advertisement
advertisement

Scanning Fruit At Checkout Looks Clever, But Will It Actually Save Anything?

Written by Frank Hayes
April 4th, 2012

When Toshiba demonstrated its new grocery checkout scanner concept in early March at the RetailTech Japan tradeshow in Tokyo, the idea had a kind of geeky irresistibility: Instead of fumbling to find and type in product numbers for fruits and vegetables, checkers could simply hold each item up to an optical recognition system that would identify the item and ring up the correct price. Very clever—but not very practical for U.S. grocers.

Holding up each vegetable or piece of fruit in front of the scanner for one second? That’s not a recipe for efficiency, even once the system actually works.

This video press release does a good job of capturing the tradeshow pitch: a camera inside the scanner that’s specifically designed to isolate the item visually, plus logic to identify the item against a database. The demo sounds good. But like any good demo, it’s tailored to a tradeshow booth.

What happens in a real store? Getting rid of individual stickers and abandoning RFID tags for produce sounds appealing. But will stores also get rid of plastic bags? If so, customers may have large quantities of loose produce rolling around in their baskets. If not, the checker will have to take out a piece of fruit out of the bag, scan it, put it back in the bag, weigh the whole bag and then send the bag on its way. Or can the scanner identify fruit inside a bag? (If it can do that reliably, wouldn’t it have been part of the dog-and-pony show?)

Then there are more subtle issues. “In this demo, there are three kinds of apples: Fuji, Jonagold and Mutsu,” Toshiba spokeman Keiichi Hasegawa says in the video. “The Fuji and Jonagold originally come from the same stock, so if you’re not really familiar with apples, they might look the same. But this scanner can distinguish them, by recognizing subtle differences in pattern and coloration.”

But that’s not enough for a grocery chain’s produce department. Can this scanner tell the difference between regular and organic tomatoes by visual inspection? (Can anyone?) Can it tell the difference between a small Large navel orange and a large Regular navel orange? Will it differentiate a Chiquita banana from a marked-down no-name version or locally grown produce from the same varieties that are shipped in? These are all essentially marketing issues, and they’re not easy for machine logic to handle.

And in practice, any new checkout technology that fills this tiny a niche has to be really good at what it does. Hasegawa says the scanner “can recognize objects very fast, even if they’re moving,” thanks to technology that eliminates surroundings and other visually noisy images.

It’s still not as fast as barcodes for packaged goods, though. That one-second hold in front of the camera means any packaged item with a printed barcode will go through more quickly using existing scanners.

Toshiba is busy building a produce database, so this is clearly aimed at that section of the store. But for a typical U.S. grocery chain, it’s hard to see how this pays for itself. (Cutting out the human checker, as with Kroger’s prototype scanning tunnel, seems like a better cost-saving approach for a new technology.)

Still, it’s nice to see Toshiba coming up with this type of concept checkout. Like a concept car at an auto show, it can have some great ideas—or great technology—built into it. But it still doesn’t have to be something you’d want to take for a spin, much less actually use every day.

And who knows? Cameras are getting cheaper. If Toshiba unties its product-recognition software from a fixed checkout system, and then rebuilds it as part of a smartphone-based self-checkout system, it might turn out to be a lot more useful—and cost effective—after all.


advertisement

One Comment | Read Scanning Fruit At Checkout Looks Clever, But Will It Actually Save Anything?

  1. Aaron Says:

    I saw similar technology demonstrated at a “store of the future” display at NRF – in 2004.

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.