GS1 Datamatrix is what I see here locally (Switzerland) starting being used for fresh food like sandwiches which makes sense as it contains the sell by date. This allows them to quickly scan items and sort out what has expired or needs a discount because it's expiring soon.
Sadly food tracking apps still don't read these codes. They are vibe coding new features constantly but not working on adding what is actually important.
Prediction.... 'about to', will mean over the next fewdecades. Retail product barcodes may be the fastest to go, over the next 2 decades. Other uses, like self printed labels for warehouse stock control will be here for the foreseeable. You might install a new Manufacturing Execution System in 20 years that supports it. But the Warehouse Management System and ERP don't...
- Retail 2D codes are being rolled out at scale from next year already in many markets; 2d codes will be on many products in the supermarket. Preparations for this have been ongoing for quite long. Mostly scanners have been ready for this for some time. Most recent hardware should handle all this fine. Scanners that don't handle 2D will rapidly disappear.
- For industrial use, QR codes are already quite common. Use of QR codes is much less about replacing existing bar codes with QR codes and more about completely new uses for QR codes. You are right that most factories won't do invasive changes in their setups unless there's a good reason. But efficiency improvements tend to be a good reason.
I was at the Logimat fair in Stuttgart earlier this year. Lots of companies demonstrating scanners, sticker printing, camera modules, and all the rest. There are a lot of companies actively pushing all sorts of solutions around 2D codes.
Isn't it the other way around? QR codes have built-in error correction whereas barcodes typically don't (beyond a single check-digit, which is more error detection rather than correction, and even that depends on the information being encoded) so can sustain a surprisingly large amount of damage and still be readable.
Indeed, I often see QR codes which have been deliberately damaged for the visual impact (e.g. chunks missing to make a pleasing shape, or place an arbitrary logo in the centre). They still work due to the error correction but now there's no redundancy left and one additional piece of damage might literally make it unreadable.
As I understand it, The key bits of data are in the QR code, they are just encoded as a URL - a highly structured URL that point of sale systems can decode without visiting the URL.
Doing it this way means the QR code is directly usable by consumers to get to a product info / marketing page, and directly usable by the POS systems.
We have the technology to encode a short, plain human-readable description of an item into a 2D barcode, with born-on and/or sell-by dates, and/or things like serialization and/or lot codes, or other useful things.
Brevity is important; fields can have a standardized-but-flexible format that fits the particular item's needs.
A single-quantity small Fuji apple, picked today (October 3, 2026), with a PLU of 4129, and a magic-number lot code of b29sF, distributed by Stemilt Growers might present as such:
Apple Fuji Sm,B0261003,P4129,Lb29sF,MStemilt
A single 1.5 liter bottle of Crystal Geyser spring water with a UPC of 07514000500, a best-by date of January 12 of 2028, and a lot code of kek67:
Water Spring 1.5l,D0280112,U07514000500,Lkek67,MCG
We can even add more real information and still have less data to encode than:
...but, I mean: A coded URL for a website that might be designed to avoid being forthcoming with information isn't necessarily any better for consumers, long-term, than the UPC we've had for over 50 years. It's still just a pointer that relates to someone else's database. It has no informational value on its own.
The advantage of using a hyperlink is that consumers do not need an application-specific decoder, they can use their standard reader. And manufacturers can provide additional data (in theory: user manuals, but in practice most likely 404s, tracking and ads).
As I understand it, fields are standardized. I don't think they contain the name of the product (I didn't read the spec), but the other info is there, so no need to hit the servers/db on other servers.
As for the quantity of data, Qr codes have special encoding modes depending on the content. The numeric mode uses 3.3 bits per digit, the alphanumeric 5.5 bits per character (45 characters in the set). Switching modes in the stream is supported, though it adds a few bits of overhead.
Looking at the examples, it looks like the scheme is not as efficient as it could be (pesky slashes, alphanumeric at the end), but that's not too bad either.
There's ways to shrink the bit cost down, for sure. The commas in my example are particularly expensive, for instance, since commas aren't part of QR's alphanumeric set.
