VDC Research: RFID, Barcode, Retail Automation & Self-Service Market Blog

Epson Mobilizes to Address Rapidly Growing mPOS Opportunity

Still questioning whether consumer-grade mobile POS (mPOS) devices are a short-lived trend or a here-to-stay expansion of the broader front-end technology solutions at many leading mainstream merchants? Here is another strong point in favor of the latter: Epson, the global market leader in POS receipt printers, recently announced its Mobilink P60 mobile receipt and label printer supports Bluetooth connectivity to facilitate wireless pairing with all Apple i-devices and a diversity of other Bluetooth-equipped consumer-grade devices. The Company simultaneously introduced a new software development kit (SDK) for iOS, Android and Windows operating systems that is intended to expedite the development of mPOS and label printing applications that leverage the Bluetooth-enabled Mobilink printer.

As mPOS solutions gain stronger adoption among retailers and hospitality operators—sometimes as an enterprise’s exclusive POS system—the demand for reliable, easy-to-use printing solutions that complement the mobility and empowerment mPOS provides workers is growing increasingly strong. In response, a number of POS receipt printer vendors—including Epson—have been swift to launch portable versions of their standard, stationary POS printers. These portable printers are certainly smaller than their stationary counterparts and are “mobile” in the sense that they can be easily transported. However, while smaller in relative terms, they are not ideally sized to be wearable for the average worker.

For this reason, we believe a Bluetooth-enabled printer such as Epson’s offering will­­­­ be well-received by many mPOS deploying merchants, especially those using mPOS “within the four walls,” as opposed to in field-sales or other remote applications. The deployment of Bluetooth-enabled stationary and portable printers enables mPOS-equipped associates to fulfill any printing requirements encountered during their shift while freeing them from the burden of carrying another device on their person. Furthermore, enabling on-the-go, mobile printing via shared Bluetooth-enabled (or other wirelessly accessible) devices allows enterprises to reduce printing hardware investment by eliminating the need to equip every associate with their own mobile printer. Accordingly, in the case of many mPOS deployments, we expect this approach to mobile printing will be favored both for its lower investment costs and freeing employees from carrying additional equipment.

Gemalto, G&D and ARM Launch Trustonic JV to Ease NFC SE Pains, but Will it Really Help?

If you frequent this blog, you already know we are generally bearish on the NFC’s near-term prospects as a m.payment and m.commerce enabler. While the technology certainly has some great features and benefits, NFC faces too many challenges—several of which are highly complex and/or expensive to address—for it to reach mass adoption at a global level for the headline applications with which it is associated, at least for the next several years. Among the thorniest issues associated with NFC-enabled secure applications (i.e., use-cases that require transmission of sensitive and/or personal information, including payment, ticketing, loyalty, etc.) are those related to the secure element (SE), the part of a smartphone where this information is kept:

• Where does the SE reside on a smartphone? (SIM, MicroSD, embedded, elsewhere?)
• What entity owns/controls the SE? (MNO, device manufacturer, card issuer, multiple entities?)

These questions are of material importance to the above-mentioned stakeholders (and others), especially in the context of m.payment, ticketing and other contactless applications where funds are transferred between parties (e.g., customer-to-merchant, person-to-person). Just as credit/debit card companies generate billions in fees annually from processing “plastic” payments, so too could NFC SE owners generate handsome interchange revenues (as well as “rental” fees if a third party entity requires use of a SE for its own app) for NFC-enabled contactless payment. As a result of the high stakes and multiple, self-interested entities jockeying for position, no clear, broadly-accepted determination has been reached on either of these SE-related issues—nor do we expect one to emerge anytime soon.

In the meantime, NFC market players ARM (a smartphone chip vendor), Gemalto (a TSM provider) and Giesecke & Devrient (a payment security solution provider) have launched a joint venture called Trustonic to create a semi-secure alternative to NFC SEs called Trusted Execution Environments (TEE). Essentially, the TEE resides in the main processor of a smartphone, which positions it to execute transactions and other processes more expediently relative to a standalone SE. However, since a TEE is not entirely isolated from the rest of the device, this increased speed comes at the expense of security—meaning that it is unlikely credit/debit card providers and other credential issuers with high security requirements are unlikely to grant approval to TEEs like Trustonic.

