HN Gopher Feed (2017-10-26) - page 1 of 10 ___________________________________________________________________
Walmart will soon have robots roaming the aisles in 50 stores
95 points by hourislate
http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-store-robot-program-expan...ram-expands-2017-10?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Falleyinsider%2Fsilicon_alley_insider+___________________________________________________________________
[deleted]
losteverything - 28 minutes ago
Doug Mcmillon said Wal-Mart reached total maximum employment (sry
cant find quote) as in no net increase in associates.He also points
out when a "job goes away." often referring to improved convenience
for the customer. (i.e. pick up towers)Robots will always be
experimented with..
Overtonwindow - 1 hours ago
What will the People of Walmart make of this? Personally, I think
store robots like these don't really help much. A novelty at first,
I think the image of Walmart as a cheapskate on all things human,
will give the robot a negative reputation.
659087 - 1 hours ago
> What will the People of Walmart make of this?That depends
entirely upon whether or not the robots can help deliver their "I
thought it was just gas" bathroom babies.
bamboozled - 43 minutes ago
Some of them will probably be hired to walk around and greet
customers, I noticed that on my last visit to Australia and NZ.A
lot of major chains down there, since implementing self-service
checkouts etc, now just employ people to be friendly and give the
brand and store some kind of face. It was interesting.Kind of
like hiring some warmth and personality for an otherwise cold and
desolate warehouse.
adventured - 28 minutes ago
Walmart re-instituted its greeter system [1] in part for that
reason. They're using a lot of elderly workers for it. Walmart
found that just having greeters out front reduced their theft
numbers meaningfully.[1] http://fortune.com/2016/05/04/walmart-
brings-back-greeters-t...
forapurpose - 1 hours ago
I wonder why they settled on putting the cameras in robots that are
on the floor. Why not use cameras attached to the ceiling? If the
cameras need to move to get a good angle, they could move up and
down the aisle on tracks or Walmart could simply install more
cameras. If the ceiling is a bad angle, they could put them on the
floor under the shelving, or on top of the shelves, or in several
other places.None of those solutions need navigation, their
presences is more persistent, and the persistent visual could be
used for other purposes: 'Are we out of produce bags? Check camera
5b.' 'What is on the floor in aisle 8?'
ryuker16 - 23 minutes ago
They move those shelves and aisles around and every wal-mart I've
seen has 50 ft ceilings.
criddell - 1 hours ago
The Walmart nearest me moves aisles around periodically. Aisle 8
this week has halloween costumes, but two weeks from now aisle 8
will be gone and a large open area will be created for plastic
Christmas trees.
pwinnski - 9 minutes ago
Flexibility.Everything you're describing has more limitations
than putting a mobile robot on the floor, and the robots require
no additional accommodations in store design.
noonespecial - 22 minutes ago
As cheap as cameras are these days, it would almost seem more cost
effective and reliable to just put a camera every few feet on the
opposite shelf.
blt - 16 minutes ago
Sure, but that doesn't help you get closer to a fully automated
customer service bot. Probably this is just an initial step, the
simplest thing that can still be useful, while gathering data and
building expertise in the development team.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
PatientTrades - 47 minutes ago
Walmarts are already overcrowded as it is. Adding robots is going
to clog the aisles even more. It could still work I guess
rocketier - 8 minutes ago
It is implied in the article, yes, but i dont see a reason why
these robots shoudl not operate at closing hours or if it is a
24/7 then at a time when the number of visitors is lowest, say 3
or 4 am.
kristofferR - 47 minutes ago
Judging from the pictures they'll still use paper price labels.Why?
