Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology IT

Amazon Wants To Kill the Barcode (cnet.com) 84

Robots may be the future, but robotic arms are apparently no good at using an old and steadfast form of technology: the barcode. Barcodes can be hard to find and might be affixed to oddly shaped products, Amazon said in a press release Friday, something robots can't troubleshoot very well. As a result, the company says it has a plan to kill the barcode. From a report: Using pictures of items in Amazon warehouses and training a computer model, the e-commerce giant has developed a camera system that can monitor items flowing one-by-one down conveyor belts to make sure they match their images. Eventually, Amazon's AI experts and roboticists want to combine the technology with robots that identify items while picking them up and turning them around.

"Solving this problem, so robots can pick up items and process them without needing to find and scan a barcode, is fundamental," said Nontas Antonakos, an applied science manager in Amazon's computer vision group in Berlin. "It will help us get packages to customers more quickly and accurately." The system, called multi-modal identification, isn't going to fully replace barcodes soon. It's currently in use in facilities in Barcelona, Spain, and Hamburg, Germany, according to Amazon. Still, the company says it's already speeding up the time it takes to process packages there. The technology will be shared across Amazon's businesses, so it's possible you could one day see a version of it at a Whole Foods or another Amazon-owned chain with in-person stores.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Wants To Kill the Barcode

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09, 2022 @02:48PM (#63117286)

    Amazon has a specific type of problem that it currently uses barcodes for, and there are enough problems with that application that they're trying to do better, this way or that way.

    That doesn't mean all barcodes are on the way of the dodo. But journalism apparently is, right on the heels of slashdot editorship.

    • Indeed. For their warehouses, Amazon is looking at image/AI recognition software to help in their robot picking process as barcodes on oddly shaped products might be hard to read.
      • Your summary is way too good, you stand no chance of becoming a ./ editor ;-)
      • Barcode on cardboard. On a string. On a thing.

        That'll be 1 million dollars, Jeff.

      • Yeah, I can see Amazon using this vision system to tell the difference between a string trimmer and a fishing pole, but what about items that differ only in subtle options? Can it tell the difference between a 4GB Pi and a 8GB Pi package just by the shape?

        The article already mentioned problems in selecting similar products that differ only in color so they seem to have recognized some of the problems moving forward.

    • by lsllll ( 830002 )
      Well, you've got a whole bunch of college grads with no use for their degree because they can't find jobs, but they did the liberal arts curriculum and can write essays and papers. In today's world of "bloggers" and "influencers", they'll try any shenanigan they can to get people to generate income from ads for them.
    • by Pimpy ( 143938 )

      The logical approach would be to have a barcode detection model that can help locate the barcode on a product with relation to a positional frame of reference, then feed this in as input features to the barcode scanning robot. In parallel, Amazon is big enough that it can lobby for normalization of labelling regulations + barcode placement for the few products that cause it trouble.

      Using AI to guess every object in their inventory sounds almost as dumb as killing barcodes.

      • "The robot has trouble finding the barcode. So we'll take pictures from various angles as it moves down the line..."

        "Yeah, that'll make sure the barcode is seen."

        "No... we're going to give the pictures to an AI to figure out what the product is."

  • Barcodes are still very useful for humans. They correspond to a SKU which is very often not marked anywhere on the package, and we've gotten very good at spinning a box around and scanning it.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Apparently you didn't get the memo... there goal is to get rid of all the humans.
  • by El_Muerte_TDS ( 592157 ) on Friday December 09, 2022 @02:53PM (#63117314) Homepage

    If you make robots to turn objects around to recognize them, you can also program them to find the barcode to scan it.

    • by Anonymouse Cowtard ( 6211666 ) on Friday December 09, 2022 @03:00PM (#63117360) Homepage

      Exactly. And 99% of the time the barcode is in the same location on each item. Find it once and remember forever.

      Anyway, weren't RFIDs going to kill the barcode?

      In 1996, the first patent for a batteryless RFID passive tag with limited interference was granted -- WP

      • Anyway, weren't RFIDs going to kill the barcode?

