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..."

Comments

13? Why not more?

[TheFlyingGoat]

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?

Twelve Digits

[LeftHanded]

Twelve digits ought to be enough for everyone...

Re:Twelve Digits

[Nurlman]

It is allocated per product, not per user, so there should be fewer points needed.

I don't know that this is entirely true. Check out the bar codes at the supermarket-- there are two sets of numbers (plus a check digit). The first set of numbers (I believe it's five digits) will be the same for every product by a given manufacturer. The box of Kraft Mac & Cheese will have the same first five digits as the package of Kraft salad dressing. The second set of digits identifies the particular product and size of that manufacturer.

Thus, as with phone numbers or SSN's, there is a sub-optimal distribution of the finite number of codes. Let's assume Kraft's five digits are 12345. If Kraft has less than 1,00,000 products (assuming the second set of numbers is six digits), some of the set of numbers in 12345XXXXXX are going to be unused. However, because the 12345 is a unique identifier for Kraft, those unused numbers cannot be apportioned to another manufacturer.

Then again, I could be wrong. I shop where they still put price stickers on the cans.

Re:Twelve Digits

[Ralph Wiggam]

From urbanlegends.com
attributed to NY Times Syndicate

QUESTION: I read in a newspaper that in 1981 you said, ``640K of memory should be enough for anybody.'' What did you mean when you said this?

ANSWER: I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time.

The need for memory increases as computers get more potent and software gets more powerful. In fact, every couple of years the amount of memory address space needed to run whatever software is mainstream at the time just about doubles. This is well-known.

When IBM introduced its PC in 1981, many people attacked Microsoft for its role. These critics said that 8-bit computers, which had 64K of address space, would last forever. They said we were wastefully throwing out great 8-bit programming by moving the world toward 16-bit computers.

We at Microsoft disagreed. We knew that even 16-bit computers, which had 640K of available address space, would be adequate for only four or five years. (The IBM PC had 1 megabyte of logical address space. But 384K of this was assigned to special purposes, leaving 640K of memory available. That's where the now-infamous ``640K barrier'' came from.)

A few years later, Microsoft was a big fan of Intel's 386 microprocessor chip, which gave computers a 32-bit address space.

Modern operating systems can now take advantage of that seemingly vast potential memory. But even 32 bits of address space won't prove adequate as time goes on.

Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again.

-----end paste------

People say a lot of things about Bill Gates around here, but I can't remember anyone accusing him of being stupid. Many things I have read about people meeting him mention that you get a feeling that he's the smartest person you have ever met (people said the same thing about Clinton). As he says in the quote, anyone who works with a computer would never ever say that X ammount of memory will be good enough forever. It just doesn't make sense. A much better quote that I believe is real is IBM president Thomas J. Watson's "I think there's a world market for about five computers."

BTW: I can't PROVE that Gates never said the 640k quote. Why don't you show me the original citation that Bill says doesn't exist.

I know this is a huge reply to a stupid post, but it bugs me every time someone quotes the 640k comment as gospel.

-B

Barcodes aren't unique anyway

[digidave]

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.

If only...

[rbgaynor]

...AOL had not insisted on a new barcode for every update of their free CDROM we'd have plenty of numbers left...

Why add only a single digit?

[cporter]

Instead of just duct-taping a single more digit onto the system, how about a real overhaul that'll fix the capacity issue forever? If they insist on using base-10, go to 16 or 20 or more digits from 12, not 13. The extra computing power required is trivial and you can get a capacity large enough to barcode every atom in the universe. If they're going to have to do the systems overhaul anyway, make it worthwhile.

The move from IPv4 to IPv6 is an instructive example.

The 2005 Sunrise Date for North American Retailers

[maubp]

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.

CueCats will be fine...

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

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

Re:CueCats will be fine...