While it is promising to see the emergence of new and innovative solutions to address some of the challenges hindering NFC adoption, we do not expect the emergence of Trustonic or other SE alternatives to have a material near-term impact on the NFC ecosystem. VDC views NFC’s great potential as an enabler of B2C applications as being a “package deal,” where payment, loyalty, couponing and other functions are united by one contactless application. Unfortunately, in maneuvering around the sticky SE issues, Trustonic also has diminished the SE’s value as a vault-like safeguard for the most sensitive credential types, meaning the TEE only can support semi-secure NFC apps. In our opinion—one we suspect is shared by many B2C merchants—this approach limits NFC’s value proposition and Trustonic’s potential to drive broader adoption of the technology.

France-based m.Wallet Consortium Leader Chooses Barcode, not NFC

Auchan, a leading French supermarket chain, announced plans to launch a cross-merchant m.wallet app called Flash ‘n’ Pay (FNP). The FNP app will be very similar to the one currently in development at the Merchant-Customer Exchange (MCX), which we discussed in a previous post. Like MCX, the FNP app can be used with all credit/debit card brands, supports loyalty cards and is MNO and issuing-bank agnostic. FNP also shares the same enabling technology as MCX—the app will be barcode-based, not NFC.

Whereas France is among the countries leading European NFC adoption, one might understandably assume that a retailer-led m.wallet app designed for that market would be NFC-based, not barcode. However, NFC faces many of the same fundamental challenges to mass adoption in France that it does in most other countries: 

• NFC-based apps cannot be used by many current smartphone users—barcode is accessible to virtually all
• NFC-based payment requires cooperation across multiple stakeholders—barcode does not
• Barcode-based apps are easier and less costly to support—and many B2C merchants already have the requisite 2D imagers installed at the POS

Certainly, NFC adoption in France is stronger relative to most other national markets, thanks in large part to the French government’s recent commitment to fund contactless transportation infrastructure in approximately 15 cities. However, NFC’s long-term potential as a B2C commerce enabler in France—and in most countries, save for a select few in Asia-Pacific—remains highly uncertain.

We view Auchan’s selection of barcode for its m.wallet as a particularly noteworthy development by virtue of its regional context. If an NFC m.wallet is not viable for a French retailer, in which countries is it?  From our perspective, the FNP announcement demonstrates how far NFC has yet to progress before it attains mainstream status, even in the countries/regions where adoption is relatively strong today.

Could RFID Lock Hack at US Hotel Chains Close the Door on NFC-enabled Security/Access Control Opportunity?

If you travel frequently, be warned: hackers have devised a way to bypass a particular type of electronic lock commonly found throughout leading hotel chains across the US (read original article here). With a little spare time and about $50 in common tools and materials, criminals across the US have been building these devices to break into hotel rooms (supposedly) secured with electronic keycard locks. The resulting e-lock pick is about the size of a marker and can be used to crack Onity HT and Advance locks found in an estimated 4 to 5 million hotel rooms nationwide, including those at certain Hyatt, Ramada, Doubletree Hilton and Country Inn & Suites locations. Obviously, this is terrible publicity for all the brands associated with this security failure—but we also see it as an unfortunate setback for RFID, NFC and other electronic security/access control solutions as well.

To be clear, the lock models targeted by this security hack are RFID-based. As far as we know, no other electronic security technologies (e.g., NFC, magnetic stripe, biometrics) have been compromised by this attack. Unfortunately for non-RFID electronic lock vendors, that fact might be of little consequence—especially in the context of end users’ perception.

The market for electronic hotel locks is somewhat unique in the sense that there are really two categories of end users: the hotels and their customers. Barring a PR disaster such as this, an e-lock vendor must only convince the former of the security and reliability of its locks to be successful—hotel guests will assume the lock on their door will do what it is supposed to—until a story like Onity’s goes viral.

