Barcodes: Really clever or really dumb?

[...] Fast-forward to today and, well, old dumb thing is new dumb again. And just because it’s Google this time doesn’t make it not dumb. [...]

Feels like a solution that benefits the advertiser much more than the user. To get these kinds of connections happening between the offline and online worlds, I think you need to have some kind of community effect, not just a response from a consumer to an ad.

Stunningly bad. I get the theory, but as you point out, it feels very 1998 to me.

I agree, Daniel. That was the problem with the CueCat too. I can see why
advertisers would like it, but what would compel anyone to actually pick one
up and scan anything? Value proposition isn't obvious, IMHO.

In order for this to work, you'd think that the deals available through these barcodes would be stunningly good or else they wouldn't be available by any other means. Otherwise, you're fighting an uphill battle to train consumers do change their behavior (i.e. scanning using cell phone)

Meanwhile, most people who have web surfing capabilities on their phone are probably more likely to get their news online rather than in print.

Since Google is the kind of company that learns from mistakes and failures, I don't see a problem. It's just a test. If it fails, Google will learn why it doesn't work and move on to solution #4,581

Please mark down my name as the one person who says this is going to take off, without a doubt. That way I can point back at this five years from now and say “I told you so, Mathew.” :)

While I'm iffy on the idea, there are major differences between this and the CueCat.

1. The CueCat required the user to have a separate piece of hardware – no such problem exists with software embedded in cell phones.

2. The CueCat required you to go to your desktop and then go to the website. Again, with web browsers on cellphones, the user can immediatelly go to the landing page after scanning the barcode. It's an even better proposition with GPS location; you can snap a picture of a Starbucks ad (with your cell phone's camera), the software decodes the barcode, and uses embedded GPS to show you a path to the nearest store. Note that this is not limited to print ads, the barcode can be anywhere since the user doesn't have to physically scan it, they can simply snap a picture and let software do the rest.

The biggest problem that I see is that people in North America are not accustomed to browsing the web from their phones, mostly because of the exorbitant rates charged by the few available carriers. No such problems exist in Japan and hence the barcode idea can work there. In my opinion Google is putting the cart before the horse here.

This will take off for a variety of reasons. People are turning to their phones more each day for one. Second, the invisible hand will guide us there if they want to anyways.

Here’s just one example of how this would work aside from the Starbucks situation above. Sunday afternoon, you stop at a house for sale. Doors are locked, but there is a sign with leaflets. Pull out phone,snap a pic of the barcode that might be on a flier. No you can access video walkthrough of the house. Perhaps a flickr slide show? Web address with all the features of house.

How about car lot? You know how many people go looking at cars in middle of night?

Other example would be scanning a doctor’s name at a big facility to get turn-by-turn directions to get to their respective office..

Those are all good examples, Scott. Thanks for the comment.

So I realize this post is 3 months old, but just found it and had to comment, as I still have my CueCat at home. Each time I move, I think about throwing it out — but I always keep it because everytime I see it I laugh at how amazingly bad an idea it is. It's like a museum piece. As other commenters point out, Google's play with 2D barcodes in newspaper ads does not seem compelling to me, but it's not as bad as *that*!

Beyond my personal reminiscing, the real point is don't confuse the potential of a technology with the potential of any specific implementation. A number of other comments have given examples that seem on their face to be more compelling than what Google is doing, but this is a common enough point of confusion that I thought it deserved to be called out specifically. None of this is to say that 2D bar codes definitely will be successful — only that Google's place on one side of the Spinal Tap quote above does not prevent someone else from being on the other side. :-)

BTW, I was originally a skeptic of 2D barcodes myself, but turned to be more of an optimist on the technology about a year ago (see here for why: http://blogs.msdn.com/johnmullinax/archive/2007… ).

best yahoo invisible detector :- http://yscan.info

thanks a lot for the information

thanks a lot for the information