        Walmart is big into using RFID for store inventory -- Walmart RFID [google.com]

        • by taustin ( 171655 )

          Walmart also uses bar codes at their cash registers. Last I heard, they wouldn't carry merchandise without bar codes, period.

          • Walmart also uses bar codes at their cash registers. Last I heard, they wouldn't carry merchandise without bar codes, period.

            I think the RFID tags are for detailed inventory tracking, so they don't have to physically scan everything, but simply walk by... Noting that not everything they carry has a chip yet. Barcodes still make sense for checkout scanning at this time.

          • For Walmart and really any other retailer, barcodes are the lowest common denominator. If 100% of products had an RFID they could theoretically change their barcode policy. But RFID on low margin items or food is likely not a solved problem in the industry.

            • by taustin ( 171655 )

              RFID tags serve a different purpose for a retailer than UPC codes do, and will continue to do so. It's hard to image them ever replacing bar codes at checkout.

              • perhaps I have an overactive imagination.

                • The dream was to replace barcodes, but it will not happen. I've done several projects involving RFID and passive tags are hard to get 100% reads on. What I've seen companies do in the warehouse is use them on pallets, then you can use a forklift to move the pallet through a gate to read it (also usually have a scanner on the forklift). This way you can put the tag in the best place to ensure readability. Products that are liquids or metals can make RFID placement a really hassle

                  I've consulted on several
      • by EvilSS ( 557649 )

        Anyway, weren't RFIDs going to kill the barcode?

        Look Satan, we don't want your mark of the beast in our bologna packages.

        • Look Satan, we don't want your mark of the beast in our bologna packages.

          It's the UPC that contains the MotB. The first two thin bars, the middle two thin bars and the last two thin bars each represent a '6'.

          • by EvilSS ( 557649 )
            Nope, ISO updated the MotB specification to move away from barcodes and move to RFID back in 2014.
      • Exactly, RFID is the alternative to barcode that is already invented, hell I've seen gateways you can build in loading docks that will automatically inventory every RFID forklifted through them. Won't quite kill barcodes, though, easy enough to use both to get to be agnostic about what sort of reader is being used.
      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        How about this for a wild idea? Have someone listing the item on Amazon tell Amazon where the barcode is.

        Items don't magically appear in Amazon's database - someone had to enter that information into a database somewhere that Amazon synchronizes with to obtain their product information.

        It's very easy for Amazon to demand that if you want Amazon to carry your product you tell Amazon where the barcode is. You can take photos of the item on various sides, then highlight the barcode. (Software can take a best g

    • But this tech could be a good step towards a robot that can sort, wash, dry and fold laundry.

      • I like the sci fi film where people pull on a new paper jumpsuit and put their old clothes in an incinerator. Saves from having to buy detergent and keeps microplastics out of the environment.

      • by gtall ( 79522 )

        A further step is for the robot to wear the laundry for you so you can go off and do other things (Thanx Douglas Adams).

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      No no, this is better. The robot actually recognizes the *item*. Now, just to make it extra reliable, they should get everybody together and agree on some kind of standardized fiducial with encoded information to put on all packages that would provide detailed information, including for less capable systems.

      • I thought QR codes were supposed to be the next barcode.

        Smart phones recognize them, even if they're oriented wrong.

        • Only if the orientation is close to a 90 degs multiple of the correct orientation otherwise forget it. Ditto if the lighting is to dark or bright or a shadow falls across the square.

          • Only if the orientation is close to a 90 degs multiple of the correct orientation otherwise forget it. Ditto if the lighting is to dark or bright or a shadow falls across the square.

            Well, if they're using a robotic hand, they can "hand-wave" that problem away.

            • by narcc ( 412956 )

              You're adding a ton of needless complexity to what could be a very simple system. QR codes just aren't a good fit.

              • You're adding a ton of needless complexity to what could be a very simple system. QR codes just aren't a good fit.

