HP's Memory Spot Chip

Iddo Genuth writes, "HP Labs recently revealed a prototype of the Memory Spot Chip, a tiny wireless chip capable of storing and transmitting data. When it hits the market in about 2-3 years, the new chip will enable a variety of applications ranging from digital wristbands that store patient medical information to sound bytes on paper or printed pictures that can be accessed using a reader-equipped device. The article has an interview with Howard Taub of HP Labs and some photos of the prototype chip." The chip can only be read at a distance of 1 mm, so it avoids many of the privacy concerns of RFID. It has about 1000 times the storage capacity and 100-1000 times the data transfer rate of RFID.

Comments

all in the name

[User 956]

The chip can only be read at a distance of 1 mm, so it avoids many of the privacy concerns of RFID. It has about 1000 times the storage capacity and 100-1000 times the data transfer rate of RFID

Well then, they need to call it something catchy, like "RFID Extreme". I'll buy one to go with my Airport Extreme bas station, and my Extreme Doritos.

Re:all in the name

[franksands]

Don't be silly, you should call it rFiD Xtreme

No thanks

[LiquidCoooled]

I can only see 1 metre without my glasses,
But shockingly if I get a device to FOCUS the light I can see much further.

Do they make tiny pringles cans?

follow USB's lead

[User 956]

Or, possibly, they could do something like they did with USB. Call it "RFID 2.0", then rename regular RFID to "RFID 2.0 Full speed", and the real RFID 2.0 to "RFID 2.0 High Speed". That's not confusing at all.

If so close, then why even wireless?

[businessnerd]

The chip can only be read at a distance of 1 mm, so it avoids many of the privacy concerns of RFID.

If they are going to make it so that you have to be 1mm away to read the signal, then why not just make a contact point and do away with the wireless function all together. This would truly avoid the privacy concerns and would function just the same. What's 1 more milimeter of distance anyway?

It seems everything these days needs to be wireless in order to be considered a hot new item. This is like making a "contactless pen." Instead of having to press the pen against the paper to write, you can hover the pen less than 1mm away from the paper.

Re:If so close, then why even wireless?

[mcfuddlerucker]

>> This is like making a "contactless pen."

Kindly stop hoarding this technology to yourself, and let me know where I can purchase this device.

Re:If so close, then why even wireless?

[le0p]

Just a thought, maybe it's because contacts get dirty, scratched, corroded, and stop working? With extrememly close wireless, you achieve a "contact" point without the maintenance issues. You could be right that it's purely a hype creator, but it seems like there might be some merit to me.

Re:If so close, then why even wireless?

[profplump]

Because a wired reader would:
      1. Require the reader to be properly oriented, not merely within range, so that the 2+ contacts required are aligned
      2. Render the chip unreadable when it's dirty
      3. Render the chip unreadable when it's wet
      4. Prevent the chip from be layered inside paper/plastic/fabric -- it would have to be exposed, which complicates manufacturing

Re:If so close, then why even wireless?

[Crimson Wing]

Because if you don't have to have metal-to-metal contact to transfer data, you can have something over it (say, cloth or plastic) for physical protection or concealment and still be able to read the thing by touching whatever's over it. You'd still touch the reader to something, but it doesn't have to be the storage device itself.

Anywho, there was another article about this thing a couple of months ago. I'd look it up, but I've got a bunch of other stuff to do and for some stupid reason my modem (yes, I'm still on dial-up) won't connect at more than 26.4kbps. I don't feel like arguing with it any more than I have to.

Re:If so close, then why even wireless?

[patrixmyth]

Even if it required contact, then it would still be wireless. As long as it doesn't connect by a wire, then it's wireless. To address your point directly however, I assume that the point of allowing it to work with a 1mm distance is to allow it to be enclosed within other materials. For instance, you could put one inside packaging or a protective cover and still allow a reader to access the information. I would love to see nutritional information put into this sort of thing so that grocery shopping could go a bit faster. This would help in comparing the sugar content of drinks or cereal, for instance, or to check for allergans.

Re:If so close, then why even wireless?

[a_nonamiss]

You miss the crucial point. If you make it a maximum distance of 1mm, you can enclose the chip in plastic or some other water-proof material. This is the same philosophy as making rechargable items that charge by induction. (Such as electric razors, toothbrushes, etc.) Induction (as it's implemented in these devices) is very inefficient and only works over a very short distnace, however, they can completely seal the plastic case of the device to eliminate the possibility that water can get in there. (Water + electricity = sadness) If they have a "wireless" device, even if it only works over 1mm, that is still enough to completely encase the device in plastic so that it can withstand the elements. You may still need to touch the device to the reader, but the radio signal travels through the 1mm of plastic it's encased in.

