailer. Maybe because they actually know what they're doing rather than relying on technology?

Italicized- :| Then it's not simply efficiency that has others clamoring onto the RFID bandwagon, it's Walmart bullying other retailers to do it their way. Just as they did with bar codes.

Underlined- :| :| And they do the exact same thing nowadays with electronics. That's why they rub them along those demagnetization strips.

You still haven't answered my question: why can't they do this with bar codes? I would think you'd be able to network cash registers to some big database with a store's inventory on it and the computer would be able to say, "five of product one have been bought, so we have five less of it." Not to mention that we can still catch shoplifters with those magnetized strips. And besides, I can think of a very easy way to disable both plans: computer viruses. Yeah, it takes longer, yeah it may be less efficient, but a system that isn't unified is far less susceptible to attack, whether direct (fire, shoplifters, etc.) or indirect (viruses, user error, etc.).

tycoonmike

You have no idea what you are talking about:

1. Stores are not built to keep things in an organized fashion...not like a sane person would organize
-that is just how it is done
-Target, Walmart, Sam's: they all store stuff in trailers an other means b/c they are not built to hold the amount of stuff they carry (Holiday Season for example)
-RFID makes locating any item a breeze
-No store (that I know of) has it yet...so no one is relying on it yet
-Walmart puts their own on pallets for distribution only atm

2. Walmart is bullying MANUFACTURERS (not other retailers)...they want RFID installed at that level (same as bar code)
-other retailers will follow suit after it is installed
-Walmart has that power...they just say fine, we won't carry your product otherwise...then the manufacturer is screwed

3. Registers are networked NOW...I SAID THAT SELLING THE ITEM WAS NOT THE PROBLEM FOR UPDATING INVENTORY...IT IS WHEN IT IS LOST/STOLEN/DAMAGED...you have no idea (as a retailer) till you do a physical inventory...you still think it is out for sale (according to the computer it has not been sold)...with RFID you know immediately that something happened b/c the signal is gone

4. We have moved on from shoplifters
-I already said that it is only to catch the stupid and lazy
-RFID serves other purposes for the Retailers

LINK1

LINK 2

LINK 3

You have no idea what you are talking about:

1. Stores are not built to keep things in an organized fashion...not like a sane person would organize
-that is just how it is done
-Target, Walmart, Sam's: they all store stuff in trailers an other means b/c they are not built to hold the amount of stuff they carry (Holiday Season for example)
-RFID makes locating any item a breeze
-No store (that I know of) has it yet...so no one is relying on it yet
-Walmart puts their own on pallets for distribution only atm

Really? Because I haven't seen anything like trailers delivered to store product at any of the four or five Walmarts I've been to over the past month. Nor, for that matter, have I seen said trailers hitched up to the store acting as additional storage space.

2. Walmart is bullying MANUFACTURERS (not other retailers)...they want RFID installed at that level (same as bar code)
-other retailers will follow suit after it is installed
-Walmart has that power...they just say fine, we won't carry your product otherwise...then the manufacturer is screwed

OK, then it's Walmart bullying the manufacturers. Maybe if they (the manufacturers) actually had a pair between them, they'd all realize Walmart doesn't give a damn for their profit margins and they'd ALL stop shipping to Walmart, take the hit, and watch that retailer go up in flames.

3. Registers are networked NOW...I SAID THAT SELLING THE ITEM WAS NOT THE PROBLEM FOR UPDATING INVENTORY...IT IS WHEN IT IS LOST/STOLEN/DAMAGED...you have no idea (as a retailer) till you do a physical inventory...you still think it is out for sale (according to the computer it has not been sold)...with RFID you know immediately that something happened b/c the signal is gone

And you're telling me you'd completely rely on the computer? How foolish would you have to be to do something like that? Even if your magical plan were to work, all it would take is ONE virus to wipe clean the computer and do any number of nefarious deeds (like stealing invoices and account numbers). Even if it's less efficient, it's far safer to retrofit older technology with newer abilities. Not to mention the tags could malfunction, leading to unnecessary maintenance. Damage can and will happen to bar codes and to RFID chips. You seem to think they are impervious to damage, just as people thought CDs were impervious until someone took a Sharpie and ran a line down its center.

Furthermore, you haven't answered the question of RFID tag collision.

LINK1

LINK 2

LINK 3

rawsavon

Not to mention that the sites actually go to great lengths to discuss how RFID isn't a secure technology. At least with bar codes people can't see what's in your bag and decide to steal it from you rather than the store.