Now, not only will hotel operators be avoiding Onity products due to this new security threat, so too will nervous hotel guests. While this presents an immense problem for Onity, we also see it as a challenge for all electronic security/access control vendors. While a hotel IT or security director may be savvy enough to distinguish between different lock vendors and enabling technologies—including RFID, NFC, magnetic stripe and biometrics—the average hotel guest most likely is not. Therein lays the problem for e-lock companies.

From a hotel operators’ perspective, guests’ perceptions carry significant weight—because if a guest is not confident in the hotel’s security, they are probably going to stay elsewhere. Thus, if the public becomes highly weary of electronic locks in general—to the point that their presence negatively impacts a hotel’s bookings—we bet operators would be swift to revert to old-fashioned lock-and-key or other more secure alternatives.

While fallout from this incident is not likely to be that severe, we expect it will cause many hotel operators to evaluate more carefully the reliability and security their future e-lock investments truly deliver. Moreover, this incident underscores the need for increased vigilance when it comes to securing electronically-enabled devices, particularly those that are customer-facing and likely to be targets of criminal attacks. Consumer trust is highly difficult to earn but can be lost instantly.

To NFC, or Not NFC? That Was My Personal Smartphone Question...

I admit it—I’m an Apple user. Call me whatever you want…fanboy, sheep, mindless minion worshipping at the altar of the Great Jobs. It doesn't bother me. In my experience, Apple stuff—while pricey—lasts longer, is generally easier to use for those of us who are not (and have aspirations of being) computer programmers and is usually (but not always) very well-designed and supported from UI, UX and aesthetic perspectives. Case in point: my recently deceased (cause of death: buggy “home” button) iPhone 3Gs provided nearly 4 years of trouble-free service despite the general abuse I heaped upon it.

Contrary to what one might assume, despite being a technology analyst, I do not eat, breathe and sleep tech. Certainly I appreciate technology for the conveniences and other benefits it provides me, but generally view any device as if it were an appliance. Sure, I get excited whenever it is time to look at a new laptop, smartphone or what have you—but after the initial novelty wears off, I just want the thing to function as intended—with minimal hassle and no headaches. I’m not the guy camping out in the mall for the latest i-device. I AM the guy who waited 7 years between getting a new laptop.

That being said, I have a soft spot in my heart reserved for NFC—both because I think it is a (potentially) useful technology and because I spend a significant amount of my work focuses on the market. With my iPhone having been on its last legs for the better part of this year, I (like many others) wanted a new iPhone with NFC. But, as we all know, the iPhone 5 is not NFC enabled. Thus, I had a decision to make with my new phone: stay loyal to Apple/iOS, or jump ship to Android or Windows and get a phone with NFC.

I thought long and hard about going the non-iOS/NFC route. I read many online reviews of leading Android and Windows smartphones. I tested the devices in-person at the store. I imagined what I might use NFC for in my day-to-day life—now, probably not much, but perhaps in the future, paying for lunch or a coffee with a tap of my phone. As someone who dislikes cash, contactless payment is an appealing concept.

Conversely, I envisioned the potential downsides of straying from iOS—mainly, hassles with syncing to my home computer (yes, it’s an Apple) and learning a new  mobile operating system. While both of these are relatively minor issues, I was left with wondering, why bother? What benefits does NFC offer that justify these (and other) compromises? I could not find a compelling answer to that question—and so I went with another iPhone.

Certainly, my personal technology usage, preferences and views may be unique. But, strictly in the context of NFC, I believe they are generally applicable to most consumers—and indicative of the NFC ecosystem’s shortcomings. Other than the increase in NFC smartphone availability seen in 2012, what material progress has the ecosystem made recently? Very little.

At present, in most regions, NFC cannot be used for the headline applications—payment and ticketing, for example—for which it is billed. Right now, most consumers using NFC are confined to simple, basic applications like P2P sharing and pairing.  For me—and I suspect many other consumers—these features are “nice-to-haves,” not “must-haves” when shopping for a new smartphone. Perhaps in the future, the NFC ecosystem will progress to the point where contactless payment and ticketing are broadly-accessible to the average consumer. But, until that time, it’s hard to envision NFC having a material impact on consumers’ device preferences—particularly those that are hooked on iOS.