It was just a quick expression of an idea, presented in the form of a gripe; it's not a formal specification.
As to consumers, and their hardware: People still get new phones and features can be (and sometimes actually are) added to existing phones. I'm not too worried about it as a constraint; things would catch up soon enough.
> We can even add more real information and still have less data to encode
The reason they're so verbose comes from a few facts.
First of all, it's an existing logistics labelling standard, they've just replaced brackets with forward slashes and put a domain name on the front. So https://example.com/01/09521207311511/21/1234ABDE1235 is just a QR code version of those huge barcodes like (01)09521207311511(21)1234ABDE1235 you see on cases of products in the supermarket.
Second of all, the standard doesn't limit itself to a single date, so they can't identify dates with a simple ,D prefix. It's a kitchen sink standard [1] with 16 different types of date (production date, due date, packaging date, sell by date, best before date, expiration date, release date, first freeze date, harvest date, production date and time...) and just as many options for sizes and weights - so the identifier can be up to 4 digits. /11/ or /8008/
The third thing to know is QR codes pack different alphabets at different densities. Numbers at 3.5 bits per character, upper case letters and some symbols at 5.5 bits per character, ASCII at 8 bits per character. So the 13 characters of of "Apple Fuji Sm" uses about as much space in a QR code as a 29-digit number like "12345678901234567890123456789"
Fourth, you've replaced the 14-digit GTIN with an 11-digit UPC and replace the 13-digit serial number with a 5-digit lot code :)
IMHO the standard isn't going to take over the world, and anyone who says "Barcodes are about to go extinct" doesn't know what they're talking about. But it's not the information density, it's other reasons.
Absolutely - I 100% expect the links to lead to feel-good marketing fluff at best and end up being useless for consumers, but the stated goals are at least good.
It's just that, sadly, we can no longer have nice things.
If items have unique (ie serialized) codes, then it's safe to assume that those codes will be recorded at purchase (since that's kind of the whole point), along with who bought them (yay discount cards and cashless society).
Now the contents of my pantry describe things like where I've been, when I was there, and/or who I hang out with. Fun times!
Even with cash and without discount cards: One random food label out of a recycling bin can relate all the way to photos of the purchaser's face at checkout, track them walking to their car, and see where that car went. This could happen months or years down the road.
Most of those pieces are already in-place: Our photos are already recorded alongside of our transaction details -- that's been going on in POS world for a long time. Tracking people to their vehicle is a function of Avigilon camera systems. Tracking the car itself is the primary purpose of Flock.
All that's missing right now is serialization records and a centralized database.
I'm sure that nobody will ever finish fitting these things together into a cohesive system and that nobody would ever use it with ill intent.
It probably would never happen anyway, since there's not a single retailer on Earth who would ever exchange this kind of data for an upgrade to their in-store surveillance systems and a monthly check. ;)
(And we still don't get directly-useful consumer information into or out of these new 2D barcodes. I love losing.)
I'm glad to see this. Switching to a new standard barcode format that can hold more data and enable better tracking of physical consumer goods seems like the sort of thing that will have a large number of small benefits pervasively in the economy, one of the many small improvements of human technological civilization that in the aggregate results in a better world today than in the past.
I also like the aesthetics of QR codes better than traditional barcodes. They do kind of invoke the look of a Go board partway through a game, which is more visually interesting than the boring straight lines of the traditional barcode.
I recall all the chat, maybe twelve to fifteen years back when Asian use of QRs took off, thanks to ready availability of mobiles. There were impassioned arguments that it might be fine in those markets but it would never catch on in the West because it was not appealing to consumers who wouldn't want them all over magazines and menus. I never bought that, as fairly quickly the phones came with built in recognition and it was just a matter of time. We saw at table ordering thanks to COVID and many products added QR for consumers even if the shops hadn't pushed it (in the UK at least)
Been a huge fan of QR codes since the beginning. URLs are awesome, and QR codes are a way of putting links in the real world. Obviously awesome! There was a dark period in the early 2010s where everyone I said this to sent me a link to an empty tumblr "people scanning at codes", but I'm glad they've gotten more traction. Took a trip to Santiago this past week, and they are ubiquitous: from room service and connecting to WiFi to menus in every restaurant. Super cool.