Not to mention that the sites actually go to great lengths to discuss how RFID isn't a secure technology. At least with bar codes people can't see what's in your bag and decide to steal it from you rather than the store.

tycoonmike

Logic fail

1. many places offer no bags...Sam's Club...they have big box bins where YOU grab YOUR OWN boxes and do it yourself
-there is not a rash of robberies in the parking lot (most people do not box up anything)

2. grocery stores would still offer bags/sacks...too many small items...it will just fall on the consumer to do it themselves (which would also open up niche stores for the rich/those willing to pay more... a full service $tyle...like some gas stations)

I am not trying to be mean...but how old are you?
-it does not seem you have much experience with stuff like this...which is fine, but would explain a lot

Logic fail

1. many places offer no bags...Sam's Club...they have big box bins where YOU grab YOUR OWN boxes and do it yourself
-there is not a rash of robberies in the parking lot (most people do not box up anything)

2. grocery stores would still offer bags/sacks...too many small items...it will just fall on the consumer to do it themselves (which would also open up niche stores for the rich/those willing to pay more... a full service $tyle...like some gas stations)

I am not trying to be mean...but how old are you?
-it does not seem you have much experience with stuff like this...which is fine, but would explain a lot

rawsavon

OK, Sam's Club and BJ's don't offer bags, fair enough. Walmart, Target, Best Buy, K-Mart, Sears, and a plethora of other major department stores do. How would you explain them?

Already being done. Some of the grocery stores where I go to have self-service checkouts and, drumroll please, NO RFID TAGS!

What difference does it make? I've provided you with your exact same links highlighting the DANGERS of RFID tags in stores and you discount them all. Proven hypocrite is proven.

In regards to your computer issues...same problems exist now

-they would just have to manually count things if something went wrong
-people could get into a system now and wipe all inventory data, change the prices that things ring up on barcode etc.
-so no new problems except for RFID tag maintenance

Rawsavon

Thereby increasing maintenance costs and solving no computer problems whatsoever. Not to mention that, as you've already said, they already do visual inventory checks in the first place, even with bar codes. What the hell is the point, then?

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

Logic fail

1. many places offer no bags...Sam's Club...they have big box bins where YOU grab YOUR OWN boxes and do it yourself
-there is not a rash of robberies in the parking lot (most people do not box up anything)

2. grocery stores would still offer bags/sacks...too many small items...it will just fall on the consumer to do it themselves (which would also open up niche stores for the rich/those willing to pay more... a full service $tyle...like some gas stations)

I am not trying to be mean...but how old are you?
-it does not seem you have much experience with stuff like this...which is fine, but would explain a lot

tycoonmike

OK, Sam's Club and BJ's don't offer bags, fair enough. Walmart, Target, Best Buy, K-Mart, Sears, and a plethora of other major department stores do. How would you explain them?

Already being done. Some of the grocery stores where I go to have self-service checkouts and, drumroll please, NO RFID TAGS!

What difference does it make? I've provided you with your exact same links highlighting the DANGERS of RFID tags in stores and you discount them all. Proven hypocrite is proven.

What the heck are you talking about?

I said exactly what will happen with the bags...Let me spell it out:
-you have self service centers away from the register (walk through check out, then go bag if you want to)
-the checkout part will be almost instant

I addressed the one thing you brought up about computers, but saw nothing nothing else to address

Thereby increasing maintenance costs and solving no computer problems whatsoeverIt creates no new problems...but solves many that I have listed a ton. Not to mention that, as you've already said, they already do visual inventory checks in the first place, even with bar codesRFID eliminates/speeds up the inventory process. What the hell is the point, then?I have listed tons of points

tycoonmike

You have failed to answer my question...how old are you and what experience do you have in this area

What the hell is the point, then?

tycoonmike

Hopefully this short list will refresh your memory:

1. Instantly know when the item is stolen
-it is no longer in the store = signal gone = you know
-this is not the case with bar codes (magnetic strips may tell if you if someone is trying to steal something, but not what [if they don't get caught] and can be disabled)

2. Locating merchandise is very easy with RFID
-not so with bar codes
-especially useful during the most important retail months of the year (holiday season) where space is so limited = hard t find things b/c things are packed in the back and trailers
-find instantly with RFID

3. Manual Auditing is easier
-sometimes people spend hours looking for an item with the current system
-could find it instantly with RFID

4. Receiving merchandise is done in an instant...don't have to check each item in individually like with barcodes
-it would be done on the pallet level

5. checkout times are almost instant = less lines = less cashiers (one watch many lanes = less employee costs)
-people could still bag their own items at another station

6. Can track individual items
-with barcodes all Sony TV's model XXXXXX are the same...you can individualize with RFID...mark down one display where it rings up automatically that way, no override required

7. only new problem is RFID maintenance (all other computer problems exist today)

8. Track loads in transit to stores

9. Instant data is always best for forecasting

10. Can track what happened to stolen item...signal worked till it reached point X (did they disable it on aisle 5 or near the exit) = track on camera after the fact

I cannot wait until I am not a part of the future.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"] What the hell is the point, then?

