There's another pile-up in aisle thirteen

Not the Cromwell Road Sainsbury's

I gather that the supermarket Sainsbury's is trialling shopping trolleys with built-in iPad docks in their Cromwell Road store in London. When I saw the headline, I assumed that there would be some funky Sainsbury's shopping app which meant you could set up a shopping list at home and it would then guide you around the store on the best route to get all the things you need. (Yes, please, Sainsbury's.) But no. Apparently the idea, sponsored by Sky, is that you can watch things like the BBC iPlayer, music videos or, no surprise, Sky's online sports facility.

To add to the fun, the dock is equipped with speakers so you can blast out your favourite tunes or catch all the dialogue in Doctor Who.

Are they serious? Okay, there are going to be lots of fun opportunities for collisions (apparently the trolleys are equipped with sensors on the front to warn you if you are about to collide with another trolley or a pile of tins of beans, something that you only ever see in the movies, sadly). But I'd be more concerned about the noise pollution. Do you really want to walk around a supermarket being blasted by a distorted version of Nero's ecstatic drum and bass in one ear (yes, I is down with the kidz), and a football commentary from the other side of the aisle? No-o-o-o-o!

For that matter I'm surprised Sainsbury's think it is a good thing. Supermarkets are designed to encourage you to spot things you didn't realize you wanted to buy. Huge effort is put into the layout of shops and the order in which you reach things. Bakeries are generally put at the back of the store, for instance, so the smell of fresh bread draws you in. But all this commerical wizardry would be wasted if your shoppers are trundling around zombie-like, watching a screen and missing all your nice displays.

So here's the deal, Sainsbury's. By all means give us a dock and a shopping app. But take away the speakers. Otherwise I'm off to Waitrose.

* Disclaimer - there are other supermarkets, and to be honest I rarely shop at Sainsburys these days, but it's the principle of the thing *

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog