Slashdot Mirror
Longer Bar Codes Coming in 2005
D_Fresh writes "The same thing that's happening to phone numbers is also happening in retail. The NYT (blahfreeregnotreallyblah) has a story about longer bar codes which will be required for U.S. retailers by 2005. Apparently they're running out of 12-digit codes and need to add a digit, but the code rework for this is non-trivial. Some shortsighted chains *cough*Kmart*cough* may be caught with their pants down in late 2004, since some scanners will simply crash if they scan a 13-digit code they can't handle. Enjoy your :CueCats while they last..."
did they expect to replace bar codes by now?
with what?
makes me wonder, you?
Will they still be here in 2004? I thought walmart squished them.
I just got a 12 digit bar code tattooed on my dick. What will I do in 2005?
Adding a digit would add quite a few barcodes, but why not add a couple of digits just in case. Since they already have to rework some hardware and software, would it really be that difficult to take it up to 14 or 15 digits?
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
Twelve digits ought to be enough for everyone...
I think...I think it's in my basement. Let me go upstairs and check. -M.C. Escher (1898-1972)
Bigger Bar Code Inches Up on Retailers
By KATE MURPHY
In a little more than two years, retailers in the United States and Canada will face a deadline that promises technological challenges akin to the Year 2000 computer problem.
Starting Jan. 1, 2005, the 12-digit bar codes retailers use to identify everything from cars to candy bars will go to 13 digits. The additional number (and associated bars and spaces) is enough to make checkout scanners seize up and make computers crash, perhaps disrupting entire supply chains.
But many retailers have yet to focus on a problem that will require significant investments in time and capital.
"Most retailers are public companies that tend to live quarterly and not look ahead, which means they are going to be hit over the head with this and have to scramble at the last minute to avert disaster," said Thomas Friedman, president of Retail Systems Research Services, a company in Newton, Mass., that publishes a retail information technology newsletter.
Leading retailers say they have begun to address the issue. A spokesman for Wal-Mart Stores, the world's largest retailer, said the company had "embraced the concept" of an expanded bar code, but he did not respond to questions about actual measures taken to prepare computer databases and logistical systems. Similarly, a spokesman for the Target Corporation said his company was "intellectually ready" for the change but refused to comment on whether any of its stores or warehouses were technologically ready.
But Richard A. Galanti, the chief financial officer of Costco Wholesale, admitted, "The truth is, given the timeline, everybody's still in the assessment phase, trying to figure out what to do."
The difficulty is similar to the one posed by the Year 2000 computer problem, when computer software had to be switched from two-digit entries identifying years to four-digit entries. Before Jan. 1, 2000, millions of lines of code had to be rewritten to avoid widespread computer failures.
Bar codes have been used in packaging since 1974, when the first item, a pack of chewing gum, was scanned at a supermarket in Ohio. The codes identify a product, distinguishing between an eight-ounce can of Del Monte creamed corn and a medium-size pair of Hanes boxer shorts. When a bar code is scanned, the information in the store's database lets the retailer assign a price and track sales and inventory.
"The bar code is the linchpin upon which everything in retail depends," Mr. Friedman said.
The reason for expanding the 12-digit bar code, known as the Universal Product Code, is twofold. First, there is a shortage of U.P.C. numbers. "There's only a certain amount of 12-digit numbers, and we're going to run out," said John Terwilliger, vice president of global markets at the Universal Code Council, a nonprofit organization based in Lawrenceville, N.J., that assigns codes in the United States and Canada. Second, 13-digit bar codes are used almost everywhere else in the world. The council's European counterpart, EAN International, based in Brussels, assigns these numbers, called European Article Numbers, to companies in 99 nations. "Right now," Mr. Terwilliger said, "foreign importers have to get a 12-digit U.P.C. to do business over here, which they haven't been too happy about."
Foreign manufacturers currently pass on to consumers the cost of getting an additional bar code and creating special labels for products sold in the United States and Canada. "It's an added expense for them, and they have to recoup it somewhere," said Debra Shimkus, marketing manager at the Chicago Importing Company, a specialty food importer whose overseas suppliers are often incredulous when they are told they have to get new bar codes for their products before they can be sold in American groceries.
Many foreign manufacturers decide that it is not worth the trouble. "A lot of companies have been unwilling to accept the additional burden," Mr. Terwilliger said, "and have stayed out of the market entirely."
American and Canadian exporters have not had the same obstacle because foreign retailers can easily incorporate a 12-digit number into their 13-digit databases by making the first digit zero. That is why American and Canadian manufacturers of products that now have 12-digit codes will not be affected by the code expansion. A two-liter bottle of Coca-Cola, for example, will keep the same U.P.C., but a zero will be added to the beginning of its bar-code number in retailers' product databases.
"The effect of the change in the U.P.C. code falls squarely on retailers," said Mr. Friedman. He estimates that the upgrade will cost at least $2 million for a chain of 100 stores with 10 checkout lanes a store.
The expense will vary depending on the age of a retailer's databases, software and hardware and whether it has to hire outside consultants to make the change. Scanners and other hardware bought more than three years ago will not read longer codes and will have to be replaced. Software more than five years old will also have to be scrapped.
"Thank God we'd already planned to buy new equipment for a lot of stores this year," said Richard S. Gilbert, director of store systems at Duane Reade, a chain of 200 drugstores in New York City. The stores have a total of 3,500 scanning devices, each costing $1,000 to $2,500. As for the cumbersome database modifications that need to be made, Mr. Gilbert said: "Our consultants say they are working on it, but they haven't gotten back to me with a plan. I still don't know how big a deal it's all going to be."
