Survey: Linux Has Long Way to Go in Retail

Written by Evan Schuman
August 27th, 2004

Linux penetration into retail isn’t nearly as significant as commonly believed, according to a new study from industry analyst firm Venture Development Corp. (VDC).

“There’s a lot of talk, a lot of news around Linux and a lot of hype,” said Mike Liard, senior analyst at VDC and a co-author of the report. But its survey of retail IT execs found Linux in barely 2 percent of the POS (point of sale) systems, compared with 43 percent for Windows, 19 percent for various proprietary/in-house customized operating systems, 17 percent for IBM (primarily AS/400), 9 percent for various Unix flavors and 10 percent that didn’t answer.

“I had expected to find that Linux had about five percent of the market, but this is on par with what’s really out there,” Liard said. “Linux is struggling in this space.”

VDC analyst Taylor Smith, another report co-author, said he was also taken aback by Linux’s weak showing. “I was a little surprised; I was expecting Linux to have gotten a little more traction than it got,” he said. “You will hear a lot of talk about Linux, but it still appears that Windows will remain the big man in charge for the next five years.”

Linux does still have a shot to ultimately generate a more substantial installed based within retail, Smith said. There are several reasons why a lot of retail POS systems are going to be upgraded in the next year or two?including compliance labeling and a move to have U.S. retailers move from the current 12-digit UPC to 13-digits?and those upgrades make it easier for a retailer to evaluate new operating systems.

In other conclusions about retail technology in the report, VDC found that bar-code label generation software sales hit $76 million last year, with an 11 percent annual growth rate projected through 2007. It also found that the breakdown between off-the-shelf bar-code software and customized in-house versions remains fairly evenly split (53 percent were off-the-shelf and 47 percent custom).

The biggest bar-code issue will likely be data synchronization, Smith said. In testing, retailers still find that much of their data synchronization efforts?some say as high as 60 percent?generate some sort of error. This is only going to be a bigger issue as retailers increasingly move to self-checkout systems, which add one more database for data to be synchronized from.

Another point of data-synchronization difficulty will be with RFID. Although widespread product-level RFID identification is still several years away, RFID is still going to be prevalent at the pallet and crate level as well as isolated tests of RFID at the item level. Liard said that means that the challenge of data synchronization will not be how to transition from bar code to RFID, but how to increasingly co-exist with the two for many years.

Despite industry events such as Wal-Mart’s 2005 deadline for its top suppliers to move to RFID, Liard said he doesn’t to see any full-scale RFID rollouts next year.

Despite the age of bar-code technology, it’s neither as saturated nor as advanced as it’s going to get. A major North American UPC code effort called 2005 Sunrise is an attempt to move bar-code systems from 12 digits to 13 digits. European retailers, for example, are often at 14 digits because they’re so frequently used in other countries, particularly within Europe.

“With the amount of hype and market information out there, end-users were mislead early on about RFID,” Liard said, adding that RFID was always intended to complement?not replace?the bar code. “We’re not close to the highest point of bar-code implementation yet,” he said.

One of the other problems that cropped up in the VDC research was the fickle nature of RFID installations. “RFID still has some physical limitations. Each install is inherently unique because no two warehouses are exactly alike,” he said. Read accuracy is an issue, along with adjusting antenna arrays and tweaking tag configurations, he said.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

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...

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.