A group of Physical World Connection (PWC) companies are getting together to create a "standard" 2d code physical world hyperlink. A standard 2d code would allow quicker adoption of this industry.
By having a "standard" mobile code, it would make it easier for mobile phone manufacturers, wireless carriers and mobile marketing companies to implement this technology.
I agree 100% with this idea, but I question the motives, the companies, and the timing of this effort.
From the document:
To enable the simple experience for marketers and consumers, the industry needs standards.
This document is a mission statement for the mobile industry, to create a consortium for a new mobile marketing ecosystem based around camera phones and 2D barcodes. A market-driven, open-standards approach will allow 2D barcodes to act as a catalyst in mobile internet adoption, mirroring the growth of web adoption over the last ten years.
Let me make a few suggestions.
1. Analyze all the mobile codes available from all of the physical world connection (PWC) companies.
You can find a list of the PWC players here . Determine what code is best suited for the MOBILE today and going forward. While the QR code may be considered the most common 2d code, it was initially designed for industrial use and will have limitations going forward for other upcoming Web 2.0 applications.
Look forward to see what codes are being designed for camera phones. There are better options than the QR code or Data Matrix code.
2. Analyze any patent issues that are present, or could develop. One of the companies within this consortium has a pattern of suing (and is still in the middle of a suit) other PWC players and has done a fantastic job of slowing PWC adoption in the U.S. . Now they want quicker adoption?
Is there a questionable motive here?
If this company is eager to see PWC get adopted, do their lawsuits impede this progress?
A PWC company not part of this consortium, has been licensing one of these proposed codes. If they are not included, could this present a problem with this "standard".
I would ask all participants to leave their intellectual property (IP) at the front door when they enter. I suspect this would change how "willing" some of these participants really are for a standard.
3. Outside of this consortium, things are happening rapdidly. Because of this, one could question the timing for this consortium and a "standard". Once again, I agree there should be a standard, but why are these companies proposing it now?
In the last couple months there have been 2 major PWC events (1. 2 ) from 2 different companies with proprietary mobile codes. They were no obstacles landing a major brand or getting a wireless carrier adopt their platform.
Has a major Asian carrier just shown us there is a better mobile code option than the QR code by adopting Nextcode's proprietary mobile code platform .
OP3 , Nextcode , BeeTagg and SemaCode haven't had any problems getting their proprietary mobile codes adopted, why not ask them how they did it. Or at least include them in this consortium for their input.
You can read the MC2's entire statement and the companies associated with it here (pdf)
The html version
If you're on the Physical World Connection list, or if you're a stealth PWC player, I suggest you email these guys and voice your opinion.
Comments and suggestions encouraged.