He might want to ask John Poss. Mr. Poss is the merchandising coordinator for Ace Hardware, which has 5,100 stores and sells some 65,000 coded products. Ace overhauled its computer systems to accept longer bar codes in 1999. The company, based in Oak Brook, Ill., has retail outlets in 70 countries and more than a hundred foreign suppliers.
"It was such a struggle to get manufacturers to relabel things for North America," Mr. Poss said, "and we wanted the same system in place globally, so we decided to make the change."
The company hired a consultant, Cognizant Technology Solutions, which is based in Teaneck, N.J., and is a division of Dun & Bradstreet. Ace's in-house team worked on the project during the day while a Cognizant office in India took over at night.
Even so, the project took almost two years to plan and carry out. In addition to equipment upgrades, modifications had to be made in more than 500 software programs in various company divisions (50 in distribution alone). The most tedious and time-consuming part of the conversion, Mr. Poss said, was making adjustments to databases. "Every database in every division touches bar code information, and they all needed to be reworked," he said. "It's like Y2K, where you had to go in and expand fields and find every reference to the date."
Though Mr. Poss would not disclose the cost of the project, he said the gains in efficiency and in suppliers' good will had been "well worth the expense." His advice to other retailers is to "get busy because you're facing an extreme challenge."
But moving to 13 digits may not be enough. The Universal Code Council and EAN International, which formed an alliance in 1996, strongly advise manufacturers and retailers to go a step further and prepare their systems to accommodate a 14-digit code. That is the length of a newly patented bar code that takes up less space. Its reduced size means that it can be affixed to small items like loose produce, and the extra digits let a retailer keep track of additional data like batch and lot numbers.
That additional information would make product recalls easier. "Today," Mr. Terwilliger said, "once a product is taken out of the shipping container in the warehouse, you really can't track it anymore."
Shipping container bar codes are already 14 digits. The different bar-code standards mean that retailers need different computer systems for shipping and receiving, inventory and sales. By adopting a 14-digit standard, retailers should be able to put all the information into a single database.
Mr. Poss said Ace had added the capacity to scan and store 14 digits when it made its conversion three years ago. "Now we can scan anything," he said, "whether it's in the warehouse or at the register, and it immediately goes in to a centralized system. No more sending data between divisions."
The cost and work of making the transition to 14 digits, he said, was the same as it would have been for a change to 13 digits.
Representatives from the standards groups said adopting a 14-digit structure -- a step for which no date has been set -- could help streamline the sharing of data among all parts of a retail operation. It would also make it possible, they said, to identify products anywhere in the world at any time during the trade process.
"And to think it all started with pack of gum," Mr. Poss said.
How long until THIS lengthening is seen? Anyone?
but that would destroy the mark of the beast
on all current barcodes! (2 sets of 6 numbers
divided by 6 long lines)
1up.org
Anyone know how produce codes are assigned? How the hell do you go through 12 digits? Obviously a lot of it got wasted in some way.
It seems like there has to be a way to reclaim some of that.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I did not RTFA, but I think it's worth noting that barcodes aren't unique. I worked retail for a couple of years and in two or three instances I found duplicates.
The store I worked at sold a lot of really cheap stuff, so maybe the problem was rogue manufacturers just randomly generating their product barcodes, hence a pinata might scan as a puzzle.
When we found duplicates we'd just print our own barcodes (which always started with four zeros, I think, to keep them unique) and stick them over top of the manufacturer's barcode.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
I thought they were the WinModem of Barcode scanners... Just upgrade your software, and it will be fine.
The NY Times doesn't get Slashdotted. Well, it might if everyone who posted here read the articles ;)
...AOL had not insisted on a new barcode for every update of their free CDROM we'd have plenty of numbers left...
"Good things don't end with eum, they end with mania or teria." - H. Simpson
Is the extra digit going to be on the company side or the product side of the barcode?
slashdot!=valid HTML
The move from IPv4 to IPv6 is an instructive example.
From the article... "The codes identify a product, distinguishing between an eight-ounce can of Del Monte creamed corn and a medium-size pair of Hanes boxer shorts. "
Phew... that's a relief. No more creamed corn undershorts for tybalt! I gotta get me one of these bar-code thingies.
12 digits should be enough. it gives you 100,000,000,000 possibilities. There aren't that many products. I'm sure ARIN would happily hand out barcodes like they hand out IPs.
God Forbid!
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
13 digits? Cool, just like cubs relief pitcher Alfonseca.
--What, you ain't know about them country fried sessions?
Offical website:
http://www.uc-council.org/2005sunrise/
Quoting:
On January 1, 2005, the EAN.UCC System will open up a whole new era of global supply chain efficiency. Up until this date, the potential of the EAN.UCC System that is used today all around the world has never been fully realized. This is because products coming in to the U.S. and Canada that are typically identified with data structures other than the 12 digit U.P.C. cannot be stored in databases of North American companies. As of this monumental sunrise date, gone will be the inefficiencies that have come with North American databases that could only accept a 12 digit U.P.C.
This family of data structures is known as the Global Trade Item Number (GTIN). If your company's database is built on anything less than 14 digits, you should be making important changes. This 2005 Sunrise kit is here to help you. It will cover the following information:
GTIN Definition
GTIN family of data structures
Explanation of how these changes affect North American
Databases
A sample letter you can use to notify your systems/service providers
UCC Company Prefix assignment changes and updates related to January 1, 2005
Resources for further information
You Don't Have to Wait till 2005!
As soon as you change your databases, your company will be equipped to handle a greater range of global products. The good news is you don't have to wait until 2005 to reap these benefits. If you plan and implement now, your company can immediately take advantage of this powerful global commerce tool.