It seems extremely arcane to still use paper price labels in 2017,
especially for stores as big and centrally run as Walmart.With
digital price labels you can update prices centrally across the
whole country within seconds, and it costs basically nothing to
implement too, when the labor cost of manually updating paper price
labels are factored in.
foobarrio - 29 minutes ago
At the very least you will need another little robot or human
that goes by and verifies that the prices have actually been
updated. I can't imagine the LCD price displayers will be super
high reliable and built to last decades.
kristofferR - 18 minutes ago
You seem to think that electronic price labels is a new
unproven technology, while it is actually extremely common and
well tested. After the initial introduction period, where
errors can occur, it's pretty much guaranteed to work as
flawless as it does everywhere
else.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_shelf_label
bbarn - 28 minutes ago
Probably because it's the lowest common denominator across all
states to follow codes.https://www.nist.gov/pml/weights-and-
measures/us-retail-pric...A company the size of Walmart would
need to employ many lawyers just to deal with state to state
pricing laws.
jdietrich - 12 minutes ago
Shelves need to be checked, faced and re-stocked on a daily
basis. Someone is already checking every shelf in the store every
day, so the actual labour cost of changing paper price labels is
remarkably small.Electronic shelf labels could facilitate dynamic
price changes, but this is likely to be highly unpopular with
customers. The mere presence of ESLs could imply volatile or
manipulative pricing and undermine customer trust.
BjoernKW - 11 minutes ago
I suppose because modernising existing systems is tedious, error-
prone and expensive. The latter two in principle apply to
implementing new systems as well but at least those are exciting
and, well, new.You'd be hard-pressed to find a single company
that relies solely on digital processes. In terms of
digitalisation everyone seems to be talking about AI, AR,
robotics and technologies like Blockchain. However, while
certainly interesting those aren't the main avenues for bringing
about digital transformation.Replacing paper-based processes and
doing away with the need for physical presence to conduct
business are.So, Walmart will soon have robots running up and
down their aisles while at the same time we still largely rely on
paper for invoicing and accounting.We'll soon have self-driving
cars for all our wonderful commuting but we still haven't figured
out how to use technology for remote working to make travelling
to a ridiculously expensive place called 'office' a thing of the
past.
duderific - 42 minutes ago
> and it costs basically nothing to implement too.I find that
hard to believe, given the scale of Walmart's operations - they
have close to 5000 stores, and who knows how much technical debt
they have in their stocking/inventory systems.
tradersam - 7 minutes ago
Considering the fact that Walmart's last FY profits were
something to the tune of $124.62B,[1] regardless of technical
debt or other factors I don't think spending less than 1% of
that to do a (probably) much needed upgrade is a hard sell to
anyone rational.[1]: https://amigobulls.com/stocks/WMT/income-
statement/annual
kristofferR - 31 minutes ago
I clarified that I meant with labor taken into account.I don't
understand the technical debt argument though - if a robot can
scan prices to check that they are correct, a display should be
able to display the price without any issue. The prices are
obviously accedible in a database.
anigbrowl - 1 hours ago
I wonder what their reaction will be when people start attaching
stickers to them
adventured - 25 minutes ago
Walmart has eyes in the sky covering every part of the consumer
area of the building. I imagine they'll regard it as property
vandalism (stickers being the least of what people will do to
them).
phyzome - 45 minutes ago
> The robots are designed to free up store employees' time so they
can use it to help customers....which is bullshit; Walmart just
doesn't want the "robots taking our jobs" angle here. If they
consider the current level at which employees help customers in the
aisles sufficient, then they'll be cutting jobs to match that level
rather than "freeing up" employees to do more of it.
JSONwebtoken - 38 minutes ago
For the foreseable future, robots and chatbots will be poorer UX
than speaking to a human. Since it's not adding value to their
product it's obviously being done for cost cutting and scale
reasons.
jdietrich - 17 minutes ago
I rarely get useful assistance in large chain stores. Asking
"where is the pesto?" usually gets an answer like "I dunno,
somewhere in aisle 7 maybe" with an indifferent shrug. I'd
happily make three attempts at using a clunky voice interface
if I got the answer "Aisle 7, bay 11, shelves 3 and 4. We have
18 different kinds of pesto currently in stock. Would you like
me to take you there?"It almost seems too obvious to say, but
computers have different strengths and weaknesses to
humans.There are also social factors involved that may be
advantageous to machines. Self-checkout machines offer an
objectively worse experience most of the time, but a lot of
shoppers prefer them. Some customers don't want to interact
with a human cashier. Some will be buying embarrassing items
and prefer the apparent anonymity of self-checkout. There's
also a subtlety in how the self-checkout machines are arranged
- because there's usually a common queue for several machines,
customers don't feel pressured to finish their transaction
quickly.Shoppers may prefer being assisted by a robot for a
variety of reasons, even if the robot isn't quite as good as
the average human worker.