Google Wallet to Go “Back to the Future” to Drive NFC Adoption?

It is no big secret that Google Wallet has been challenged to gain adoption since it officially launched in September 2011. While the app faced a number of headwinds in its very early days, the initial version of Google Wallet was especially hamstrung by the very limited number of payment card types and smartphones that supported the app. Since its introduction, these problems have generally been addressed, as the app is now available on a broader range of devices and has implemented a new hybrid architecture that leverages cloud-based technology to enable almost any common credit/debit card to be used with Google Wallet.

Still, despite these improvements to accessibility and usability, Google Wallet has yet to gain traction with consumers and has left its management looking for other strategies to drive adoption. If recent rumors prove true, Google plans to introduce a decidedly low-tech expansion—in the form of a traditional plastic payment card—to its solution sometime soon.

Essentially, the Google Wallet card—as it is rumored—will enable consumers to load all the cards in their wallet onto an online portal and link them to the Google Wallet card, thereby offering the potential to slim down the brick-like stacks of cards many of us carry in our pockets and purses. The Google Wallet app (in conjunction with the online portal) would provide consumers the ability to manage which credit/debit card they want to pay with when using the Google card and continue to offer contactless payment for devices and merchants that support it. Rumors indicate that the card will only be available to Android users if/when it launches. Perhaps it will eventually be offered to iOS users too, but given the state of affairs between Google and Apple, we are not betting on it.

From a strategic perspective, we think adding a card extension to Google Wallet is well-advised, as it opens the app to a broader audience of potential users—including the majority of the US population that does not own an NFC-enabled phone. Furthermore, a Google Wallet card is a palatable intermediary step that could allow Google to ease mobile-payment-weary consumers into migrating from traditional card-based payment to mobile contactless payment.

From a consumer’s standpoint, consolidating multiple credit/debit cards into a single one is certainly an agreeable concept to those of us—myself included—that carry overloaded wallets. However, it is difficult to envision many consumers taking the initiative to obtain, configure and use a Google Wallet card/app solution for this benefit alone. To justify consumers’ investment of time and effort, there needs to be some kind of compelling, undeniably attractive incentive to reward them—something along the lines of cash-back rewards, discounts or some other feature that will capture consumers’ attention and keep them coming back for more. Otherwise, we see this rumored Google Wallet addition being another payment innovation flop.

VDC Heads to the Big Apple for CET World 2012

The VDC AutoID team was in the Big Apple on Wednesday for the 2012 edition of Customer Engagement Technology World (CETW). Despite the recent hardships caused by Hurricane Sandy last week, this year’s show went on as scheduled and drew the usual, diverse crowd of vendors and end-users that attend CETW. Although the show floor was somewhat dominated by vendors of kiosk and digital signage hardware, software and solutions, other areas of the CET spectrum—including POS/mPOS terminals, consumer-facing mobile apps and customer analytics—were also well represented. Our observations at CETW 2012 left us with a several takeaways:

• Self-service solutions are alive and well. As we discussed in a recent post, during the past 12-18 months we have observed a certain level of anti-self-service sentiment among some end-user verticals, including restaurants/dining and retail. While there are definitely examples of enterprises that are moving away from self-service solutions, including self-checkout, kiosks and some forms of interactive displays, these particular instances are not indicative of any mass migration away from these technologies. In fact, these self-service solutions continue to evolve and progress in regards to their functionality and ease-of-deployment. Companies such as NCR are developing more capable and more easily-integrated self-service technologies, such as their NetKey offering.
• Merchant/retailer interest in mobility solutions continues to build. The concept of mobility—whether in the context of m.POS, m.payment or any other enterprise application—continues to build momentum. In regards to m.POS and m.payment especially, it seems these concepts have become so trendy as of late that some end-users are evaluating investment in them simply due to the buzz surrounding them. Several mobility vendors we spoke with at the event noted they are hearing from an increasing number of merchants who want to invest in m.POS/m.payment solutions—but have not defined the objectives for their deployment of the same. While these cases may be more of an indictment of the technology strategy—or lack thereof—at the merchants in question, we also see it as a strong indicator that retailers have generally acknowledged the value mobility provides in many applications.
• Personalized communications/offers that cater to individual preferences are a good start, but there is still a long way to go. For example, to engage a customer and maintain his/her loyalty it is equally important—if not more so—to avoid suggesting things that a customer may dislike or find offensive. Similarly, context and timeliness of communications are also important dimensions to consider—as events such as birthdays, anniversaries, or (to cite a timely example) storms and other natural events may have important implications for what a consumer wants—or does not want—to hear from a merchant. Clearly, tailoring communications to this level of precision is far more complex and challenging than simply making add-on sale suggestions or deal offers based on past purchase history—but with the increasingly advanced capabilities of analytics and other data-management tools, it is not an impossible task. 

For VDC, CETW 2012 was an informative, interesting and timely event, particularly as we prepare to launch its new MCET research program in the upcoming months. Contact us for more information about that research, in which we will discuss the above trends and many others impacting merchants and the technology providers that serve them.

Think Self-Checkout is Dead? Think Again.

During the past 18 months or so, we have observed a decidedly negative attitude towards the future viability of Self-Checkout (SCO) solutions in US retailers. Throughout 2011 and 2012, a number of large grocery chains—including Kroger and Albertsons—announced SCO lanes will be replaced with old-fashioned staffed lanes instead. The retail technology blogosphere has also joined the anti-automation bandwagon, with articles frequently bemoaning the clunky operation of early solutions and their perceived job-killing effect. Despite this anti-SCO sentiment, many store chains across all retail sub-verticals continue to offer SCO as a checkout option. In fact, some merchants are actually increasing SCO investment. This week, NCR announced it will deliver 10,000 additional SCO stations across WalMart’s 1200 US stores during 2013. Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed, but, based on VDC’s most recent AFSP data, we estimate the value of this contract to be approximately $150-160 million.

Notwithstanding its abandonment by certain retailers, SCO remains a useful technology when deployed in appropriate retail settings. Like any other solution, it has certain vertical/sub-vertical applications to which it’s well-suited, and others it’s not. While certain early SCO systems were buggy and difficult to use (we have experienced them ourselves), modern offerings have largely addressed these shortcomings, offer time-strapped shoppers an attractive alternative to waiting in line and often complement other retail solutions such as Personal Shopping Systems. VDC therefore believes SCO will remain an important component of many retailers’ broader front-end technology solutions, particularly in grocery/supermarket, mass merchants, wholesale clubs and home improvement stores.

In regards to WalMart’s upcoming SCO rollout, we expect its investment decision was motivated in part by the retailer’s ongoing experimentation with customer-operated mobile shopping apps. Specifically, WalMart is one of the founding members of the Merchant Customer Exchange (a consortium of more than 20 US merchants working cooperatively to develop an interoperable, cross-brand mobile wallet) and also recently announced small-scale pilots of a smartphone-based self-scanning app. As these two initiatives progress—and if/when they move towards full-scale deployment—we expect self-service technology like SCO will play a key role in their day-to-day use by customers. Convenience and time savings are two of the key value propositions these mobile apps offer, and both are strengthened by the presence of SCO as a checkout option. Accordingly, we expect to see SCO defend its established place within the retail automation spectrum, especially among technology-embracing merchants like WalMart . Furthermore, by virtue of its recognition as a retail sector leader, WalMart could give its SCO-doubting peers reason to reevaluate their own automation strategies.