QR codes will not likely be used to their potential. They are being used as 1D bar codes. I have seen products with several QR codes all over different parts and in the manuals. Usually if you scan them going to a useless homepage or a manual that does not specifically refer to the thing being scanned without an exhaustive search.
Remember the most important fact about these codes: Nobody cares.
I am the creator of https://www.closient.com/ - a GS1 Digital Link Resolver (still building it, be gentle).
I have been deep into this space for a fair bit of time now. The real power is in Recalls and Return Fraud. There a ton of other nice things that this will empower of course. AMA - I will do my best to answer.
Not advertising - just trying to get the word out on 2D codes and RFID and what they provide consumers.
For those saying "Why not something else?" - it comes down to adoption - QR was just the more popular winner. While the register/till is where most of the scanning is happening the QR is just a normal URL and consumer can scan them.
Interesting, but your website looks completely AI-slopped.
HN readers are probably much deeper down the AI rabbit hole than people who buy barcode software. The fact you see and judge an AI-created website poorly doesn't mean customers of the product will.
It's possible that you're in the middle of the Venn diagram of barcode software buyers and HN readers though. In that case your comment is very insightful.
At a fundamental level, if the website isn't the product, the product has been public-facing and/or created post-2025, and it's not coming from a multi-million funded tech business, I wouldn't dock points for a slopped website — let the team focus on maintaining and using skills related to the actual product, while still having a working website. Even if the visual and textual tone may be off-putting, a decent-looking slopped website is better than no website, I prefer being able to discover and interact with them at all than not.
Just don't bury the core concept of your product in marketing-slop on your website (this site is certainly pushing that limit for me).
Well, „classic“ barcodes have the advantage that they can span the entire product length. That makes it easier for me at Self-checkout counters. Hard to do with QR codes :)
At family mart in China, some of the pastries are in bags with a QR code and a bar code. If it accidentally scans the QR code the self checkout (not in English) goes into a weird mode and I have to get help. So I just learned to cover the QR code for any packaging that had both it and a bar code on the same side.
Yeah. But this is a problem this can fix, in theory. Instead of having multiple codes you could just have one with the info for every piece of the chain that needs it.
Barcodes are easy and cheap to read in a way that QR codes aren’t (particularly complex ones)
Any old cheap laser scanner will read a barcode and they can be made at large sizes e.g. how Aldi use them on products in the UK to make self scan faster
QR codes need a camera, their complexity goes up as more data is encoded in them so require better cameras especially is high speed situations
They both have places in the world and will co-exist for years to come
I don't see how this is better, my first thoughts: more difficult to print, more difficult to scan, vulnerable to light shifts (imagine trying to scan a can with colored bar code in a club with flashing lights) and impossible to print in some technolgies.
Bar code won't go away exact for the reason it's super simple to scan and print. Even QR codes can't stand that (and if you tried scanning yourself grocery in soft bag with barcode in the corner which gets crumpled you know what I mean).
What a bad piece. Optical is obsolete. Decathlon (here in France at least) has RFID on all their products, they're used as anti-theft, automatic tilling: you just put them in a box at the register and it knows what it is (also kills the chips once paid) and very likely they're used all along the logistic chain.
The chips are sub-cents per unit in terms of cost and weigh milligrams.
RFID chips come in many flavours the ones most used are passive, i.e. basically just a bunch of wires printed on a tiny piece of carrier material. The label on a shirt contains more resources by weight.
Really only wires, or is there still a (tiny) chip on there somewhere?
While it can indeed be helpful as an indication, cost often doesn't factor in externalities such as pollution during production, and recycling after use. Paper has much fewer problems in those areas.