                I'm not the one adding the "needless complexity." Amazon is - FTFA:

                Eventually, Amazon's AI experts and roboticists want to combine the technology with robots that identify items while picking them up and turning them around.

                Much easier to stick a QR code on opposite faces of the object, and a bunch of $30 FHD cameras feeding into a central image recognizer/QR code interpreter. No need for a robotic hand even.

        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Decent barcode scanners recognize barcodes in any orientation too. The difference is, you don't need a camera for a barcode.

          QR codes were (and are) an alternative to barcodes where you need to encode more information. Since they do encode more information, they need more hardware and are potentially less reliable, so they didn't (and shouldn't have been expected to) replace barcodes. They get used for new things.

          • You can, as you pointed out, include a lot more information. The barcode recognition doesn't have to be done where the camera is - which means that a central server can do the barcode recognition for 10, 100, 1000 cameras. And cameras are dirt cheap. Full HD security cams (1920x1080) for $30. Webcams - same deal. If they're good enough for real-time facial recognition software, they're good enough for QR codes.
            • by narcc ( 412956 )

              That "advantage" doesn't outweigh the many enormous drawbacks. Why are you so hot to defend QR codes anyway?

              • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                I suspect the answer is in the username.

                • I'm not "defending" QR codes. I'm saying that they have their uses - no need for a robotic hand to pick up and turn things around when a bunch of $30 cameras and a server with QR code software can do the job.

                  Same as RFID tags have their advantages and disadvantages.

                  • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                    And the GP and I both pointed out that a barcode does it even better. You don't need cameras or a server, and it works much more reliably.

                    • A barcode has a limited amount of info. With a QR code, my motherboard's box even contains the part number, revision, even the individual serial number. Can't fit all that into a bar code.
            • "You can... include a lot more information"
              Which is irrelevant when you're in an environment with controlled connectivity. You only need a unique identifier.

              • "You can... include a lot more information" Which is irrelevant when you're in an environment with controlled connectivity. You only need a unique identifier.

                Obviously you've never dealt with inventory control. It's VERY relevant when the same basic stock number can include multiple revisions (such as motherboards, or video cards - which bios version, for example). Same with cars, food, etc. "Yes, it's romaine lettuce from supplier x - but from which field (or have you forgotten the salmonella outbreaks where the individual field, and even the shift, turned out to be relevant)?

                If you can item it down to the individual pallet, which product bar codes can't, yo

          • " you don't need a camera for a barcode"

            A barcode reader is a camera, these days.

        • by narcc ( 412956 )

          That was all in your imagination. There are many different kinds of 1d and 2d barcodes. One size does not fit all.

  • by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Friday December 09, 2022 @02:53PM (#63117318)

    Using pictures of items in Amazon warehouses and training a computer model, ...

    This "camera system" as an alternative is not good, Unless it's to Scan written standardized codes on the product's shell or packaging, because similar items can have the same picture. Example: A 16 Inch Macbook with 32 Gigabytes of RAM and another laptop in the exact same series, but the model configured with 64 Gigabytes of RAM soldered to the board instead of 32... the two products look exactly the same, but the SKUs are different; They would be impossible to reliably distinguish in a warehouse without being able to reliably read the codes on the box. Having a Unique Code that identifies the indistinguishable in outside appearance but very different products is the most reliable way to identify the two accurately.

    • I ordered a 2TB SATA SSD drive, I got a 1TB NVMe drive instead. The barcode sticker matched the product that I ordered; it was on the wrong box. So barcodes aren't perfect, but when two boxes are very close, that doesn't help either.

      • I had the opposite happen me once too. Bought a nice Sony 720p flat panel LCD during a Boxing Day sale back in the days when those things were still pretty pricy, got it home and while the box had 720p all over the outside of it inside was the much more expensive 1080p panel that wasn't on sale and cost nearly twice as much at 720p at regular price.