rawsavon

Hopefully this short list will refresh your memory:

1. Instantly know when the item is stolen
-it is no longer in the store = signal gone = you know
-this is not the case with bar codes (magnetic strips may tell if you if someone is trying to steal something, but not what [if they don't get caught] and can be disabled)

2. Locating merchandise is very easy with RFID
-not so with bar codes
-especially useful during the most important retail months of the year (holiday season) where space is so limited = hard t find things b/c things are packed in the back and trailers
-find instantly with RFID

3. Manual Auditing is easier
-sometimes people spend hours looking for an item with the current system
-could find it instantly with RFID

4. Receiving merchandise is done in an instant...don't have to check each item in individually like with barcodes
-it would be done on the pallet level

5. checkout times are almost instant = less lines = less cashiers (one watch many lanes = less employee costs)
-people could still bag their own items at another station

6. Can track individual items
-with barcodes all Sony TV's model XXXXXX are the same...you can individualize with RFID...mark down one display where it rings up automatically that way, no override required

7. only new problem is RFID maintenance (all other computer problems exist today)

8. Track loads in transit to stores

9. Instant data is always best for forecasting

10. Can track what happened to stolen item...signal worked till it reached point X (did they disable it on aisle 5 or near the exit) = track on camera after the fact

I really don't understand the fear associated with this technology. It's marking the products, not the person. It alleviates a lot of waste in the retail supply chain. It saves consumers hassle and time. It really seems like a win-win situtation to me and has ever since I became interested in it back in college (it was still in it's infancy then, though).

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"] What the hell is the point, then?

mattbbpl

Hopefully this short list will refresh your memory:

1. Instantly know when the item is stolen
-it is no longer in the store = signal gone = you know
-this is not the case with bar codes (magnetic strips may tell if you if someone is trying to steal something, but not what [if they don't get caught] and can be disabled)

2. Locating merchandise is very easy with RFID
-not so with bar codes
-especially useful during the most important retail months of the year (holiday season) where space is so limited = hard t find things b/c things are packed in the back and trailers
-find instantly with RFID

3. Manual Auditing is easier
-sometimes people spend hours looking for an item with the current system
-could find it instantly with RFID

4. Receiving merchandise is done in an instant...don't have to check each item in individually like with barcodes
-it would be done on the pallet level

5. checkout times are almost instant = less lines = less cashiers (one watch many lanes = less employee costs)
-people could still bag their own items at another station

6. Can track individual items
-with barcodes all Sony TV's model XXXXXX are the same...you can individualize with RFID...mark down one display where it rings up automatically that way, no override required

7. only new problem is RFID maintenance (all other computer problems exist today)

8. Track loads in transit to stores

9. Instant data is always best for forecasting

10. Can track what happened to stolen item...signal worked till it reached point X (did they disable it on aisle 5 or near the exit) = track on camera after the fact

I really don't understand the fear associated with this technology. It's marking the products, not the person. It alleviates a lot of waste in the retail supply chain. It saves consumers hassle and time. It really seems like a win-win situtation to me and has ever since I became interested in it back in college (it was still in it's infancy then, though).

And as I've already said, PEOPLE SHOULD AND WILL STILLDO VISUAL CHECKS. If they didn't they would be stupid, enough said. Computers may be good at many things, but they are just as fallible as humans. If anything they're more so because for maintenance they're reliant on human beings.

Although indirectly stated, I'd like to hammer home the point of reducing inventory costs. Inventory count takes a lot of resources and really adds no value to the product or supply chain. It's basically pure waste which would be eliminated with this method.

I really don't understand the fear associated with this technology. It's marking the products, not the person. It alleviates a lot of waste in the retail supply chain. It saves consumers hassle and time. It really seems like a win-win situtation to me and has ever since I became interested in it back in college (it was still in it's infancy then, though).

mattbbpl

There is at least one poster here that fails to see your logic...I tried to reason with him for the last several pages

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

Hopefully this short list will refresh your memory:

1. Instantly know when the item is stolen
-it is no longer in the store = signal gone = you know
-this is not the case with bar codes (magnetic strips may tell if you if someone is trying to steal something, but not what [if they don't get caught] and can be disabled)

2. Locating merchandise is very easy with RFID
-not so with bar codes
-especially useful during the most important retail months of the year (holiday season) where space is so limited = hard t find things b/c things are packed in the back and trailers
-find instantly with RFID

3. Manual Auditing is easier
-sometimes people spend hours looking for an item with the current system
-could find it instantly with RFID

4. Receiving merchandise is done in an instant...don't have to check each item in individually like with barcodes
-it would be done on the pallet level

5. checkout times are almost instant = less lines = less cashiers (one watch many lanes = less employee costs)
-people could still bag their own items at another station

6. Can track individual items
-with barcodes all Sony TV's model XXXXXX are the same...you can individualize with RFID...mark down one display where it rings up automatically that way, no override required

7. only new problem is RFID maintenance (all other computer problems exist today)

8. Track loads in transit to stores

9. Instant data is always best for forecasting

10. Can track what happened to stolen item...signal worked till it reached point X (did they disable it on aisle 5 or near the exit) = track on camera after the fact

tycoonmike

I really don't understand the fear associated with this technology. It's marking the products, not the person. It alleviates a lot of waste in the retail supply chain. It saves consumers hassle and time. It really seems like a win-win situtation to me and has ever since I became interested in it back in college (it was still in it's infancy then, though).