100% agreed, but if you truly want to go down that route, you'll quickly find that basically NOTHING has externalities priced in. If you truly were to do that (which I'm personally not opposed to), prices of pretty much all goods and services would need to be adjusted.
It's ok, these will go right next to the trillions of cigarette buds thrown in nature each year and probably the trillion of trillion microplastics and nanoplastics shed each year.
Nothing to see here and there can't be any possible negative consequences when people are making so much money.
I've worked in wholesale logistics (backend for inventory management) for many years way back when and let me tell you, cost of ink vs cost of a chip the least of the problems. Barcodes (and QR codes as used here) have two major flaws: reading them is challenging (works fine if the package is undamaged and you TRUST that it contains what it says on the box) and they're still just a number. RFID can help with both these issues and the savings from that can outweigh the additional cost by a lot.
Utility is key and RFID has a lot of advantages over bar codes (and QR codes).
Merchandise point-of-sales tags isn't the only use of barcode or QR codes. Hospitals aren't going to start putting RFID for all equipment, files, and patients.
And what is average price of one product in Decathlon compared to Lidl? Apples and oranges. How do you put RFID on fruit, vegetables and pastry btw. or you propose wrapping everything in unnecessary packaging?
So, depending on the place you don't weigh your vegetables in the aisles anymore, you know: low trust society and such. Either the cashier does it or yourself under the eye of the automated register CCTV. For places that still does they can just migrate to do it at the register and save the price of the barcode stickers and the printer. Pastries are either in boxes already barcoded so just stick an RFID instead or counted at the register by the cashier or yourself too. And nowadays RFID stickers cost nothing at that scale.
the code is overall the whole picture. Even in non-printed areas (its still printed as fine dots on areas that actually are "void"). You need around 4x4cm (as my experiments some years ago concluded). That code-tile is repeated over the whole area. Typically, your thumb may cover some parts, but there are other parts that are scanned and which holds the encoded things.
Even better: you can encode an ID like in qr/barcode or what ever you want or you also can encode URLs and have some backend processing the "access to the partial URL". You can have a lot information encoded. As i remember its more than with ordinary QR code at the same area. May be I have forgotten something.
Its actually the base for the "holy grail 2.0" initiative to make recycling of printed packaging better. It then doesnt even matter if you only have a peace of the packaging. It must be big enough to carry the code (that roughly 4x4 cm). The code has some ID which is looked up and then all the information neccessary to know what material it is, how to recycle it - all the important things can be looked up in the DB and then handled accordingly.
its a nice thing with own problems, but better approach as barcode/qr code.
I think this is great! i've long wanted a future where i can stock my fridge and cupboards with goods and scan the barcodes in and be tracking what their expirations are to better manage when i need to restock or throw things out
Yes I do really like their self checkout too. Just throw 12 items in the box, quick check and recap but everything was recognized. Pay by card and leave. Its the only self checkout I've experienced which don't make me angry :)
In the UK I've noticed some items having 2D barcodes instead of 1D ones lately. Of course, all the scanners have been able to read them all for years now. They're not all QR codes, though. Other 2D barcodes exist.
An unintentionally appropriate metaphor. How many of the ~17 meteorites that hit the planet per day do you pay attention to?
Sadly food tracking apps still don't read these codes. They are vibe coding new features constantly but not working on adding what is actually important.
Yazio, im talking to you...
- Retail 2D codes are being rolled out at scale from next year already in many markets; 2d codes will be on many products in the supermarket. Preparations for this have been ongoing for quite long. Mostly scanners have been ready for this for some time. Most recent hardware should handle all this fine. Scanners that don't handle 2D will rapidly disappear.
- For industrial use, QR codes are already quite common. Use of QR codes is much less about replacing existing bar codes with QR codes and more about completely new uses for QR codes. You are right that most factories won't do invasive changes in their setups unless there's a good reason. But efficiency improvements tend to be a good reason.
I was at the Logimat fair in Stuttgart earlier this year. Lots of companies demonstrating scanners, sticker printing, camera modules, and all the rest. There are a lot of companies actively pushing all sorts of solutions around 2D codes.