Also, the Thirteenth digit will [REDACTED BY HOMELAND SECURITY]
NO CONNECTION
I was recently standing in line at the local Sears Hardware store. The guy in front of me was buying an air conditioner. The teller accidentally scanned the shipping label barcode on the box instead of the UPC barcode. It crashed his cash register and all the other cash registers and the server in the back office.
I can just imagine what a nightmare adding a 13th digit is going to be in a system that is that brittle.
Those Cobol programmers who came out of retirement for the Y2K scam have to be kept off the streets somehow.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
BAR CODE HISTORY A breif page about the progression of the barcode. (timeline mainly)
Why don't they start implementing the "advanced" barcode tracking things that UPS (and presumably others) use on their shipments?
I know nothing about the logos, but they have dots all over and a bull's-eye in the middle... I would think that they might store more (or more useful) data than a simple 12-digit barcode...
...and if they're going to upgrade the standard, why not bypass 13 and go to n? (where 'n' is whatever the UPS codes can handle)
That's my purse! I don't know you! -- Bobby Hill
I work for a company that makes barcode scanning equipment and software. Maybe we'll make some cash off of this ;-)
The problem is the UPC-A symbology, it's limited to 12 characters (plus check digit). There are other subsets out there that can take more, and there are TONS of different symbologies that can handle huge numbers (UCC-128 uses 64 character codes). Some scanners are coded to only read certain symbologies, but many new scanners (like ours) can read many different codes of different lengths. Scanners usually transmit the decoded barcode serially to a PC or PLC so it's probably the software in them that is the problem, but any programmer who wrote code that crashes when it gets one character too many should probably retire.
Leading retailers say they have begun to address the issue. A spokesman for Wal-Mart Stores , the world's largest retailer, said the company had "embraced the concept" of an expanded bar code, but he did not respond to questions about actual measures taken to prepare computer databases and logistical systems. Similarly, a spokesman for the Target Corporation said his company was "intellectually ready" for the change but refused to comment on whether any of its stores or warehouses were technologically ready.
It's kind of shaming that Wal Mart, whom we have allowed to take over just about everything, is actually that stupid.
On a related note, I just love the NYT. Today I got to be a government official from American Samoa making less than $20k who subscribes to the Times.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
Does anyone know if old bar cdes are ever reused, or when a product is cancelled, is it just retired. For example, is the bar code for "New Coke" usable for some other, less-disgusting product, like Motor Oil, or has it forever disappeared into the ether.
Additionally, is there one governing body which assigns bar codes? Or is up to the manufacturer to make sure they assign a unique bar code?
What about other countries? Do other countries have the same bar codes for the same products?
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
Now, slip a little radio transciever tag onto the thing and we're in busines...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
In the article about national ID cards in the recent issue of Popular Science they show a 2-Dimensional barcode (Strips run vertically and horizontally). It looks like TV static but they say it can hold up to 2k of data. Perhaps this could be the solution to our Bar code blues, though the scanning equipment would need to be upgraded or replaced.
Don't want to kill this site as well. Interesting how the barcode was mainly for the military at first.
first a barcode is 12 digits, however the first and last digit are control digits and are not used to identify the product, but to check if the code is plausable.
second europe/asia uses 13digit upc's
as far as i know, there are private class upc ranges, someone metioned starting with 0000, at work we use 8888 so perhaps 0000-9999 is a private range..
this is how i thin kit is, i could be flat out wrong..
http://www.ean-int.org/
EAN does Europe, UCC does North America
When properly modified, A CueCat can scan larger bar codes. As long as the start/end markers on the code remain the same, there should be no worries
Here's an ISBN number I just scanned (maybe this'll get Amazon slashdotted too)
9780924771453
It uses the 39 barcode standard IIRC, just like UPC
*If* they are around then, that is.
Also, the article does not mention KMart at all.. wonder where this gem was picked up.
With profound apologies to whomsoever this sig originally belonged.
The range 000,000,000,000 through 999,999,999,999 is 1,000,000,000,000 possibilities. There aren't a trillion products you think? You must not shop at the same places I do, I think between Kroger and Wal-Mart and Radio Shack and a couple of big-assed auto parts stores, I could count a trillion items very easily.
Wouldn't it be best to acquire software or devices that can be expanded much more should the need arise? For example, make all the hardware and software capable of handling barcodes arbitrarily long (or just up to 32, perhaps) so that when the UCC and EAN decide to make the next upgrade, it'll be as easy as setting a variable?
Are their technical limitations to doing such a thing? the scanners they talked about, at $1000 bucks a shot, could certainly have some kind of flash memory without increasing their cost more than a dollar or two.
Just my thoughts, anyway.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The use of RFID tags has starting to pick up, at least with the people I deal with. They will make barcodes obsolete in the long term, except for very low value goods. This could reduce the demand on barcode numbers.
There are readers that incorporate both RFID and BCR technology available today, and I am sure that most can get firmware updates for new symbologies and formats.
I think that higher value goods will start to incorporate RFID tags as well as barcodes very soon (maybe already happening), and as the cost of the tags reduces, they will appear on just about everything.
Why not just use two barcodes on everything?
Obviously the first thought is why not more digits. Turns out that most of the world already (or always has?) used 13 digits. The result is that companies get pissed when they have to apply for another UPC and all that comes with it just to sell their product from one side of the pond to the other.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
You are the man :)
My other sig is extremely clever...
Some shortsighted chains *cough*Kmart*cough* may be caught with their pants down in late 2004
I used to work in Kmart. Our IBM Type III registers say the following when you scan an invalid barcode - "ERR: Must be between 8-13 digits". With a message like that, once can presume that the registers *are* capable of scanning the 13 digit UPCs...and that it's a back-end (IE - Receiving, distribution, inventory) change that's needed.
Considering that I've not seen a Kmart that *wasn't* using these old Type III's, I hardly say that Kmart is getting caught "with their pants down". They're further along the transition than some other companies that have *no* 13-digit capable equipment.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Those things UPS uses are 2-D barcodes. Scanners for them are somewhat more expensive and less robust. When you are talking about revving all of the point-of-sale terminals in the US, it's a big deal.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
Format is:
The reason they're not going to 14+ digits is they're really just becomming compatable with the rest of the world, which uses 13 digits, and hoping to steal some unallocated number ranges in there (shades of IP Addresses.) Going to 14+ would be a worldwide change, which is, obviously, somewhat harder to accomplish.
Enjoy your :CueCats while they last...
CueCats don't scan *only* UPCs. They can scan any barcoding, regardless of its coding scheme, as long as it has the start and ending components that it recognizes (and it recognizes quite a few). What *you* make of the resulting data is your deal. I've scanned 20-digit printed barcodes with my Cat.
For simple proof, scan an ISBN. Those are 13 digits by default. CueCats can read those.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Sure, a 13 digit number, and 666 embedded in the bar code - the anti-christ is coming soon - it's all falling into place now.
-josh
Free Mac Mini
Most scanners are capable of scanning UPC-A (12 digit with 2 or 5 digit supplemental codes) UPC-E (6 dgit with 2 or 5 digit supplemental codes) EAN/JAN 13 (13 digit with 2 or 5 digit supplemental codes) EAN/JAN 8 (8digit codes also with 2 or 5 digit supp) Code 39, Interleaved 2 of 5, Codabar, Code 128 (incorporates letters, and is case sensitive), MSI/Plessey. Currently we use UPC-A, usually with no extra codes. This is just moving us from UPC-A to EAN 13. Most scanners are capalbe of both formats. This is not the end of the world.. sigh..
It seems like we've got linux drivers for it, couldn't we "teach" (program) it to work with the extra digit?
Not that I care, I only used the sucker twice just to say I had done it.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Lets take an analogy of learning from pain. Lets say you stick your fork into a electric socket. Now, after combing your hair down you might say to your self, "Self, that was stupid... but not as stupid as if I did that again and didn't learn"
Now the key part comes in to what exactly was learned. Some will only learn not to stick a fork into that particular socket anymore. Most will learn not to every stick a fork or even other metal wear into sockets again. Some will learn not to stick anything in any electrical socket. Then sadly, there are only a few that will learn not to simply avoid sticking objects into any device that would complete a circuit (a hot device if you will, including light sockets) but will in fact learn to KEEP THEIR HANDS TO THEMSELVES and be carefull always.
It is this last group that generally forms their own company because they are sick of the slack-jawed (but well dressed admittingly) drones who consistently make stupid decisions.
so back to this specific issue... STOP LIMITING SERIALIZATION PROCESSES. Don't be so quick to hard code limits. A good designer will abstract it, even if his particular implementation hard codes that part to 12 digits, who cares? He can then switch out modules and use the >12 digit system because it was properly abstracted.
A monkey lashes out with a stick. A man takes the abuse initially while he forges a sword. patience and persistance (planning basically) will always win out.
Note that the article saysSince they bought the new equipment a lot less than three years ago, all it'll take to get Kmart up and running with the 13-char barcode will be a software upgrade.
Kmart isn't even mentioned in the article--I looked for it specifically when I first read it yesterday. How about being a little more careful with the facts in your editorializing, eh, Slashdot people?
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
2D barcodes can hold up to 2000 or more characters. PDF417 (a 2D symbology) is in the public domain, created by Symbol which allows this many characters. You can download a free PDF417 Generator and roll your own 2D barcodes. The only drawback is that a 2D barcode requires a more precise scanner and technique.
3D Barcodes are indeed 'bumpy' and can even be painted over.
If that many numbers are used up, seems like we need fewer products, not more barcodes. How much crap do we really want out there?
For starters, I can do without Orange Clean and Duralube.
-paul
Does this mean that I'm going to have to get the barcode that's tatooed onto the back of my neck redone?
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Well, we had a large hardware base that can real only 12 digits, right ?
There isn't enough numbers, right ?
Then, why not use TWO bar codes unless expend a large money to implement 1 digit more ?
I believe a combination of two bar codes of 12 digits will be a lot cheaper and efficient, maybe not too easy to handle but it's a fast solution until we gradually change the protocols to something more plausible..
if these new barcodes are going to require new equpitment, why are they only adding one digit? they should use 2d barcodes which store information vertically and horizontally can hold up to 2kb of information, this could store a lot more than just a number and could eliminate a need for a central database, if you dont know what i'm talking about look at the back of your drivers liscense, many states are using these to store information now, 2kb per inch or so may not seem like much storage, but the current simple barcodes on your cereal box only hold 20 bytes
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
There just making sure they get 13 and 666 in the same standard.
A simple workaround would be to print two barcodes on the item. *beep *beep, you've just given yourself 24 bits.
My
Limekiller
Formats like the Aztec code can hold up to 3000 characters of information. Rather than re-engineer something inefficient (UPC), why not adapt something new and completely extinguish the problem?
Info on barcodes, UPC symbols, maxicode, etc.
...that I can download MP3s (which I don't own or haven't paid for and without permission) because credit was given to the artist?
I thought america had a dim view of the number 13
<slightly ot>
what with buildings not having a 13th floor, or rather not calling it the 13th floor to residents (so hotels have 13 painted on the inside of the lift doors, the bit your not meant to see while the buttons and rooms all say 14th floor)
this is all irrelevant as it is usually the 13th floor from the ground as you look at the front of the building not including the one you walk into
</ok it was totally ot>
you're thinking like a programmer instead of a typical checkout clerk.
shit dude, you know you'd be all up for that shit if you were a smack head.