        I was tempted to return it because of the extended warranty I'd bought, high priced item back then, but in the end I decided to risk it and saved about half the

  • by larryjoe ( 135075 ) on Friday December 09, 2022 @02:57PM (#63117346)

    Barcodes are used for many purposes, so manufacturers will still use barcodes regardless of what Amazon is doing. What "killing the barcode" means is that Amazon wants to use an alternate solution to the barcode for item recognition as part of its packing process. So, the only thing being killed is Amazon's use of the barcode for packing item. The barcode will still continue to exist in the future.

    Amazon was using the barcode to double check that an item being packed was the right item. Their new solution is based on visual identification. Obviously, having either a robot or a human visually inspect an item is only possible if two potentially similar items are visually distinct. That's a problem since many items are either very similar (e.g., a 2x4 versus a 1x4) or the difference is entirely hidden inside the exterior (e.g., the iPhone with 128GB or 256GB).

    Also, Amazon is claiming 99% recognition accuracy, which implies a 1% error rate. If an error requires a human to process the error, then that's a huge number of items that requires a human instead of a robot. I imagine that a practical error rate has to be quite a bit less than 1%.

    • by taustin ( 171655 )

      I imagine that a practical error rate has to be quite a bit less than 1%.

      To be useful, it only has to be less than the human error rate. Which they say it is.

    • by Nahor ( 41537 )

      Also, Amazon is claiming 99% recognition accuracy, which implies a 1% error rate. If an error requires a human to process the error, then that's a huge number of items that requires a human instead of a robot. I imagine that a practical error rate has to be quite a bit less than 1%.

      It depends on how many human interventions are required with barcodes. If the robot can't find or read the barcode on 10% of the items, then a 1% error is still a big win.

    • > visually inspect an item is only possible if two potentially similar items are visually distinct. That's a problem since [...] the difference is entirely hidden inside the exterior (e.g., the iPhone with 128GB or 256GB).

      Not to mention that there's always the danger of the robot holding it wrong.

  • They make them bigger, and put them on multiple faces of the package.
    The issues I see are checking out packages with upward of 3 or 4 different bar codes where the clerk has to physically mask the serial number or other unhelpful barcodes from being scanned when they want the UPC one..
  • This isn't the real reason they want to get rid of barcodes.

    It's because they want to wrest any remaining control over their operations from a non-Amazon entity. In this case GS-1, the body that sets standards for barcodes internationally.

  • You mean your camera systems can't figure out how to identify a barcode, and do any necessary 3d transformations to make it straight?

    • by Arethan ( 223197 ) on Friday December 09, 2022 @03:13PM (#63117416) Journal

      Yes, what you describe can easily be done, and many places already do this without issue. The summary mentioned conveyor belts, and barcodes are typically only printed on one side of the box, so the camera cannot see it when the barcode is on the downside.

      Someone at Amazon is bucking for VP, and this is their thesis project. It sounds like an over complicated solution to a very minor problem. I think they will likely learn this is too costly to maintain, as the model will need constant retraining as warehouse inventories keep changing and box-art is not always permanent for a product -- ever seen "New look, Same great product!" printed anywhere? I also think error rates will be too high to be independently useful, many items come in very generic outer packaging, and many items that share a common use also share a common look.

      So, yeah, this looks like a waste of money.

      • by tgeek ( 941867 )

        Yes, what you describe can easily be done, and many places already do this without issue. The summary mentioned conveyor belts, and barcodes are typically only printed on one side of the box, so the camera cannot see it when the barcode is on the downside.

        So, make a transparent conveyor belt and call it a day

        • by Arethan ( 223197 )

          So, make a transparent conveyor belt and call it a day

          Not exactly, but yes this is the sort of solution that would actually work.

          One way is a section of rollers, rather than belt, so that the rollers may have small gaps between them, and a high-ish speed camera (120fps sounds plenty fast) with sufficient light to capture continuous imagery of the bottom side. Then it's just a software problem to stitch the images together into a continuous stream and look for barcodes. Problems solved, no machine learning necessary, and they can use continue using the existing

  • Many revisions of products look identical from the outside. You need a mechanism which can differentiate these items. Having a look at them won’t do it. For the right price you can hire me Amazon, to save you from doing stupid things in the wrong way.
    • Or you can just use your own QR codes. Easy to generate, can contain as little or as much info as you need, and smartphones already handle them. Maybe they can use the robotic arm to hold a smartphone? Stick the same QR code on opposite sides of the object and it will always be visible.