And as I've already said, PEOPLE SHOULD AND WILL STILLDO VISUAL CHECKS. If they didn't they would be stupid, enough said. Computers may be good at many things, but they are just as fallible as humans. If anything they're more so because for maintenance they're reliant on human beings.

On-Star for humans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIki543QBC8

< For taking inventory? Wouldn't they only need to do a visual check if the count was off? And even then they would only have to manually count the items with the incorrect count rather than the entire inventory, right?

mattbbpl

As someone who has done inventory, you are 100% right
-they would only count the ones that were off on a monthly basis (as opposed to counting all all the time)
-you would still do one yearly manual count to check the system though

tycoonmike

Hopefully this short list will refresh your memory:

1. Instantly know when the item is stolen
-it is no longer in the store = signal gone = you know

Just as you would know with the magnetized strips, just put them on all products. It isn't immediate, but they can still be caught before or immediately after leaving the store.

-this is not the case with bar codes (magnetic strips may tell if you if someone is trying to steal something, but not what [if they don't get caught] and can be disabled)

And RFIDs can be disabled IN THE SAME WAY as those magnetized strips. Not to mention the biggest flaw of all: how would the computer differentiate between a stolen product and a bought product? In both cases, the signal disappears. Unless you're advocating a system that would allow others to track where you're going.

2. Locating merchandise is very easy with RFID
-not so with bar codes

Why not just arrange things in easy to follow departments and subdepartments? Like put televisions with televisions, tires with tires, pet food with pet food, and so on?

-especially useful during the most important retail months of the year (holiday season) where space is so limited = hard t find things b/c things are packed in the back and trailers

Same as above

-find instantly with RFID

Same as above

3. Manual Auditing is easier
-sometimes people spend hours looking for an item with the current system

Yeah, if they're completely incompetent and don't realize cereals are grouped together with other cereals and refrigerated items are usually in the coolers...

It's called the process of elimination.

-could find it instantly with RFID

4. Receiving merchandise is done in an instant...don't have to check each item in individually like with barcodes
-it would be done on the pallet level

Or, you could group similar items together on pallets and have one overriding bar code for that pallet. Problem solved.

5. checkout times are almost instant = less lines = less cashiers (one watch many lanes = less employee costs)
-people could still bag their own items at another station

And, as I've said, this is already implemented without the RFID chips.

6. Can track individual items
-with barcodes all Sony TV's model XXXXXX are the same...you can individualize with RFID...mark down one display where it rings up automatically that way, no override required

Why do you need to individualize the RFIDs? What's the point of that if you want to find a certain type of item? Indeed, couldn't people become confused if there's 100 RFIDs for the same item?

7. only new problem is RFID maintenance (all other computer problems exist today)

And so you ADDto the problems we already have...

8. Track loads in transit to stores

Which is already implemented by postal services like UPS WITHOUT the need of RFIDs but, drumroll please, OPTICALCODES!

9. Instant data is always best for forecasting

At the cost of increased maintenance payments?

10. Can track what happened to stolen item...signal worked till it reached point X (did they disable it on aisle 5 or near the exit) = track on camera after the fact

Which isn't a problem if you simply station a security guard or two at doors to check the bags of people that set off the magnetic sensors.

rawsavon

All problems solved, without the need of RFID. Next contestant, please.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

Hopefully this short list will refresh your memory:

1. Instantly know when the item is stolen
-it is no longer in the store = signal gone = you know

Just as you would know with the magnetized strips, just put them on all products. It isn't immediate, but they can still be caught before or immediately after leaving the store.

-this is not the case with bar codes (magnetic strips may tell if you if someone is trying to steal something, but not what [if they don't get caught] and can be disabled)

And RFIDs can be disabled IN THE SAME WAY as those magnetized strips. Not to mention the biggest flaw of all: how would the computer differentiate between a stolen product and a bought product? In both cases, the signal disappears. Unless you're advocating a system that would allow others to track where you're going.

2. Locating merchandise is very easy with RFID
-not so with bar codes

Why not just arrange things in easy to follow departments and subdepartments? Oh wait, they already do that... huh. Problem solved.