Why pick an upper limit? As long as there is some way for the scanner to detect "end of string" (EOS) or whatevertheycallit.
These people need the Software Engineering Clue Stick (unless by off chance there is a real justification that has yet to be presented, but I doubt it unless it has to due with backward compability to an earlier clue-stick-needer-design. Maybe some hardware limit back then that prevented and EOS marker?)
Give them the Y2K award.
Table-ized A.I.
I've often wondered about the references people make to barcodes being the mark of the beast. Everywhere else, outside the US, uses 13 digits, which screws that up entirely... It would be 664, the guy across the street from the beast.
Seriously. It's completely annoying, since I can never read the original articles.
Does Slashdot have some sort of affiliation with the NYT's for Christ sake?
I really hope they *do* barcode every atom in the universe.
By the way, the number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be around 10^80, not 10^20. That's a biiiig difference!
But..but I only have 5 digits on each hand, do I need to upgrade my firmware?
--- What
664 would be Satan's next door neighbor...
Speaking of inches, I can see the spam now...
Operate a small business from home? Add inches to your bar code! More digits impress your clients!!
--
I romp with joy in the bookish dark
Longer bar codes are coming to win us They're coming to win us, they're coming to win us Longer boats are coming to win us Hold on to the core, they'll be taking the key from the door. ;-)
The database may need a field expanded from 12 characters to whatever but almost all barcode readers just insert the stream into a serial port or the keyboard. they can read 30000 character barcodes as long as start and end are correct.
the only hardware I had trouble with was really old or crappily made scanners that have built in limitations.. even the cuecat can read arbitary length barcodes...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Does the thought of patenting a bar code scare anyone else?
--
I romp with joy in the bookish dark
I saw a presentation by a senior exec from Alien Technology recently, and it was astounding. RFID utilizes incredibly small processor packages that are able to wirelessly communicate with other devices. The real breakthrough is that they can make these devices communicate without manual scanning, and they can manufacture them in volume extremely cheaply.
My guess is once this technology picks up steam, they'll be everywhere, from price tags on the jacket you buy at the Gap, to the pound of ground turkey you snag at Safeway.
Of course, the potential for misbehavior with these things is huge. But it's coming. All of the industry players are on board, the technology is in test production, and before long it'll be deployed.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
From my years as a book jockey I can tell you a few things about ISBN's.
1. ISBN's almost always start with zero or one, although that's changing as more companies get into the game. Texkbooks and reference books usually start with 9, for example.
2. The first 5 digits id the top level manufacturer. This was handy because imprints that were owned by another company still had the first 5 digits of their parent company's code - pocket books, for instance, is owned by simon and schuster.(although many pub's had more than one manufacturer code).
3. The second 5 digits are a product code.
4. The last two digits are a checksum to make sure the ISBN is valid. There's a formula something like "add the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th digits and divide by the 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th digits. the checksum is the remainder." I don't know exactly what the formula is, but I'm dying to know, it's been bugging me for years.
Fun fact: Hardcover, trade paper and Mass Market editions of the same book have different ISBNs, but different editions/printings of the same book usually have the same isbn. While conserving available codes, it's quite annoying when someone's looking for a specific edition.
Triv
A company I worked for a while ago made a barcode scanner that could read different codes. There are lots of standards for bar codes -- not just UPC, some are all numeric, some are alpha, etc.
The problem with "just making it alphanumeric" as some posters have said, is the same problem with any type of data storage. The UPC has essentially "4 bits" per digit (not really bits), plus some checksum stuff. If you went to alphanumeric, there obviously wouldn't be enough bits, and you'd be in the same situation -- all the software would still need to be changed.
The 12 digit UPC code is split into a "manufacturer code" and a "product code," kinda like the IPv4 host and network portions. Bigger manufacturers (e.g., Proctor and Gamble) got more digits for their product codes. IIRC, setting the 1st 6 digits to zero meant a "store-only product," I think -- kinda like a non-routable address in IP.
There are already several variants of the UPC code -- the most common is UPC-12 (12 digits), but there is also UPC-6, a "compressed" form that you see on smaller items (e.g., packs of gum), but is contains the same info as UPC-12 once decoded. But there is also UPC-12 +5, which has 5 extra digits, used for books and magazines primarily; I think part of the ISBN is stored there. And I seem to remember another extension too (UPC-12 +2 ?).
I guess my question is why don't they extend it this way (e.g., make a UPC-12 +10), rather than just adding one digit, which will probably only be good for another 10 years, if we're lucky...
Of course some of the problem might be the space required to store all this, since the UPC has a fairly strict requirement about the size of the code (and the whitespace surrounding it). The 2D "bar" codes mentioned earlier (and used by UPS) could be a solution, but another big advantage to the UPC is the human-readable portion below, so Rosie at Wal-Mart can key in the numbers from your Doritos bag when it fails to scan...
disclaimer: I worked on this software almost 20 years ago, so some of the details are probably wrong...
OK, so who wants to write a patch for the pbmupc utility?
pbmupc: type code must be one digit, and manufacturer and product codes must be five digits
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
People really need to do research before going all half ass about this stuff. Did anyone actually read the specification [uc-council.org]. EAN-13 and UPC-A use the same barcode. To quote the page:
The symbol itself comprises only 12 digit characters. The 13th digit is not represented directly by a digit character, but is inferred in the use of the number sets A and B to encode the rest of the 6 digits in the left half of the code. The 13th digit, which is not directly represented, is always the digit in the leftmost position of the 13-digit number. The remaining 12 digits in the number are represented by the digit characters in the symbol, in the same sequence left to right
I'm just an informative AC...
