> The issue you raise of containing metal is a historic problem, but has been solved for many years through RAIN RFID tags
Yes I know it’s solved. But it’s not as simple as barcodes. Each product needs to be evaluated to decide if you’re gonna put a tag on it that works well on metal surfaces, because those tags tend to be marginally more expensive than the alternatives.
> I agree, the cost is higher than a barcode, but when the barcode was introduced the same argument was valid. What is the benefit to the manufacturer to get involved in stock management, when the shop was previously responsible for "pricing-up" the item themselves.
Simple, there’s an obvious cost reduction for shops, no more need for labels or hours of pricing up, makes it easier for a store to eat the costs for their manufacturers. For manufacturers, the improved stock management at stores would allow this store to carry a large variety of brands, which makes it easier for manufacturers to get their products onto shelves.
> With more adoption, the price will decrease, and this will become standard. Or, what is the alternative? That we use barcodes for the next 100 years?
The price of RFID tags isn’t expected to get any lower. General consensus is that there’s already enough demand for RFID tags that they’ve more or less hit their lower possible price, and any further reduction are not going to be meaningful.
What’s wrong with using barcodes? It’s a well proven technology, you could update them to 2D barcodes if you want more encoded data. There’s no reason to get rid of technology that works perfectly well just for the sake of using a “newer” technology. Most retailers are looking at Amazon fresh stores and wondering if that can be made to scale to grocery stores.
> Further, loss prevention is reduced as accidental scanning errors, and ease of intentional theft is reduced.
The types of thefts you’re referring to aren’t meaningful compared to theft carried out by organised crime, and by the staff themselves. RFID tags aren’t going to stop people walking into stores and simply picking up and entire rack of clothes, or sweeping all stakes in the meat section, and walking out. That kind of theft is a real problem, and store staff deliberately don’t stop those thieves because the risk of violence is far too high.
> Regarding chip-and-pin, I was responsible for writing some of the middleware in ~2004 that interfaced between chip-and-pin machines and terminals (& other devices), for what was then the largest provider in this space.
I’m very aware of the complexities involved in any kind of change to the EMV standards, or simple changes in payment network rules. I’ve been involved in both the negotiations and technical implementation of those changes. The difference is the number of parties and teams involved. A single grocer will have hundreds of suppliers each, and likely thousands of manufacturers. The number of parties involved is substantially greater than the number of issuers and acquirers in the world. So yes, I do think stuff like Chip-and-PIN was simpler to implement than RFID. It’s all relative.