-especially useful during the most important retail months of the year (holiday season) where space is so limited = hard t find things b/c things are packed in the back and trailers

Same as above

-find instantly with RFID

Same as above

3. Manual Auditing is easier
-sometimes people spend hours looking for an item with the current system

Yeah, if they're completely incompetent and don't realize cereals are grouped together with other cereals and refrigerated items are usually in the coolers...

-could find it instantly with RFID

4. Receiving merchandise is done in an instant...don't have to check each item in individually like with barcodes
-it would be done on the pallet level

Or, you could group similar items together on pallets and have one overriding bar code for that pallet. Problem solved.

5. checkout times are almost instant = less lines = less cashiers (one watch many lanes = less employee costs)
-people could still bag their own items at another station

And, as I've said, this is already implemented without the RFID chips.

6. Can track individual items
-with barcodes all Sony TV's model XXXXXX are the same...you can individualize with RFID...mark down one display where it rings up automatically that way, no override required

Why do you need to individualize the RFIDs? What's the point of that if you want to find a certain type of item? Indeed, couldn't people become confused if there's 100 RFIDs for the same item?

7. only new problem is RFID maintenance (all other computer problems exist today)

And so you ADDto the problems we already have...

8. Track loads in transit to stores

Which is already implemented by postal services like UPS WITHOUT the need of RFIDs but, drumroll please, BAR CODES!

9. Instant data is always best for forecasting

At the cost of increased maintenance payments?

10. Can track what happened to stolen item...signal worked till it reached point X (did they disable it on aisle 5 or near the exit) = track on camera after the fact

Which isn't a problem if you simply station a security guard or two at doors to check the bags of people that set off the magnetic sensors.

tycoonmike

All problems solved, without the need of RFID. Next contestant, please.

Barcodes do not result in the same result as RFID tags. Barcodes must be scanned and are a "pull" technology. RFID tags constantly update the system with their status without external action and are a "push" technology. Many of your points above are either glossing over the finer points of the issues or ignoring the fact that RFID tags are a more elegant and efficient solution to the problem, largely due to their information "push" ability.

mattbbpl

Yeah, you're right. From what I've read, they result in new problems WITHOUT solving the old problems. As I said, how would a computer be able to differentiate between a stolen product and a bought product if the signal for both disappears? Would you have a system that is able to track people AFTER buying a product so that they know where else they go? Indeed, why would I, the consumer, want to have some computer tell me what to buy and where to buy it? I have eyes, I can see where what I want to buy is. I guess I can understand it for administrative purposes. I think it's a stupid idea for the given reasons, but for God sakes, keep it away from the consumer. We aren't that stupid that we need help to find a given item, and even if we can't find it we can find a clerk to point us in the right direction.

And besides, I notice that you haven't directly answered my solutions, claiming they gloss over the finer points of the issues. What would those finer points be, because from where I'm standing they're solved by simply switching around some of the procedures already in place?

I'm good off being chipped by anyone...

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

Hopefully this short list will refresh your memory:

1. Instantly know when the item is stolen
-it is no longer in the store = signal gone = you know

Just as you would know with the magnetized strips, just put them on all products. It isn't immediate, but they can still be caught before or immediately after leaving the store.
That is a problem with barcodes...or an advantage with RFID...it is immediate

Also, magnetic strips are easy to disable...and you will never know they were disabled (as opposed to RFID: you know immediataly if they are disabled)

-this is not the case with bar codes (magnetic strips may tell if you if someone is trying to steal something, but not what [if they don't get caught] and can be disabled)

And RFIDs can be disabled IN THE SAME WAY as those magnetized strips. Not to mention the biggest flaw of all: how would the computer differentiate between a stolen product and a bought product? In both cases, the signal disappears. Unless you're advocating a system that would allow others to track where you're going.
You are not thinking very well about this...the computer knows it is sold b/c the register wrang it up...duh
And as I said, you know immediately if RFID is disabled...never know with magnetic till audit time

2. Locating merchandise is very easy with RFID
-not so with bar codes

Why not just arrange things in easy to follow departments and subdepartments? Oh wait, they already do that... huh. Problem solved.
They do not do this...list retail exoperienec please to verify your knowledge...I have more 15 years

-especially useful during the most important retail months of the year (holiday season) where space is so limited = hard t find things b/c things are packed in the back and trailers

Same as above

-find instantly with RFID

Same as above

3. Manual Auditing is easier
-sometimes people spend hours looking for an item with the current system

Yeah, if they're completely incompetent and don't realize cereals are grouped together with other cereals and refrigerated items are usually in the coolers...
Customers move things...called 'stray' items
Things are not always stored where they should be...called human error and laziness

-could find it instantly with RFID

4. Receiving merchandise is done in an instant...don't have to check each item in individually like with barcodes
-it would be done on the pallet level