      Sort of how we have printed labels on more than one side of packaging so it doesn't matter which side is facing the purchaser?

  • by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Friday December 09, 2022 @03:13PM (#63117414)

    The problem is that Amazon accepts packages in loose retail packaging from suppliers. Packaging made for retail shelves require human handling to pick and place. Amazon needs to tell their suppliers to package items in standardized form factors that a robot can handle.

  • just consider the barcode as part of the item's image

    • Amazon: "Our robotic systems are having a hard time identifying barcodes on some items. What should we do?"

      1. Innovate and build better robots and barcode recognition systems.
      2. Hire humans and use them instead of robots.
      3. Try to convince the rest of the world that barcodes are a bad idea just because they don't work for us.

      Somebody's priorities are out of whack here.
  • Oh look, there's the barcode...
  • Bar codes were invented when computer processing power was much more expensive and computer image recognition was much more primitive. When I looked at the list of benefits of bar code in the Wikipedia article, they're all benefits of getting information into a computer. Now, a computer can read the same numbers I read, particularly if it has the font specification in advance. The primary benefit I find to bar code is that it makes it easy to know what part of my grocery items to pass over the scanner, beca
    • Computers are still far better at reading bar codes, than they are at OCR. When I, as a human, try to read the numbers on some receipts, it's difficult to tell the difference between an 8 and a 0, when they do dumb stuff like putting a dot in the middle of the 0. OCR still isn't as accurate as human reading, so what we'd have is a larger number of scanning errors, if we were to switch from bar codes to OCR, for purposes such as store checkouts.

    • by cb88 ( 1410145 )
      I work in the industry... in the past laser line scanners were the ticket. Now we have cameras also that read barcodes.

      The gottcha with all of these is reliablity and speed... OCR pretty much requires the object to be still, when in reality barcode scanning is done when packages are moving at up to hundreds of feet per minute.
    • by jsonn ( 792303 )
      1D Barcodes are still preferred over 2D barcodes for the same reason that 2D barcodes are preferred over OCR: the computational complexity still matters, especially when looking at throughput oriented applications. The robustness of well-defined patterns is just as relevant. As a result, the scanning resolution can be either significant lower (which helps performance again) or the space on the product can be that much smaller.
  • Instead of reading a plain barcode 100% perfect at all times and that can run in a meek Arduino, now they improve the method by introducing color images that need a programmed IA to associate them to the database of barcodes the rest of the world uses using a extremely powerful computer!

    So simple and clever!

  • One somewhat overlooked aspect of the bar code is that it is legible to human beings. Not only are the codes themselves completely standardized and not that difficult to memorize, but products almost invariably have the numerals written below the bars that can be used as a backup for the average individual.

    I can see other techniques supplementing bar codes on products, but not replacing them entirely.

  • I am sure that Amazon wants to get rid of brick and mortar stores, all together.
  • Using image recognition to double-check that the barcode does indeed belong to a bannana and not a steak seems like a pretty good use of this technology, but I struggle to understand how it could be faster, more accurate, or cheaper than using an existing near-universal retail standard.

  • Why not take pictures of where the barcodes are if youâ(TM)re already training on this, then the robots can find it?

    Side note, when weâ(TM)d use barcoding/ocr frameworks we never had issues with finding a barcode, it was a problem finding the right barcode.

  • The brand Aldi has solved the problem. Make the barcodes BIG, really big. And a product number just in case. That way the operator can sit down and scan fast. I think Costco also has suppliers with really big barcodes. Even Airline baggage tags are long fat and wide.
  • Mail sorters not only can read bar codes off oddly shaped and oriented objects, they can read printed or even hand-written addresses off oddly-shaped objects and print barcodes back on those oddly shaped objects.

    They're basically admitting that they're technologically inferior to the Post Office.

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...