Own a bit of history. Vintage CueCat Barcode reader... Missing screws on bottom of unit. From Wikipedia: The CueCat, styled :CueCat with a leading colon, was a cat-shaped handheld barcode reader released in 2000 by the now-defunct Digital Convergence Corporation. The CueCat enabled a user to open a link to an Internet URL by scanning a barcode — called a "cue" by Digital Convergence — appearing in an article or catalog or on some other printed matter. In this way, a user could be directed to a web page containing related information without having to enter a URL. The company asserted that the ability of the device to direct users to a specific URL, rather than a domain name, was valuable.[1] In addition, TV broadcasters could use an audio tone in programs and/or commercials that, when attached to a computer (via an audio cable), acted as a web address shortcut.[2] The system is no longer in operation, although 103 consumer and commercial equipment manufacturers, services and enterprises have licensed more than 117 "scan commerce" and "scan to connect" patents developed by the company for CueCat.[citation needed] The CueCat connected to computers using the PS/2 keyboard port and USB, and communicated to desktop "CRQ" software running on Windows 32-bit and Mac OS 9 operating systems. Users of this software were required to register with their ZIP code, gender, and email address. This registration process enabled the device to deliver relevant content to a single or multiple users in a household. The systems using this registration process are no longer available on the Internet, and codes cannot be generated for the device. However, third-party software can decode the lightweight encryption in the device. The CueCat was invented by J. Jovan Philyaw, who changed his name to J. Hutton Pulitzer.[3][4] Belo Corporation, then parent company of the Dallas Morning News and owner of many TV stations, invested US$37.5 million in Digital Convergence, Radio Shack $30 million, Young & Rubicam $28 million and Coca-Cola $10 million.[5] The total amount invested was $185 million.[6] In late 2000, advertisements, special web editions and editorial content containing CueCat barcodes appeared for more than a year in many U.S. periodicals, including Parade magazine, Forbes magazine and Wired magazine. Commercial publications such as AdWeek, BrandWeek and MediaWeek also employed the technology. The CueCat bar codes also appeared in select Verizon Yellow Pages, providing advertisers a link to additional information. For a time, RadioShack published their product catalogs containing these barcodes and distributed CueCat devices through their retail chain to customers at no charge. CueCats were also bulk mailed (unsolicited) to certain mailing lists, such as subscribers of technology magazines Forbes and Wired. For roughly a year starting in October 2000, The Dallas Morning News and other Belo-owned newspapers added the barcodes next to major articles and regular features like stocks and weather. In the Wall Street Journal, Walter Mossberg criticized CueCat: "In order to scan in codes from magazines and newspapers, you have to be reading them in front of your PC. That's unnatural and ridiculous." Mossberg wrote that the device "fails miserably. Using it is just unnatural." He concluded that the CueCat "isn't worth installing and using, even though it's available free of charge".[7] Joel Spolsky, a computer technology reviewer, also criticized the device as "not solving a problem" and characterized the venture as a "feeble business idea".[8] The data format was proprietary, being scrambled so as not to be usable as plain text. However, the barcode itself is closely related to Code 128, and the scanner was also capable of reading EAN/UPC and other symbologies. Because of the weak obfuscation of the data, meant only to protect the company under DMCA guidelines (like the DVD protection Content Scramble System), the software for decoding the CueCat's output quickly appeared on the Internet, followed by a plethora of unofficial applications. The CueCat has been widely described as a commercial failure. It was listed as one of "The 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time" by PC Worldmagazine.[9] The CueCat's critics said the device was ultimately of little use: Jeff Salkowski of the Chicago Tribune wrote "You have to wonder about a business plan based on the notion that people want to interact with a soda can," while Debbie Barham of the Evening Standard quipped that the CueCat "fails to solve a problem which never existed."[10] In December 2009, the popular gadget blog Gizmodo voted the CueCat the #1 worst invention of the "2000s" decade.[11] The CueCat device was controversial, initially because of privacy concerns of its collecting of aggregate user data.[12][13] Each CueCat has a unique serial number, and users suspected that Digital Convergence could compile a database of all barcodes scanned by a given user and connect it to the user's name and address. For this reason, and because the demographic market targeted by Digital Convergence was unusually tech-savvy, numerous web sites arose detailing instructions for "declawing" the CueCat — blocking or encrypting the data it sent to Digital Convergence. The site digitaldemographics.com was also registered through Digital Convergence, which also gave credence to privacy concerns about the use of data. The database utilized the unique serial number within each device to determine the viability of deployment through retail, magazine and other distribution partners. The company's response to these hacks was to assert that users did not own the devices and had no right to modify or reverse engineer them. Threats of legal action against the hackers swiftly brought on more controversy and criticism. The company's licensing agreement was changed several times, adding explicit restrictions, apparently in response to hacker activity. Hackers argued that the changes did not apply retroactively to devices that had been purchased under older versions of the license, and that the thousands of users who received unsolicited CueCats in the mail had neither agreed to nor were legally bound by the license. No lawsuit was ever brought against "hackers," as this tactic was not employed to go after specific users or the hacker community specifically, but to show "reasonable assertion" that would prevent a corporation from developing integrated software within an operating system or browser which could take over the device and circumvent the CRQ watchdog software and therefore revenue model that Digital Convergence employed.[citation needed] [clarification needed] Investors in CueCat lost their $185 million. Technology journalist Scott Rosenberg called the CueCat a "Rube Goldberg contraption", a "massive flop" and a "fiasco".[5]
By clicking "Accept All Cookies", you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.