Re:If so close, then why even wireless?

[arielCo]

1. With wired links you need contact pads, which spell trouble (dirt on the pads, dirt coming inside the package, tiny wires, etc).
2. You have to align the contacts for reading/writing. Even if this RF chip actually has to come within 1 mm from the antenna, the latter can have as large a surface as you want it to be.

iButton is a simple, rugged contact-based solution, but it's far from being cheap/small enough to put on every spare widget you sell.

Of course!

[morgan_greywolf]

HP had to develop such a tiny memory technology for their spy cameras! :)

How's this really better?

[jhfry]

The advantage of RFID is that it could be read from a distance... so that you could walk out of a store with a cart full of items and not need to scan each one individually. This removes this ability.

The security concern with RFID is that it could be read from a distance... so a marketing company could scan a cart full of items and not need to scan each one individually. this removes this ability.

OK so now it doesn't benifit you or the store at all... but it protects your security better! But the way I see it is it's no better than the current, cheap alternative of barcodes.

I think where TFA is off is in it's comparing this technology and it's applications to RFID. These technologies are certainly not targetting the same markets or applications. I wouldn't mind the new chip in my credit card (unlike RFID), but don't raise the price of my canned fruit by embedding one in the label.

This new technology is best suited in situations where large volumes of data need to be attached to an object and securely (relative, physical only) read very quickly and with minimal effort. Medical applications come to mind as well as banking, credit card processing, and identification (DL, VISA, Passport).

Needs more range to be practical.

[vmxeo]

Too bad the range is so small. Otherwise it'd be so easy to grab people's sentistive information (say phone records or SS numbers, stuff like that) as they walk by. You'd be able to covertly snag information on anyone- employees, board members, maybe random reporters or thier relatives. Right now it so much hassle hiring outside firms to track this kind of stuff down for you. I'm sure those innovative enginners are working on it though. Go HP!


(note to moderators: I forgot to include sarcasm tags in my post above. Sorry. Really.)

Because contacts wear

[bruce_the_loon]

A wireless device like this can provide a more reliable mechanism than something with a contact. Contacts wear out over time, and even if the time period is short enough to make wear irrelevant, static buildup or incorrect voltages on the reader device could blow the device when you make contact with it.

And finally, unless you're extending an antenna via the contact, you will need more than one contact to make a usable circuit with the reader. On something as small as a Memory Dot, that could be nigh on impossible to achieve with any regularity. Stores hate it when UPC barcodes don't scan first time. Imagine how annoyed they'd be if they have to try three or four times to contact the memory dot.

Re:1mm for Now....

[MadEE]

RFID and Bluetooth Antennas are external and can be modified by users and manufactures for extra range. That is not the case for these devices as the antenna is on the die of the chip. It doesn't mean that you may be able to get 5mm out of the thing in a faraday cage but if you think you are going to get meters out of it I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re:1mm for Now....

[kfg]

What if this 1 mm becomes 1,000 mm?

All you have to do is figure out how to focus Arecibo on it.

Now just stand still while we suspend you a couple miles above Puerto Rico.

KFG

Animals

[Do You Smell That]

These types of devices could be incredibly helpful inside live animals (including humans). Imagine a farmer being able to touch a machine to a computer laying just beneath the skin of livestock. He could use this to collect info from internal probes and other data gathering tools... sugar, water, and fat levels, hormone levels, known pathogens, etc... all could be checked every time the cow wandered in to get milk (as happens automatically in many big farms).

Inside people, temporary chips could be used to do similar jobs for patients in hosiptals; assisting data reporting for patients with diabetes, heart irregularity, etc.

The summary is crap

[John Harrison]

There are contactless smart cards with up to 2 megabytes of storage, built in AES, 3DES, and RSA, that have a 1 inch range and 800 kbps transmit rates. A $1 memory spot looks good compared to a $0.10 rfid chip but isn't so impressive compared to a $1 contactless smart card.

How about deterministic distance?

[Spinlock_1977]

Instead of relying on the sensitivity of today's receivers to come up with "it can only be read from a distance of 1mm", why not implement very simple technology (radio signal ping-pong) to determine the distance of the radio partner? Encryption keys could be passed to ensure a single partner, and possibly moot the entire Pringles Can argument. Or perhaps I'm daft to think any solution could be so simple.