Or, you could group similar items together on pallets and have one overriding bar code for that pallet. Problem solved.
You don't know how bar codes work...can't be altered...so that would not help...someone has to verify the count
Also, you don't usually get a whole pallet of just 1 thing...called mixed pallets...would be inefficient to only ship pallets of one item
once again, if you had any retail experience you would know

5. checkout times are almost instant = less lines = less cashiers (one watch many lanes = less employee costs)
-people could still bag their own items at another station

And, as I've said, this is already implemented without the RFID chips.
Instant checkout is not available w/o RFID...please show where it is

6. Can track individual items
-with barcodes all Sony TV's model XXXXXX are the same...you can individualize with RFID...mark down one display where it rings up automatically that way, no override required

Why do you need to individualize the RFIDs? What's the point of that if you want to find a certain type of item? Indeed, couldn't people become confused if there's 100 RFIDs for the same item?

You did not understand the example?
You may want to price one of item X less b/c it is damaged (or any other reason)

7. only new problem is RFID maintenance (all other computer problems exist today)

And so you ADDto the problems we already have...
But solved many by adding only one

8. Track loads in transit to stores

Which is already implemented by postal services like UPS WITHOUT the need of RFIDs but, drumroll please, BAR CODES!
Most big companies ship themselves...drumroll please

9. Instant data is always best for forecasting

At the cost of increased maintenance payments?
Is well worth the savings...hence WHY THEY ARE DOING IT

10. Can track what happened to stolen item...signal worked till it reached point X (did they disable it on aisle 5 or near the exit) = track on camera after the fact

Which isn't a problem if you simply station a security guard or two at doors to check the bags of people that set off the magnetic sensors.
-Does not work...you are not allowed to search people's bags w/o cause...so unless the sensor goes off you can do nothing

tycoonmike

All problems solved, without the need of RFID. Next contestant, please.

You have no idea what you are talking about

Please answer my other questions:
Age?
Retail Experience?

You are not thinking very well about this...the computer knows it is sold b/c the register wrang it up...duh
And as I said, you know immediately if RFID is disabled...never know with magnetic till audit time

And what happens the the signal once it goes through the register?

They do not do this...list retail exoperienec please to verify your knowledge...I have more 15 years

Then here's an idea: DO IT!

You're telling me it's difficult to group electronics with electronics, toiletries with toiletries, men's clothing with men's clothing, and so forth?

Customers move things...called 'stray' items
Things are not always stored where they should be...called human error and laziness

And that wouldn't happen with the RFIDs?

You don't know how bar codes work...can't be altered...so that would not help...someone has to verify the count
Also, you don't usually get a whole pallet of just 1 thing...called mixed pallets...would be inefficient to only ship pallets of one item
once again, if you had any retail experience you would know

:| Then make the bar code so that it says what the pallet has on it. Furthermore, once someone verifies the count, scan the bar code and have a computer record that. Has the same problem as RFIDs, for less cost.

Instant checkout is not available w/o RFID...please show where it is

I never said it was. Not instant checkout, but self-service check out. You eliminate the need for cashiers, except for a few overseers, without the need of RFIDs. Problem sovled.

You did not understand the example?
You may want to price one of item X less b/c it is damaged (or any other reason)

You'd sell a television if it were damaged?

7. only new problem is RFID maintenance (all other computer problems exist today)

But solved many by adding only one

Disproven by your own words.

Most big companies ship themselves...drumroll please

I find it highly suspect that UPS can do this while retailers cant...

Is well worth the savings...hence WHY THEY ARE DOING IT

-Does not work...you are not allowed to search people's bags w/o cause...so unless the sensor goes off you can do nothing

Then here's an idea: prohibit opaque and translucent bags. Still the problem with coats and such, but even then you've yet to explain what happens to the signal when the product is put through the register. Does it go away? If it does, how does the computer differentiate between a stolen product and a bought product?

rawsavon

And I'm not answering your questions. What difference does it make if I've had 20 years experience or have just started out or haven't ever been in retail? And besides, it saves you the trouble of debating logical fallacies.

This is my last and final word on this subject with you: you haven't once debated my points, you've only restated your points. Not to mention you've ignored the problems with RFID, as listed in those three links you've provided. I've restated many of the problems with RFID listed on those links, all of which you've either ignored or have claimed I didn't know what I was talking about and asked for the amount of experience I've had in retail.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

Barcodes do not result in the same result as RFID tags. Barcodes must be scanned and are a "pull" technology. RFID tags constantly update the system with their status without external action and are a "push" technology. Many of your points above are either glossing over the finer points of the issues or ignoring the fact that RFID tags are a more elegant and efficient solution to the problem, largely due to their information "push" ability.