"...caught with their pants down..." it should have been "...caught with their pants half off..."
geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
Way back in the day, when I was in band, we recorded a CD and were going to release it. (ie: try to sell it at the local record store). I asked a friend about his band's recent CD release, specifically about the Bar Code that they included on the back of their jewel cases. "Did you have to buy it?" "How much did it cost?" His answer was very straight forward... "We scanned it off of a case of Bud."
We never released our CD. But we had fun trying to figure out who's UPC to steal.
"Jimmy quit, Jody got married. I should'a known we'd never go far"
"We all know that Crap is King" - Don Henley
One digit isn't going to cut it, we're all aware of that. And those guys must be, too. So what's the reason for "extending" this aged format so weakly? I think the production cost of all these little bar code reader gizmos will be to big, because most of it would have to be redesigned completely to allow for the extra (storage) functionality. You see, the number of digits and even the barcode recognition algos are probably so damn hardwired into the equipment you'd have to start all over again to make room for, say, a new 64 digit GUID or something...
Just the right size for everyone's forehead!
As I read this discussion, I'm amazed at how analagous the UPC barcode situation and the IP address situation are:
Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
The article seemed to try to create the same tension that the Y2K bug did. This doesn't even come close. No nuclear reactors will blow up and no planes will crash, and no electric grids will go offline when UPC codes change in size.
Retaillers are businesses. They need to sell products to survive. The UPC code is a vital component of the databases that make things work. Coupons, inventory, everything is based on it. So we're adding another digit and your ancient, poorly written accounting software didn't make room for a future expansion. So upgrade already. You're a business, you WILL find a way. Because if you don't, you'll be left in the dust. And while you're at it, perhaps you might want to make sure the UPC code space is larger than 13 digits. You never know when they might expand it AGAIN. Since the cost involved to jump from 12 to 13 is the same as the jump from 12 to 18, make a wise decision now.
This is just a normal part of the world as we know it. Things change. Phone numbers get longer, UPC codes get longer, computers get faster, operating systems redesign themselves. You have to adapt with it. Regardless, there's no sense in losing sleep over this.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Those codeset and checksum digits, along with the code that seperates the manufacturer ID from the, Product ID, are two thin right-alligned lines, which is also the code for the number 6.
Meaning that every barcode has the number 666 on it.
"And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of man; his number is 666."(REVELATION 13:16-18)
Make of this what you will. Personally, I think it's the world's best practical joke.
Add 1-3 inches to the length of your....
barcode.
m00.
I work in the barcode industry and participated on committees involved in these codes. It is true that they are running out of numbers. Additionally, they do not want the barcode to grow much larger, but still read well. These constraints limited the new barcode to 14 digits. (For details see http://www.uc-council.org/rss14/).
The good and bad news is that the new barcode will not crash old scanners. The old scanners will simply not read these codes. New scanners will support RSS. Older scanners might be flash upgradable to support these codes.
With regards to 2D barcodes (My real background), they are much harder to read with inexpensive barcode scanners, cannot be read with slot scanners (Supermarket scanners), and are too large when printed at bar widths that are commonly used in retail...
(UPS's 2D code named MaxiCode, cannot be read with a laser scanner, only a camera based scanners... In order to have retailers jump to these types of codes, they must replace every laser scanner with much more expensive camera based systems)
At this stage, if it looks like a major change is about to go on wouldn't it make more sense for everyone to switch to 2D barcodes?
Admittedly there would be a greater cost incurred, but you have almost no chance of running out of digits because you basically get rows and rows of them (I don't know exactly how many, I just know they can hold lots of information.)
Anyone got a link to a company that manufacturs them?
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
I happened to pick up a CueCat on my vacation in Oregon. Glad to see progress is being made.
Now, slip a little radio transciever tag onto the thing and we're in busines...
It's already being done Autoidcenter.org
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This concept seems to lead to the inevitable question, however... if they are only adding a single digit, it is likely that they will run out of room again sometime... It might take a few years, or even a few decades, but they will run out. And, to really make a mess out of things, the longer that this limitation is ignored, the more entrenched the inflexible standard will be by the time they _do_ run out of room.
Damned if you you do, and damned if you don't. Almost makes me wish that we had never crawled out of the oceans in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Actually we already use a 13 digit UPC code.
For UPCA the first digit is always 0, which is why US manufacturers don't have to do anything to comply with EAN standards. UPCA is a subset of EAN. US and Canada get country code 00-13. The big problem is that anyone who exports from the rest of the world has to get a UPCA from us first, which apparently sucks.
Here's what the first number in a UPC stands for...
0, 6, 7 : Regular U.P.C. code (i.e., could be food, some health and beauty items, and general merchandise)
2 : Random weight items such as meat and produce
3 : Drugs and health related items (only those companies who are using their National Drug Code and National Health Related Items Code as their U.P.C. number are to use number system '3')
4 : In-store use without code format restriction
5 : Use on coupons
1, 8, 9 : Reserved for uses unidentified at this time
You will be waving that scan gun over the barcodes unsuccessfully for even longer periods of time better spent just typing the product code in, if you knew how to type. You will now have carpal elbow.
Don't add more digits, think of the poor military cadets who already have to learn the barcodes for Tobasco Brand Tobasco Sauce, JIF Creamy Peanut Butter, not to mention the chocolate sauce and the honey. Sir, the barcode of the JIF Creamy Peanut Butter is as follows, thick bar thick bar thin bar...
According to Popular Science magazine, traditional barcodes hold 20 bytes, or 160 bits, which is a lot more than 12 digits. Who's wrong, slashdot or popsci? Regards, Guspaz.
I know there are those out there who probably swear nothing bad happened back in Y2K because they worked so hard to fix all the bugs. If you ask me there never really was a problem, just media overhyping everything to boost sales on new PC's/etc.