[NearlyHeadless]

Here's an ISBN number I just scanned (maybe this'll get Amazon slashdotted too)
9780924771453

Yes, most books already have 13-digit EAN barcodes, with 978 assigned as the "Country code" for the ISBN namespace (the country name is Bookland).

Any bar code scanner sold in the last decade (at least) will decode not only UPC and EAN, but several other symbologies, including ones that include letters. There are single chips (from HP, e.g.) that take the analog input from a light measuring device and do everything for you.

There's good information about UPCs and EANs at http://www.adams1.com/pub/russadam/upccode.html

Some mass-market paperbacks have UPCs instead of EANs.

Re:CueCats will be fine...

[DickBreath]

UPC does not code 39, aka code 3 of 9.

IIRC, UPC uses Interleaved 2 of 5. (Could be wrong on this, but definitely not code 39.) That is how they pack so many digits into so few bars. Try this experiment. Hold up a can of Diet Coke. Look at barcode. Print out a barcode for the same upc digits in Code 39. See how horrifically freakin long it is? A bar code that long is very difficult to scan. (A very skilled operator can manage to scan this long of a code in Code 39 -- believe me.)

Code 39 has an advantage that each digit is made up of one set of bars, and thus you can make a font for the code. Additionally, code 39 can represent not just digits, bue also letters and some symbols.

You can't make up a font for UPC (as seen on a can of Diet Coke and other grocery store products) because the widths of three black bars make up a digit, and then the widths of the two white "spaces" between the bars make up another digit.

Depends on the store and the equipment...

[Cutriss]

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.

Just for curiosity

[dghcasp]

Disclaimer: It's been a long time since I had to deal with this...

Format is:

• Codeset digit (1), always constant
• Manufacturer ID (5)
• Product ID (5)
• Checksum digit (1)

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.

Re:12 should be enough

[Misch]

Not that simple. On the 12 digit barcode, as far as UPC's are concerned, you only have 10 usable digits, and even then, for reatil applications, there are strict allocation guidlines.

UCC Reference

Digit 1: Code, UCC Prefix.
Digits 2-6: Company Number
Digits 7-11: Item Reference
Digit 12: Check

Thus, you only have 10 useable digits for identifying products, and only 100,000 different companies to dole out 100,000 UPC's, (multiply by 3 because the first digit is 0, 6, or 7 for standard products.) That's 3.0 * 10^10 combinations. However, like IP addresses, these are handed out in inefficient methods, because they go in blocks of 100,000. Which means you need to pay somebody some money to get ahold of one.

This is a common problem for aspiring independent artists who want to get their music out. They get to make a choice... do I pay someone for a UPC, or do I go without? Stores generally won't accept a CD for sale w/o a UPC code on it. (Barring local merchants who may be willing to stock the item and either just put a price tag on it, or use one of their own UPC's. (UPC's beginning with 4 are reserved for such "internal applications". If your grocery store has a bulk foods department, and prints out UPC codes from a scale, the code will probably begin with 4.)

And the UCC is the body responsible for handing out the company codes.

Cue Cat Stevens

[MountainLogic]

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. ;-)

Re:ISBN's

[gorilla]

Almost all wrong. Most of the ISBNs you've seen start with 0 or 1 because the first digit(s) identifies the language or country that the publisher of the book is in. 0 and 1 are English, 2 is French, 3 is German, 4 is Japan, 5 is USSR, 7 is China, and 8 and 9 are used for the rest of the world. If it's a really small country, then the first 5 digits could be country code, eg 99912 for Botswana. The second portion is the publisher, the third the book, and the last the checksum. With the expection of the checksum, these are all variable length, so for example 0-340-62839-1 indicates an english language book from a large publisher, while 1-56592-528-9 indicates another english language book from a smaller publisher. The checksum is 11-(sum(digit*(10-position))%11), so the the second ISBN is 1*10+5*9+6*8+5*7+9*6+2*5+5*4+2*3+8*2=244, 244%11 = 2, 11-2 = 9.