paulddraper - 31 minutes ago
> which is bullshit; Walmart just doesn't want the "robots
taking our jobs" angle hereSome would say the "robots taking our
jobs" angle is also bullshit.Damn tractors/threshers/combines,
taking all of our jobs....
frgtpsswrdlame - 1 hours ago
You guys think there will be a backlash to this? Some sort of
modern luddite movement? Whenever I shop I refuse to use the self-
checkout, you think that sort of thing might spread?
bbarn - 24 minutes ago
I think you're going to see a lot of kids knocking them over for
fun, at least at first.
irl_zebra - 1 hours ago
Why do you refuse to use the self checkout?
wtetzner - 1 hours ago
I prefer self checkout in theory, but often the machine doesn't
work properly, and you need a human to login and fix it
anyway.The whole thing where it checks if something is in
bagging area seems to be pretty buggy in most of the stores
where I've used them.
zajd - 1 hours ago
I'm going to guess because of how symbolic it is regarding our
society's relation to labor.
frgtpsswrdlame - 1 hours ago
People need those jobs so I want them to exist.
dctoedt - 1 hours ago
Can't answer for GP, but I use human checkout to provide
epsilon demand for cashiers who need the job. Efficiency isn't
everything.
meddlepal - 1 hours ago
I used to feel that way about bank tellers (having been a
former bank teller a long time ago...) then I realized I was
wasting 20 minutes in line for a simple deposit that the
machine could do in under two minutes without a queue.
gt_ - 21 minutes ago
The 20 minute wait was excused by your willingness to
accept the offer of automation.I visited a Walmart last
week and notice they had converted 1/3 of the normal
checkout aisles to self-checkout stations. They left the
conveyor belts in and I noticed how people still used the
conveyor belts the same way whether there was a line or
not, unloading each item onto it before scanning them all.
frgtpsswrdlame - 1 hours ago
Don't you feel a tinge of guilt when you walk in one day
and now there's only two tellers instead of three? Maybe
I'm just weird but I was at target yesterday and there were
only three aisles open with lots of people going to self
checkout. I said fuck it and waited in line for a person.
maxerickson - 44 minutes ago
Do you go down this rabbit hole?How do you pick between
buying wheat and taking it to the miller (preserving his
job) and buying flour from the grocer?Do you seek out gas
stations that still pump gas for you?Do you worry that
buying a fuel efficient vehicle or insulated building can
have a negative impact on people working for energy
producers?
jdietrich - 10 minutes ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_windo
w
dctoedt - 1 hours ago
True; a 20-minute difference would definitely be enough to
tip the scales in favor of self-service. But in the
grocery stores in our area, there are almost always plenty
of registers open and little waiting. So the time
requirements being approximately equal, I'd rather pay a
skilled cashier and bagger to do the work of speedily
"ringing up" and bagging my groceries, while I stand there
and chat with them. (As a teenager I had a summer job
bagging groceries one year, so I can relate.)
criddell - 1 hours ago
If there was a 1% service fee for using the cashier (or a 1%
rebate for self-checkout), would you still use a cashier?
dctoedt - 1 hours ago
> If there was a 1% service fee for using the cashier (or a
1% rebate for self-checkout), would you still use a
cashier?Definitely. Our average grocery bill ranges from
maybe USD $50 to $125 (we're empty nesters), so 1% of that
would be noise level. Heck, back when baggers accepted
tips, I always tipped at least $1 (when I was a teenaged
grocery bagger it was for tips only); that's more than the
1% would be.Probably
dave5104 - 1 hours ago
I don't use self checkout because I'm lazy, tbh. It's more work
I need to do. Particularly at the grocery store I go to, I know
which cashiers are good and efficient. If I have a coupon, or
if I'm buying a clearance item, it's also not a big deal, but
self checkout always seems to require a "help is on the way!"
ryandrake - 1 hours ago
Convenience/efficiency more than anything. Most of the time,
human checkout is faster than self-checkout. I can prepare my
payment in parallel with the human operating the checkout
hardware. I don't have to learn and navigate the touch screen
menu system (even if it can be learned in a second, that's one
second more than the zero I get with human checkout). Often,
self checkout kiosks fail in ways that require a human to be
summoned anyway.
