Jim Levinger CEO Nextcode on CTIA White Paper on mobile barcodes
Dear Bena,
Thank you for your invitation to share my reactions to the CTIA Code Scan Action Team (CSAT) Whitepaper.
First, let me applaud the US carriers involved in the CSAT for their time and effort to investigate code scanning. I am pleased that they trying to move forward to support scanning services in the US market.
However, I agree with Iain McCready of Neomedia and Mark Hendriksen of UpCode, that the whitepaper, as currently written, comes well short of promoting an optimal, open, and effective solution for the market.
The whitepaper states:
“The ecosystem architecture is designed to stimulate a multi‐vendor, interoperable, competitive marketplace. “
However, as proposed, the ecosystem will fail to meet these goals. The ecosystem as envisioned by the whitepaper is too closed and proprietary. As a result, it will block involvement by multiple vendors, limit innovation, not meet market needs, and will not foster competition. The following are several of the core flaws of the whitepaper.
Mandating support for EZ Code
EZ Code is a proprietary code only available from one firm. Thus requiring that EZ Code must be supported, does not benefit the ecosystem rather it may effectively award the reader development business to that firm. If proprietary codes are to be included as part of the ecosystem, there must be SDKs available for third parties to develop readers to support them. So far such software is not available for EZ Code.
Further, EZ Code has distinct technical shortcomings. It is a single size, inflexible, hexadecimal code format, with a limited amount of data. Many potential code-based applications cannot be supported with EZ Code. Thus basing the architecture on this code format, not only inhibits the involvement of multiple vendors but inherently constrains the flexibility and capabilities of the entire ecosystem.
Lack of Support for Direct Codes
I understand and support the CSAT’s goal of creating an indirect code scanning service offering. A good indirect offering can provide more advanced and flexible services, plus smaller codes. Further, unlike the QR model of Japan, an indirect ecosystem can generate revenue for carriers and technology providers and is good for business. Regardless of this widespread interest in promoting indirect services, to not fully support direct codes in the ecosystem is short sighted and will cause fragmentation of this market.
Support for direct codes is core to interoperability. Today virtually all code scanning is done with open direct codes such as QR or Data Matrix, where URLs, SMS messages, contact info, etc, is fully encoded in the codes.. This will not stop and direct codes will continue to be created. Without the carriers supporting direct codes in readers loaded onto phones, users will otherwise need to have two or more code readers on their phones to use CSAT sanctioned codes and direct codes. The code different reader software and the codes will likely be incompatible, creating consumer and advertiser confusion and hurting the marketplace. Consumers who have trouble scanning and receive a few error messages about incompatible or unsupported codes will get frustrated and soon stop scanning altogether.
Limited options for Campaign Management
At the Campaign Management level it is essential that there should be lots of vendors. Advertisers should be able to select from a range of vendors that deliver services that are best structured for their needs. However, the whitepaper suggest that there may be only a few vendors at this level and that a single vendor could control an entire symbology. Limiting options will greatly constrain innovation in services and technology and will be anti-competitive. Customers will want choice, and flexibility, not one size fits all approaches. There are many code based services that cannot be delivered effectively based on an overly centralized architecture. Further, if only a few firms run these systems, those firms will have unfair advantages to tailor services, track data and support customers. Others who would be relegated to just Code Sales Agent roles could have little control and thus little to offer customers
Code scanning is a powerful mobile marketing tool. Introducing code based services is a huge opportunity for the industry. Let’s make sure that we get it right. It is essential that these services are designed correctly so solutions can truly meet the CSAT’s goal of “ a multi‐vendor, interoperable, competitive marketplace. Hopefully the CSAT will take this, and other constructive input to revise the proposed approach so the industry can move forward successfully.
Jim Levinger
CEO
Related News:
Well said Jim.
So far we’ve heard excellent responses from NeoMedia, UpCode, and now Nextcode.
What about Scanbuy?
Perhaps Jonathan Bulkeley would be willing to stand up and be a man and grace us with a formal response.
What do you say Jonathan ….. Are you man enough?
Nicely stated, Jim.
“The following are several of the core flaws of the whitepaper.
Mandating support for EZ Code”
“Consumers who have trouble scanning and receive a few error messages about incompatible or unsupported codes will get frustrated and soon stop scanning altogether.”
Hopefully the person/group that supported Scanbuy in the white paper will either get a clue or get out of the decision making board.
Nextcode has also developed their own proprietary code format called mCode. Would Jim Levinger have the same view or opinion on the CSAT Whitepaper if the mCode was chosen by the U.S. carriers?
Jim, well said! The EZcode is a dead end street that doesn’t meet the demands of today’s businesses. It seems Scanbuy still has a lot of $$$ to get on carrier decks.
Most of the comments seem to be focused on Scanbuy and EZ_CODE, as though that is all CTIA is supporting. Most also suggest this will in effect close the door to many vendors etc.
A proprietary code is a single vendor code, plain and simple. However I do not see how this will slow down adoption of the technology. CTIA did not exclusively decide to support only a proprietary code, they chose two code formats to support, both using the indirect method. The Data Matrix is the open source code everyone wanted early on, and it is supported by CTIA.
I do not see an open source and a proprietary code competing as a problem to adoption. Anyone who has studied this technology knows in the early stages there will be room for both, and let the best model win. Those vendors who do not like the EZ-CODE option can develope their solutions with the Data Matrix and all would be happy.
I agree with DLETHE01 for a change, and seem to think these comments are based on the fact that several vendors in the space are upset their solutions were not the sdopted standard, and thus the focus on the EZ-CODE aspect of the white paper.
The one aspect that in my opinion is more a negative then the EZ-CODE is the fact they did not include the most wide spread open source code in their decision, that being the QR code. That code with its widespread adoption already is not going to go away in place of Data Matrix. I still believe in the future it will become the prevelent open source 2D code. I understand that the CTIA focus in this white paper was on US adoption, and in the US the Data Matrix is more widely in use today then any of the other two open standard codes, but that usage is not a consumer orientated use, which is where this technology is heading. Its in use for the industry mainly at this time, for inventory and tracking purposes and not mobile marketing services.
So I guess the bottom line is, there are two choices at this time, an open standard code choice, which all 3 companies remarking here hope to employ through their own closed loop methods, or the proprietary code which is employed completely in a closed loop method. That was apparently the intent of CTIA, to allow both methods to go forward and let the best one win out in the end, be it 2 years from now or longer, thus providing some level of competition and methodology. Both will survive for the foreseeable future, until real mass adoption has already occurred.
[...] Jim Levinger CEO Nextcode on CTIA White Paper on mobile barcodes Dear Bena, Thank you for your invitation to share my… [...]