Yeah, you're right. From what I've read, they result in new problems WITHOUT solving the old problems. As I said, how would a computer be able to differentiate between a stolen product and a bought product if the signal for both disappears? Would you have a system that is able to track people AFTER buying a product so that they know where else they go? Indeed, why would I, the consumer, want to have some computer tell me what to buy and where to buy it? I have eyes, I can see where what I want to buy is. I guess I can understand it for administrative purposes. I think it's a stupid idea for the given reasons, but for God sakes, keep it away from the consumer. We aren't that stupid that we need help to find a given item, and even if we can't find it we can find a clerk to point us in the right direction.

And besides, I notice that you haven't directly answered my solutions, claiming they gloss over the finer points of the issues. What would those finer points be, because from where I'm standing they're solved by simply switching around some of the procedures already in place?

As long as they keep this to the product it's fine.

But we all know that won't be the case. It's only a matter of time till they try to chip us all.

And when they do, they'll have to break down my door and shoot me, cause the only thing they will be chipping is my cold, dead body.

I didn't address each point individually because I don't exactly have a block of free time right now. I'm merely perusing this site during short spurts of it. After looking at your responses to rawsavon though, it's become clear that you're not listening to reason at all anymore anyway and are just reaching for any straw you can grasp.mattbbpl

This is my last and final word on this subject with you: I'm sorry I have no patience for someone who willingly ignores significant pieces of evidence TO THE CONTRARY of what they're arguing in documents that THEY provide. You haven't had the time to read the links he's provided, so I'll just say that I've restated what his articles have said are the bad points of RFID technology, all of which he's either claimed I don't know what I'm talking about or that I haven't the experience in retail to be able to judge accurately. I don't need any experience in retail to know how to read, thank you very much.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

You are not thinking very well about this...the computer knows it is sold b/c the register wrang it up...duh
And as I said, you know immediately if RFID is disabled...never know with magnetic till audit time

And what happens the the signal once it goes through the register?

It is still there...but the system is smart enough to know 1 sold and 1 signal no longer active (out of range) = okay, but one signal gone and not sold/accounted for = problem

They do not do this...list retail exoperienec please to verify your knowledge...I have more 15 years

Then here's an idea: DO IT!

You're telling me it's difficult to group electronics with electronics, toiletries with toiletries, men's clothing with men's clothing, and so forth?

On the sales floor...NO...not too difficult...that is how it is done
But that is not how stuff is stored...they store things where there is room...that may mean shirts above TV's or cereal above batteries...they keep it is close as they can...but there is simply not enough room to store everything above its corresponding items on the floor (may have 20 pallets of toilet paper and only 1 of shirts...things get mixed up fast)..especially when you receive 20+ trucks a day

Customers move things...called 'stray' items
Things are not always stored where they should be...called human error and laziness

And that wouldn't happen with the RFIDs?

You don't know how bar codes work...can't be altered...so that would not help...someone has to verify the count
Also, you don't usually get a whole pallet of just 1 thing...called mixed pallets...would be inefficient to only ship pallets of one item
once again, if you had any retail experience you would know

:| Then make the bar code so that it says what the pallet has on it. Furthermore, once someone verifies the count, scan the bar code and have a computer record that. Has the same problem as RFIDs, for less cost.

Read about bar codes...can't be changed...so the store would have to make a barcode for each pallet that stated what was on it and the quantity, then change each time 1 item is pulled off...that would be a full time job in and of itself

Instant checkout is not available w/o RFID...please show where it is

I never said it was. Not instant checkout, but self-service check out. You eliminate the need for cashiers, except for a few overseers, without the need of RFIDs. Problem sovled.

Have you seen how self checkout backs stuff up...it sucks for anything more than 5 items...try having lines of people with basket fulls

You did not understand the example?
You may want to price one of item X less b/c it is damaged (or any other reason)

You'd sell a television if it were damaged?

Go to bestbuy there are TV's that are returned/display/scratches for less all the time

7. only new problem is RFID maintenance (all other computer problems exist today)
Exactly...only 1 new problem, but solved many

But solved many by adding only one

Disproven by your own words.

No...solved at least 10 problems, but only created 1 won = better by 9 problems

Most big companies ship themselves...drumroll please

I find it highly suspect that UPS can do this while retailers cant...

Walmart doesn't...don't know what to tell you
-but even UPS only says what is supposed to be on there (what is on the barcode...may not be what is actually on there...example: ordered tires one time...said would receive them on x day (tracking number)...but only 3 arrived...did not say what was really there w/out RFID

Is well worth the savings...hence WHY THEY ARE DOING IT

-Does not work...you are not allowed to search people's bags w/o cause...so unless the sensor goes off you can do nothing

Then here's an idea: prohibit opaque and translucent bags. Still the problem with coats and such, but even then you've yet to explain what happens to the signal when the product is put through the register. Does it go away? If it does, how does the computer differentiate between a stolen product and a bought product?