icebraining - 2 minutes ago
Prepare your payment? What's there to prepare?
odammit - 1 hours ago
Because I drink a lot.Can?t buy booze in self checkout (in CA).
criddell - 1 hours ago
I'm in Austin, TX and I can buy booze in self-checkout, as
long as it isn't Sunday morning.
rconti - 22 minutes ago
Do they scan your ID? If not, I'm surprised someone hasn't
come knocking about this...
thinkythought - 12 minutes ago
In washington you have to wait, a long time, for a clerk
to come over and check your id and unlock the checkout
machine. it's obnoxious
elchief - 1 hours ago
For one, Wal*Mart doesn't provide cash-back at self checkout
losteverything - 33 minutes ago
Yea it does...and people often forget to pick it up
aaronbrethorst - 44 minutes ago
If by "backlash" you mean 'looks like late 18th century France,'
then yes, I think there will be a backlash.
nitwit005 - 1 hours ago
I think we'll just see a ton of videos of electric scooters
crashing into them...
Roodgorf - 1 hours ago
Given the previous reactions to any sort of move by fast food
chains toward anything like automation, I can't imagine this
won't be picked up as fodder for the "look what happens when you
ask for a living wage" contingent.
criddell - 1 hours ago
You don't think wages have any effect on the decision to
automate?I will always vote for raising the minimum wage but at
the same time I know it probably makes automation more
attractive.
Roodgorf - 1 hours ago
I don't think it has as extreme an impact as the people
posting images of a self-service menu imply it does. I will
concede that a lot of my aversion to the argument is from the
disdain for people with lower-class jobs that I read into
it.But while I agree there is an impact, I also don't think
we should avoid automation simply to have someone doing a
mindless job if it could effectively be automated. People
don't necessarily need jobs, they need the resources that
having a job allows them access to.
softwarefounder - 1 hours ago
I love bagging my own groceries the way I like, and avoiding
interaction with a potentially disgruntled and inattentive
cashier. I love self-checkouts.
jethro_tell - 23 minutes ago
oh? you don't want your bread to be a cushion for you bananas
which are there to keep your canned goods from falling through
the thin paper?
[deleted]
UnoriginalGuy - 1 hours ago
I wonder if these robots will suffer from the "roomba dog mess"
problem. Meaning if a jar of something gets dropped in the aisle,
will the robot happily drive through it and then leave tracks of it
throughout the store?I'd also be interested in learning about the
false positives. For example a product get turned around on the
shelf or returned askew does that trigger an alert? And is that a
good or bad thing?I guess the proof will be in the pudding. If
these are still in use two or three years from now then we know
they were a success.From a personal perspective I'd love these to
improve me locate products within a store. Many stores still fail
to tell you which shelf a product is on on their mobile app, and
the few that day don't give you a map of the store showing you the
literal location of it. I'd love to have a "Google Maps"-like
experience with locating an item.
rapind - 1 hours ago
But can they do the cheer?
[deleted]
alexS - 1 hours ago
Lets start an open robot cooperative where each co adopting robots
to replace human labor donates to high tech or other education.
This idea is open source so take it and run with it :)
timthelion - 1 hours ago
It seems interesting to me, that computers seem to be taking on
managerial roles and humans are left with manual labor. The robot
knows how to tell a human to fix a problem but doesn't know how to
restock the shelves itself. Similarly, in warehouses, computers
tell humans what to do, and the human's job is basically just to
grab things.In the end, the robot is already higher on the ladder
than the humans.
otras - 1 hours ago
Reminds of me of the Warren Bennis quote: The factory of the
future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man
will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the
man from touching the equipment.
zanny - 1 hours ago
Its not that we cannot build robots that restock shelves, it is
that shelves are designed for humans to stock. And emulating the
range of movement and dexterity of human hands and the sensory
data we get when interacting with such shelves is really
expensive, rather than prohibitive. Especially to maintain. Think
of all the fine motor joints you would need in such a robot that
could break all the time (like how fragile human fingers are).
