Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 397 posts

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#41

Post by tootie »

foxfired wrote: post #26

I do not blame cooler screen for selling this technology to anyone. But I want everyone to consider how much it takes to bring about a technology like this to a grocery store. If this is any of the big chain groceries, the manager doesn't even have the authority to put a sticker on the glass door. This was vetted by hundreds of people and none of them thought... glass? Business class tickets were purchased, hotels we…

It's not a crazy idea and this likely a prototype and prone to bugs. Transparent displays have been a hot item for a while. The tech has been around for years but it's expensive and has had issues with brightness. They also need to tune the UX to be valuable and not too distracting. I think these will become ubiquitous in 10 years.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#43

Post by rdiddly »

foxfired wrote: post #26

I do not blame cooler screen for selling this technology to anyone. But I want everyone to consider how much it takes to bring about a technology like this to a grocery store. If this is any of the big chain groceries, the manager doesn't even have the authority to put a sticker on the glass door. This was vetted by hundreds of people and none of them thought... glass? Business class tickets were purchased, hotels we…

It's an ad platform plain and simple; that's the whole value proposition. So I imagine every pitch, every meeting was about that. And every store that uses it will be doing it to get a cut of the ad revenue. It's true that it's lousy at being glass, but that's like saying smallpox blankets were a lousy way to make friends with Native Americans. The shittiness of it, in other words, was the goal all along, and any resemblance to glass or to helping you in any way was just a concession made to conceal its true nature and hopefully get you to accept it.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#44

Post by tootie »

the-pigeon wrote: post #40
wyldfire wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Still no one thought... glass? I'm sure it came up. Customer experience vs revenue for in-store billboards. Ad revenue won.

Yes. People see something dumb and decide the designers and business people involved are idiots. But often the business people and designers have very different goals and know that it's dumb. But they don't think it being dumb conflicts with their goals.

This is how the entire advertising industry works. Including digital and experiential marketing. I have personally set millions of customers' dollars on fire building doodads like these.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#45

Post by lupire »

tantalor wrote: post #39
foxfired wrote: post #26

I do not blame cooler screen for selling this technology to anyone. But I want everyone to consider how much it takes to bring about a technology like this to a grocery store. If this is any of the big chain groceries, the manager doesn't even have the authority to put a sticker on the glass door. This was vetted by hundreds of people and none of them thought... glass? Business class tickets were purchased, hotels we…

> will be replaced with an ad I'm not sure what that means. These already are ads. They are directly advertising the products literally inside the case.

More they are advertising items no longer available in the case.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#46

Post by lupire »

LeftHandPath wrote: post #29
yumraj wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some bean counter came up with the idea that they have a captive audience which they can force to watch ads. I think this is one of the stupidest things I’ve seen. But to be honest, I won’t be surprised if this actually increases revenue since people are going to buy what they buy and it’s not like they will go to another store due to this.

I think I would go to another store due to this. I think that non-HN type people like my dad or my mom would probably go to another store due to this. Not being able to see what's behind the glass makes it take longer to shop. People abandon webpages that don't load quickly enough - why wouldn't they abandon stores where you have to open each door on an aisle of refrigerators just to see what's available?

The door clearly shows what's on offer.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#47

Post by abakker »

nneonneo wrote: post #21
abakker wrote: post #15

I thought the idea was that these would allow more insulation in the doors than glass, and that the energy use from the screen was less than the energy saved from cooling losses (but what is the payback from the manufacturing, shipping, install, recycling, repair etc?). I'm skeptical, but it is conceivably possible that it works out if the screens are very efficient, using off the shelf parts. Maybe.

Large panels like this emit heat. Any wins from better insulation are going to be offset by needing to keep the panel’s heat well away from the refrigerated contents. Triple-paned glass insulates pretty well and for a fraction of the cost…

Triple pane glass with an e of .24 is still worse than 1.5" of polyiso foam. Glass is just not very good, even energy efficient glass is quite a bit worse than even basic insulation.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#48

Post by scraptor »

abakker wrote: post #15

I thought the idea was that these would allow more insulation in the doors than glass, and that the energy use from the screen was less than the energy saved from cooling losses (but what is the payback from the manufacturing, shipping, install, recycling, repair etc?). I'm skeptical, but it is conceivably possible that it works out if the screens are very efficient, using off the shelf parts. Maybe.

What about the thermal losses from customers opening the door to see the product while the giant whole-aisle ad is playing?

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#49

Post by Nasrudith »

ergot_vacation wrote: post #31
nkrisc wrote: post #13

Everyone here who’s worked for some moderately large corporation knows exactly why this was done: it’s a flashy pet project for some “labs” team in an otherwise boring retailer and maybe they’ll recoup some of the cost in ads, minus whatever they lose for it being an awful idea. Some charismatic product manager sold it to execs as “being the future of connected retail” or some other BS. In a few months they’ll be rem…

As a rough estimate, what percent of US economic activity is large piles of money being tossed into a flaming dumpster for the sake of someone's ego? Because every year it seems higher.

Well you can take the entire cosmetics and fashion industry for the total for one. Serving human agency includes shallow and bad ones too.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#50

Post by mypalmike »

tootie wrote: post #41
foxfired wrote: post #26

I do not blame cooler screen for selling this technology to anyone. But I want everyone to consider how much it takes to bring about a technology like this to a grocery store. If this is any of the big chain groceries, the manager doesn't even have the authority to put a sticker on the glass door. This was vetted by hundreds of people and none of them thought... glass? Business class tickets were purchased, hotels we…

It's not a crazy idea and this likely a prototype and prone to bugs. Transparent displays have been a hot item for a while. The tech has been around for years but it's expensive and has had issues with brightness. They also need to tune the UX to be valuable and not too distracting. I think these will become ubiquitous in 10 years.

This is not a transparent display as far as I can tell. It just renders images of what the inventory system thinks is behind it.
Post reply on HN