You think maybe now the economy is down they're trying to find another scare to get big companies to spend big dollars blindly?
no comment
We can approximate that number with the Hubble Constant and then just multiply by 1.5 or 2 (depends on the company you work for) :)
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q1797.html
You can't handle the truth.
Naturally add DIGITS to your barcode!
Bigger Barcode NOW!
www.big-barcode.com
.
The ultimate standard: Use ASCII as a graphic barcode. 8x8 squares for each binary character, all put together and you're set. I do it with my name and it looks cool as hell. Just a thought.
They've overstated the problem. As a retailer, we've had to deal with 13 digit barcodes for years. Yes, the US manufactured stuff we sell is 12 digits, but the EAN-13 barcodes of european merchandise are 13 digits. Every barcode reader that I've personally seen (yes, my life is lame enough that I've seen dozens of different models) is capable of reading 13 digits. Heck, ISBN (books) have been using EAN-13 for years too.
Damn!
Now we all have to get our US Citizenship tattoos changed!
Chip H.
Whats that?
(Looking at a UPC)
A Somalian Family
I used to work in the pricing department of a grocery that was fairly new. We used NCR/ScanMaster systems (And they were upgrading the customer rewards systems to IBM/linux, go figure!) Anyway, our scanning systems had no problems with any amount of digits as a UPC code. (Many of our UPCs would be typo-ed in the system incorrectly by trainees, with extra digits, and they stuck, and worked!) So, this really shouldn't be a big deal if a retailer had a fairly modern scan system. If anything, this story is more historic, than vital news.
Gee, I wonder how difficult it will be to have older scanners display 'Enter price manually'; I wonder how much more difficult it will be to actually get the checkout clerks to actually do this.
qts
My dad programs(ed)(got a new title) the scanners. Easy stuff if he could do it :) Its not that much to worry about, as I *think* kmart uses his company's software.
it is hard enough to get the cuecat to scan somebar codes. i can't imagine scanning a code that long without changing speed or moving the scanner incorrectly
I have properly scanned a UPS bar code with the cuecat. Those bars have a letter as well as numbers.
However, current hardware can't cope with these, and label designers would have fits if they had to make room for a typical EAN 128 code. They are not small by any definition of the word if applied in the way they were designed to be applied, even if the codeset is compact.
However, if EAN 128 were to be widespread, the barcode could contain lots of other nifty data, like expiry dates, traceability info (who made the bit of meat you hold in your hand), the lot number of the delivery. The code is extensible, and would have no problem accomodating a new, n-numbered identification number.
However, 13 digits seem to be sufficient in Europe right now.
bc13 is rapidly approaching, are you prepared?
Some history:
In 1962 Dr. Benvold Austere introduced the 12 line bar code. His contemporaries pleaded with him to include an extra line, but he didn't. The reason? Computers in the early 60's has very little RAM (random access memory) and so the 13th line was left off to save space.
The Issue:
Due to a proliferation of consumer products, mostly due to Lucas Film merchandising, a thirteenth line will be required to be able to identify every possible consumer product.
Predictions:
Computer experts agree that 12 line barcode math is pervasive, throughout the industry. This presents a ticking bomb for retailers. Several scanners have been demonstrated to detonate when scanning an extra line. Some scanners merely misread the code.
In a strange twist to this story a mysterious renaissance hermit predicted this event:
"And lo the line will become as the circles and their number will be uncountable by the great IBM and the lawyers will argue whilst molten ash spreads accross the face of the earth. Neither will the sea be saved, much less its canned tuna!" - Frescobaldi Chianti, 1642
What You Should Do Now:
1. Immediately suspend all new IS projects.
2. Pour all available resources into evaluating whether your existing systems are bc13 complient.
3. Hire expert consultants, like Arthur Anderson, to help you evaluate your systems and to ensure that you have properly execised due diligence.
4. Demand a bc13 statement from all your hardware and software suppliers. Even if the software has nothing to do with barcodes, DEMAND this statement anyway!
5. Upgrade all of your commercial software to the latest versions, just to be sure.
6. Hire as many cobol programmers as you can find.
7. Go to bc13 seminars.
Conclusion:
bc13 is nothing short of an impending calamity of global scale. It has the propensity to destroy all social interaction sending us scuttling back to the dark ages.
But, do not worry, with care, a great deal of money, and above all, due diligence, we can meet this challenge, just as we met y2k, and, like y2k, we can emerge from this horror, pretty much without a hicup.
Bigger,Longer,uncut.
The Standard, supposed to be adopted in 2005 has been in place for a long time now in the US. Any company that scans international product barcodes is already using it. Most supermarkets here in Los Angeles for example, have to scan Hispanic products from Mexico (which use the "13" digit code.
It's not 13 digits though, it's 12. The last "digit" is actually a calculated check digit used by the scanners to double check the read of the barcode.
For some reason the EAN (12 digit codes) have the check digit printed exactly the same format as the rest of the numbers, directly to the right, thus the confusion with most thinking it's 13 digits (even the supposed experts reporting this stuff).
US UPC's print the check digit in a smaller font to the right, so most think of the US code as 11 digits.
Bottom line, there is no standard 13 digit code coming out. It's 12 and has been for a long time. This is a non-story based on confusion.
A lot of retailers don't use the UPC, and instead use their own item SKUs (item numbers). This requires adding a barcode sticker to all items, which can be a hassle, but it means that you control your own item numbers. This is what we did when I worked for Williams-Sonoma and Pottery Barn. We used code-128 and Symbol scanners. and had item numbers of up to ten digits.