But how else are they supposed to stock individual bottles of
maple syrup with weird handles while stocking jars or bags of
flour a shelf over?In situations designed for robots, like Amazon
warehouses, they don't have a problem stocking shelves as long as
the range of required behavior is much more restricted so the
instrumentation can be more rugged and less articulate.
apendleton - 1 hours ago
The newer Amazon warehouses actually provide a nice example of
some further refactoring to make at least parts of the stocking
and picking more automate-able, in that the shelves all move
and he humans stay stationary. Fingers are still hard, but
moving across a warehouse is easy, so may as well shave off
that piece of the task.
simplify - 1 hours ago
It's not too different from a static type system. Humans are
great at general problem solving, but computers are better at
precision (but only when you can precise measure something).
davito88 - 1 hours ago
I think this could be said for many technologies: the cashier
scans barcodes, the cook at McDonalds flips burgers when the
alarm goes off, the anesthesiologist or pilot watches gauges...
timthelion - 1 hours ago
And Uber tells the drivers where to go.
ronilan - 1 hours ago
Near my house, 4 red octagons with a simple white drawing
command humans to stop and cooperate.
tlb - 50 minutes ago
Counting inventory and generating pick lists isn't really
"managerial". The word usually means managing people, which still
requires human judgement.
panopticon - 1 hours ago
Reminds me of this story: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htmI
always thought it was amusing when people said it would replace
burger flippers and the like. Why? They're cheap, and that's
relatively expensive/difficult to automate. The slightly higher
paid manager though? Ripe for automation.
ryuker16 - 24 minutes ago
Same here....I suspect it's middle and lower managers that will
be first to be obliterated.Cashiers don't simple run the
register, they do other stuff. Janitors fix stuff and carry
heavy boxes, etc.Managers and supervisors? Overpaid if they're
doing the above or doing something can be automated.
gowld - 10 minutes ago
> They're cheap, and that's relatively expensive/difficult to
automate.that's a weird thing to say, because burger flippers
ARE automated -- 99% of the work of making a McDonald's burger
is already automated, only the remaining hard-to-automate 1% is
left for the humans.
timthelion - 58 minutes ago
"The girls liked it because Manna didn't hit on them
either."Interesting story. I'll be sure to read it.
[deleted]
PeachPlum - 1 hours ago
Managers make decisions when the information is equivocal.That is
very hard to replace.Resource allocation and unequivocal
decisions are for the machines to help us with.If, as a manager,
you do more of the latter: be afraid
timthelion - 1 hours ago
> If, as a manager, you do more of the latter: be afraidAs a
gardener, I have never feared a robot that could pull weeds. As
a home-maker I have never feared a robot that could wash
dishes. As an inventor, I have never feared a robot that could
draft diagrams. And yet those people who are at the mercy of
the market fear, and this is why, I believe that capitalism is
headed for either disaster or elimination. Capitalism has
created a problem which does not exist.Post-scarcity is only a
problem in capitalism.
noonespecial - 27 minutes ago
I'll take it. Because "how to fairly distribute all of this
stuff that nobody had to work to make(1)" is a better problem
than the one it replaced: "how to choose who should die
because we don't have enough".(1) Just so long as the answer
isn't "make them die because we don't need them anymore".
castle-bravo - 44 minutes ago
... because only capitalism has made post-scarcity possible.
sbinthree - 1 hours ago
More like: humans who program the robots > the robots > humans
who are instructed by the robots.
jasode - 33 minutes ago
>The robot knows how to tell a human to fix a problem but doesn't
know how to restock the shelves itself. [...] computers tell
humans what to do, and the human's job is basically just to grab
things.Yep. There's a name for that observation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox
devon_m - 1 hours ago
and the race is on to squat on https://www.robotsofwalmart.com
practicalcat - 1 hours ago
still available
goodroot - 34 minutes ago
> The robots are much more efficient than a human at the task of
scanning store shelves.Oh, my. This sentence gave me a real
chuckle. But, then, I reflected. We're in for some interesting
times. If the heuristic is whether not a robot is "more efficient"
than a human then human's are going to be in short demand.