RFID Could be the Prescription for Better Safety in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

VDC believes recent, high-profile cases of tainted pharmaceuticals in the US potentially could drive RFID adoption within the US pharmaceutical industry. For example, consider the fungal meningitis outbreak that has emerged during the past several weeks and, to date, caused 25 deaths. Ultimately, the meningitis cases were linked to steroids manufactured by a Massachusetts-based company. As a result of the national scale and severe consequences of this incident, the US pharmaceutical industry is under intense public and regulatory scrutiny—and we think new, more stringent legislation for pharma could be the result. Specifically, VDC expects new FDA regulations governing the manufacture and tracing of drugs—from the manufacturer to the end consumer—could be one of the near-term outcomes of this outbreak. Such legislation could include mandated use of RFID or other solutions to provide better visibility into—and control of—the pharmaceutical supply chain.

Should the FDA require RFID use in pharmaceutical manufacturing, it would not be an unprecedented legislative development. In fact, the South Korean government has implemented regulations mandating RFID use by its domestic manufacturers to reduce drug counterfeiting and its various negative collateral effects (e.g., loss of revenues, reduced drug efficacy, risk to consumers, etc.). RFID tagging of drugs at the point of manufacture has a number of potential benefits, depending on the applications for which the technology is used. The following objectives are common RFID adoption drivers among pharmaceutical manufacturers:

• Ensuring drug authenticity
• Providing better visibility into the supply chain and chain-of-custody of controlled substances
• Improve patient safety by expediting recalls and eliminating counterfeit drugs

Considering the enormous size of the US pharma market (approximately $260 billion in 2011 revenues), increased adoption of RFID within this manufacturing sub-vertical would have material growth implications for the broader RFID market—especially if use of specific RFID solution types (e.g., track-and-trace, authentication) is mandated by future FDA legislation.

Regardless, bearing in mind the potentially dire consequences of tainted, counterfeited, or otherwise compromised drugs—both in terms of injury/death to consumers and the resulting liability claims, just to name two—VDC believes all pharmaceutical manufacturers are well-advised to evaluate all technology solutions (including RFID) that could improve patient safety and control of their supply chains, whether government mandated or not.

Trick, or Treat? ISIS (Finally) Launches , But Will Consumers Notice?

ISIS, the NFC-enabled m.wallet joint venture between three major US MNOs (AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile), has officially launched its pilot test in Salt Lake City and Austin. Despite facing a number of challenges and setbacks during the past 18 months, with the most recent being a delay in its planned Summer 2012 launch (which itself was a rescheduled date), on Monday, October 22^nd ISIS finally went live.  While ISIS (along with Google Wallet and NFC-enabled payment in general) has been massively hyped by the general media, we, quite frankly, doubt that ISIS is the solution that will drive the average person to adopt mobile payment.

Certainly, it is promising to see continued interest in NFC (and investment dollars behind it) within the US, but in this case the final product suffers from many of the same issues that have hamstrung Google Wallet. In general, each of these problems boils down to making the m.wallet too complex, cumbersome and restrictive to use. To have any chance of unseating cash and cards as the payment incumbents, a mobile payment solution—NFC based or otherwise—must be absolutely effortless to use. Convenience and ease-of-use are among the top evaluation criteria cited by consumers in VDC’s most recent mobile payment survey. If an m.payment solution requires more customer effort than taking out a wallet, we see little chance of it being successful.

In regards to being convenient and easy-to-use, ISIS is anything but.  Adopting the m.wallet requires a consumer first to visit one of their MNO’s stores to obtain a special SIM card—regardless of the fact that many of the handsets supported by the pilot have embedded NFC chips. This handset discussion conveniently segues to another significant problem with the ISIS pilot—handset support, or more precisely, lack thereof. Currently, between the three JV partners, about 10 smartphone models are supported, limiting the choices of prospective ISIS users—although that number is (supposed) to double by year’s end. Perhaps even worse than the limited device choices is the inconsistency across the JV partners—for example, ISIS is available on the Samsung GS3 with AT&T, but not Verizon. It doesn’t make sense to us, and we suspect the average consumer will also be confused.

While VDC believes in the concept of mobile contactless payment, we see the long-term viability of any m.payment solution being dependent on its ability to add value—both for the consumer and the merchant—relative to incumbent payment methods.  If an m.payment app simply seeks to replicate cash or cards—or worse yet, makes payment more complex or restrictive—we see no chance of it gaining adoption.