I explained above...the system is 'smart' enough to know one signal gone/out of range + one sold at register = okay BUT one signal gone + no corresponding sale = Bad

tycoonmike

I don't need any experience in retail to know how to read, thank you very much.

tycoonmike

But you do need experience to know how things work in the real world...there is a big difference b/w books and life...business is not as simple as what you make it

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"] I don't need any experience in retail to know how to read, thank you very much.

rawsavon

But you do need experience to know how things work in the real world...there is a big difference b/w books and life...business is not as simple as what you make it

I did say I wasn't going to post any more in this thread, but since you came up with this, I feel it necessary to explain exactly why I said that.

As I said, I just went off of what your links said after you posted them. What you've basically done is given me reasons why the reports are both right and wrong. Like it or not, there are flaws in the technology and, if it's implemented, I can guarantee you thirty years down the line when they've developed some new supposedly time-saving technology this same argument will play itself out again.

You're right, business is made needlessly difficult. I actually do have some experience in retail, much as you may believe otherwise, and I can tell you from experience that where I worked (a small grocery store, granted not nearly as impressive as some place like Sam's Club or Walmart) the regs on what needed to be stored where were rarely followed. I'd be willing to wager a similar thing happens in larger stores. Then, when people screw up (as they would whether or not RFID was implemented) and say they were just doing their job people like you come along claiming we need to use some new technology and all our problems will be solved. Complete and utter bulls***. What we actually need is to clean up the regs and use some common sense, like actually designating certain places in store rooms for certain items (electronics with electronics, toiletries with toiletries, clothing with clothing, and so on) instead of making it a hodge-podge of mismatched items.

I did say I wasn't going to post any more in this thread, but since you came up with this, I feel it necessary to explain exactly why I said that.

As I said, I just went off of what your links said after you posted them. What you've basically done is given me reasons why the reports are both right and wrong. Like it or not, there are flaws in the technology Of course...there are flaws in all technology...never said it was perfect...just better and, if it's implemented, I can guarantee you thirty years down the line when they've developed some new supposedly time-saving technology this same argument will play itself out again.Once again, of course...such is the strength of man...to push forward...though it does not always end well, it does for the most part (but another argument for another topic)

You're right, business is made needlessly difficult. I actually do have some experience in retail, much as you may believe otherwise, and I can tell you from experience that where I worked (a small grocery store, granted not nearly as impressive as some place like Sam's Club or Walmart) the regs on what needed to be stored where were rarely followed. I'd be willing to wager a similar thing happens in larger stores. It does and magnified by the amount of people working there and the added merchandise Then, when people screw up (as they would whether or not RFID was implemented) and say they were just doing their job people like you come along claiming we need to use some new technology and all our problems will be solved. It does not solve the problem, but makes it easier...having worked on the audit staff, I would have killed for this technology (to be able to find where some jackass stuck a 27 inch flatscreen) Complete and utter bulls***. What we actually need is to clean up the regs and use some common sense, like actually designating certain places in store rooms for certain items (electronics with electronics, toiletries with toiletries, clothing with clothing, and so on) instead of making it a hodge-podge of mismatched items.It works great till you run out of room near that item. No more room above TV's, what do you do with extra TV's...stick some above this and some above that...you see where this ends
-could say order less, but need them for Holidays
-could say keep better track, but think of the normal associate
-so RFID is a huge help

tycoonmike

It works great till you run out of room near that item. No more room above TV's, what do you do with extra TV's...stick some above this and some above that...you see where this ends

-could say order less, but need them for Holidays
-could say keep better track, but think of the normal associate
-so RFID is a huge help

rawsavon

Yeah, order less and charge more for the product you do have during the holidays. The consumer will be royally peeved off, but you'll end up selling fewer, thereby needing fewer, while still making the same amount per unit. Especially if the item's a hot item that year.

I don't see why a normal associate wouldn't be able to keep better track, since my coworkers usually goofed off when they were supposed to be working. Once again, I'd think a similar thing happens at larger stores, so come down harder on the people who do slack off and don't do what they're supposed to do. Hell, I used to get so annoyed at my coworkers when they complained they had too much to do and too little time to do it. I usually had to carry their slack so the boss wouldn't fire them.

NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Thank you.
I will NOT put a chip into my body because its "convinient" for the "consumer". There are far too many privacy issues, etc for this type of thing to be implemented imo. Who says someone can't steal the information and use it? It would be a whole new level of identity theift. Basically, your entire life could be gone if they implement these chips in the way they describe it.

Also, who says they wont be GPS trackable? Sure the government would supposidly have to get a warrant or something like that in order to track you, but who says the government wouldn't track you anyway?
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I don't trust the government enough for them to plant a chip in me so I can be tracked virtually everywhere I go. If security would be that much of an issue to the point where they need to put chips into everyone to make sure they don't do wrong, then I would rather die than live in such a doomed society.