Isamu - 1 hours ago
> the robots are 50% more efficient than a human doing the same
task. They can also scan shelves three times more quickly and are a
lot more accurate. Human employees can only scan shelves about
twice a week.Personally, I want to see up-to-date retail stock
mapping (that I can search)Walmart is testing a robot from Bossa
Nova (Pittsburgh and
SF)http://www.bossanova.com/https://www.crunchbase.com/organization
/bossa-nova-robotics-...
woobar - 25 minutes ago
> Personally, I want to see up-to-date retail stock mapping (that
I can search)Just got from Lowes and they do it on the web and in
their app. Search for an item, and if it is in stock it will show
you its location on the store map.OTOH, every Walmart I've visted
is unable to keep their shelves full. [1] How hard it is to keep
something non-perishable (like deodorant) in stock? Somehow
Target figured that out.[1] https://consumerist.com/2013/04/05
/walmart-employees-tell-co...
monkmartinez - 14 minutes ago
Anecdote time!I bought a water softener at HomeDepot about
three weeks ago. Initially went to my local Lowes where I had
checked if one was in stock and at the store. Yes and Yes. Get
to Lowes and there is no water softener, as the website
indicated. Lowe's employee checked the back as well, wasn't
there.There are many problems with humans doing this "inventory
business" at $10 an hour or so. The professional counts that
happen once or so a year by outside agencies wouldn't be
necessary otherwise.To be fair, I've had issues at Home Depot
as well... lots of; "The computer says there are 2 in stock...
I have no idea where they are."
woobar - 1 minutes ago
Yeah, it isn't perfect. Sometimes I see more variety on the
shelves then was reported by the search results. But my
primary use case is the store map. It is so easy to get lost
in Lowes/Home Depot.
ikeboy - 52 minutes ago
Brickseek?
comboy - 1 hours ago
Why does it have to be a robot riding around? Couldn't the same
thing be done from a camera on the ceiling?
maxerickson - 49 minutes ago
They already do it at POS.Lots of store websites have a feature
where you select a location and it tells you whether a product
is in stock or not (and often how much is in stock).
Operyl - 1 hours ago
Because robots look cooler. Also, I imagine it?s probably doing
some stuff with depth perception crap and what have you.
arkitaip - 1 hours ago
But then you would have to spend lots of money of redesigning
ceilings, having regular maintenance work done, etc.
markkanof - 1 hours ago
It would probably mean that the camera would either have to
hang down pretty low in the isles or the isles would need to be
super wide so that the camera could get a good view angle of
the entire shelf, including bottom rows. But sure I suppose
they probably could have something that rides around on a track
on the ceiling and raises and lowers to get into position in
each isle.
hk__2 - 1 hours ago
> Personally, I want to see up-to-date retail stock mapping (that
I can search)Isn?t something Walmart doesn?t want you to have?
Having a mapping means being more efficient when shopping in the
store, which means less time in it and so less opportunities to
buy things.
fossuser - 1 hours ago
This reminds me of the argument some (now dead) portal
page/search engine company made to Larry Page when Larry and
Sergey showed off their page rank algorithm.It was basically
something like the following: "This is no good - if the search
results are too good then people won't stay on our page long
enough to see the ads"This is basically what triggered them to
start their own company instead of licensing the tech (I'm
remembering most of this from In The Plex which I read a while
back).Basically it's stupid not to make the core thing better -
especially in the case where Walmart's real competition is
Amazon.
ask_hn_54321 - 31 minutes ago
From iOS and Android apps you can search a for products in a
specific store. It displays Aisle number and some broad stock
information. Maps have been trialed as well. There are
challenges with data quality to get maps to work well. Poor
data quality is due to managers being able to move shelves
around without updating central systems and stock living in
multiple places within a store (same SKU). Locating consumers
on a map has also been trialed with LED based indoor
positioning. Walmart do try lots of stuff and work with lots of
vendors. Rolling out to 4000+ stores is a multi-year challenge.
See eReceipts, Savings Catcher, Scan'n'Go, Walmart Pay et al.
Usually 3 years from pilot to chain.
Bromskloss - 34 minutes ago
> http://www.bossanova.com/Oh no, it's _ugly_!
Animats - 1 hours ago
I went to a presentation in SF about three years ago where someone
was demoing an inventory robot like that. Same company?