Also, I've worked with a lot of crappy old point of sale software, and lots of crappy scanners, and I'd be surprised if any crashed on a long barcode. Mostly likely they'll just beep and refuse to scan. (Though I suppose this depends on whether they are keyboard wedge (like the CueCat, simply generating keypresses) or a more direct connection like most older registers use. Keyboard wedge systems would be more susceptible to buffer overruns, but they are definately the low-end solution. I guess I can't say for sure generally, but I know that the barcode scanning code I wrote for Williams-Sonoma definitely will not crash over thirteen digits. :-)
The cake is a pie
Why not just add a second upc stick to some items that need it and rewrite the software for the scanners to work with double coded items so the existing scanners dont crash.
------ I Hate That When That Happens.... : P
Ok, I'm an idiot. Apparently there is a new 14 digit code to be used "real soon". Just that no one is using it yet. The new code called EAN/UCC-14 is a 13 digit number with a calculated check digit (making it 14).
I've worked for a point of sale company for almost 4 years and it's been my experience with scanners in that time that pretty much all of them in that time (and some time prior) can handle a large variety of barcodes. Software on the other hand has been another issue. I've seen some products that only had room to allow for 12 characters in the barcode field which is obviously a problem for them. In a perfect world that software would be upgraded or replaced; but often the developer is long since gone; or the cost of upgrading (both in terms of s/w and h/w to run the newer software) is cost prohibitive for smaller retailers.
As far the stuff like magazines that have the additional digits; the problems I've seen with those is that many hand held scanners you have to set to auto-discriminate to handle those since the majority of UPC-A's don't have them. Once you do that the error rate increases quite a bit especially on poorer quality barcodes.
Additionally I concur with the people who are asking why only 13 digits. I haven't seen that article in question; but I assume that it discusses the EAN-13 format. There are many other formats out there that can hold more data that these scanners can read. Why settle on something that is only going to offer incremental growth?
... why not put like 20 digits in there? That way you'll have an over-abundance that you will last you the next 100 years.
CueCats aren't the only barcode scanners that will handle the longer formats. In fact, any company that sells barcode scanners outside of the US will be able to scan the EAN formats. It's simply a matter of reprogramming the scanner (which may require a small piece of software on a PC or just a matter of scanning programming codes into the scanner). And what other brands are out there probably use the scan engines from other companies, so at the most it'd be a software change, or possibly (at the worst) a rom upgrade.
Also many barcode scanners can be programmed to spit out a leading 0 on UPC 12 digit codes, so that the output is ALWAYS 13 digits, wether it's a UPC or EAN code that is scanned. UPC and EAN are basically the same format barcode, with subtle differences in what constitutes the 13th character in the code. It's not I2of5 or Code 39, which are other symbology types. The 14 digit ones are a mixed barcode type, but I don't know how popular they will be.
EAN has already specified EAN-128, which is the EAN code standard using the Codabar 128 barcode format. This allows VERY LONG barcodes, and many of these are for packaging in the warehouse, where you are marking boxes of items, or a shipping crate full of boxes, etc.
So the bogus comment in the NYT that everyone would have to upgrade their scanners is just that. Bogus. If anything, it's the sightless people that developed the databases behind the scenes that will be the problem. Now what does this remind me of..... oh yeah. Y2K. *sigh*
Subject says it all. Why not simply lease to every product a unique IP number with a lifespan of, say, 50 years? That way, you can get all sorts of extra info about the product at http:///index.html whenever the thing is sitting near the radio tag scanner (which would be powering the server with the same energy needed to create the resonance in the first place?)
- undoware.ca
Now you need a new compatible "reader".
I'm an AV technician, which means i get to sit in on a variety of meetings and business deals. I was recently sitting in on a meeting of the Australia Packaging (Agency ?).
:D
Anyhow, they were discussing the future of packaging, and labelling. Aparently, there's a few interesting options in the works.
1- Extended barcodes.
As discuesed here, longer bar codes. There's not much exciting about these, but rumours of 12 up to 25.
2- passive transmitters.
these things are great. I forget their name, but basically, they're a passive transciever, and can store up to from 96bits to 12k of information. They've also got technology to be totally unique - so even in a pile of 1000 of these, each one is individual. Aparently, Coca Cola is trialing these to be able to track individual bottles of coke, not batches. One step closer to taking goods, and walking through a checkout and being charged instantly.
These things are almost paper thin [abotu as thin as those little security strips you get in DVDs etc], and cost about 10c US to manufacture. Theyre not going to be economical until they are about 2c, but all this needs is adoption by some large companies.
Anyhow, thought i'd share my 2c
CueCat!? I remember getting one of those in the mail! Laughed my butt off then tossed it into the trash! What a stupid idea.
Sig?! Sig?! We don't need no stinking sig!!
There are several different barcode standards available, including one with 16 digits. Europe has been using 13 digits for as long as I can remember. Once again in the long run, a US "standard" turns out to lick Monkey nuts.
Mike Nomad
Two forgettable (forgotten?) products, I guess this was from their "trial" range of codes.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
first a barcode is 12 digits
1: you mean a ucc(-?12?) barcode.
second europe/asia uses 13digit upc's
They are called ean-13 barcodes. NOT UPC's.
And note that the french use 14 digit article indentification barcodes as well.
So go for 14 digits in your article id db.
The 12 digit ucc codes can be mapped on the ean-13 codes. I don't know exactly how, but it is defined in the ean standard. From experierence i know it gets into problems with short 6 digit ucc codes.
-- my ean adress right now: 87.17045.00000.2
Whether they are ready or not really doesn't matter.
Most retailers have items with their own company's bar code attached and use that instead of the original bar code.
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
in REALLY OT form...
Why is it that archetects are afraid of having floor 13, but publishers aren't afraid of having chapter 11?
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
You are, of course, quite correct.