Are there studies on how that might affect logistics?
Indeed, I often see QR codes which have been deliberately damaged for the visual impact (e.g. chunks missing to make a pleasing shape, or place an arbitrary logo in the centre). They still work due to the error correction but now there's no redundancy left and one additional piece of damage might literally make it unreadable.
Surely the actual data will be stored in the QR code and available offline
Doing it this way means the QR code is directly usable by consumers to get to a product info / marketing page, and directly usable by the POS systems.
Edit: I looked it up. An example URL:
https://example.com/01/09521207311511/21/1234ABDE1235
01 is a marker before the traditional barcode.
21 is a marker before the serial number.
There seems to be many other codes like 17 (expiry date) and 10 (batch number).
We have the technology to encode a short, plain human-readable description of an item into a 2D barcode, with born-on and/or sell-by dates, and/or things like serialization and/or lot codes, or other useful things.
Brevity is important; fields can have a standardized-but-flexible format that fits the particular item's needs.
A single-quantity small Fuji apple, picked today (October 3, 2026), with a PLU of 4129, and a magic-number lot code of b29sF, distributed by Stemilt Growers might present as such:
A single 1.5 liter bottle of Crystal Geyser spring water with a UPC of 07514000500, a best-by date of January 12 of 2028, and a lot code of kek67: We can even add more real information and still have less data to encode than: ...but, I mean: A coded URL for a website that might be designed to avoid being forthcoming with information isn't necessarily any better for consumers, long-term, than the UPC we've had for over 50 years. It's still just a pointer that relates to someone else's database. It has no informational value on its own.As I understand it, fields are standardized. I don't think they contain the name of the product (I didn't read the spec), but the other info is there, so no need to hit the servers/db on other servers.
As for the quantity of data, Qr codes have special encoding modes depending on the content. The numeric mode uses 3.3 bits per digit, the alphanumeric 5.5 bits per character (45 characters in the set). Switching modes in the stream is supported, though it adds a few bits of overhead.
Looking at the examples, it looks like the scheme is not as efficient as it could be (pesky slashes, alphanumeric at the end), but that's not too bad either.
It was just a quick expression of an idea, presented in the form of a gripe; it's not a formal specification.
As to consumers, and their hardware: People still get new phones and features can be (and sometimes actually are) added to existing phones. I'm not too worried about it as a constraint; things would catch up soon enough.
The reason they're so verbose comes from a few facts.
First of all, it's an existing logistics labelling standard, they've just replaced brackets with forward slashes and put a domain name on the front. So https://example.com/01/09521207311511/21/1234ABDE1235 is just a QR code version of those huge barcodes like (01)09521207311511(21)1234ABDE1235 you see on cases of products in the supermarket.
Second of all, the standard doesn't limit itself to a single date, so they can't identify dates with a simple ,D prefix. It's a kitchen sink standard [1] with 16 different types of date (production date, due date, packaging date, sell by date, best before date, expiration date, release date, first freeze date, harvest date, production date and time...) and just as many options for sizes and weights - so the identifier can be up to 4 digits. /11/ or /8008/
The third thing to know is QR codes pack different alphabets at different densities. Numbers at 3.5 bits per character, upper case letters and some symbols at 5.5 bits per character, ASCII at 8 bits per character. So the 13 characters of of "Apple Fuji Sm" uses about as much space in a QR code as a 29-digit number like "12345678901234567890123456789"
Fourth, you've replaced the 14-digit GTIN with an 11-digit UPC and replace the 13-digit serial number with a 5-digit lot code :)
IMHO the standard isn't going to take over the world, and anyone who says "Barcodes are about to go extinct" doesn't know what they're talking about. But it's not the information density, it's other reasons.
[1] https://ref.gs1.org/ai/
It's just that, sadly, we can no longer have nice things.
If items have unique (ie serialized) codes, then it's safe to assume that those codes will be recorded at purchase (since that's kind of the whole point), along with who bought them (yay discount cards and cashless society).
Now the contents of my pantry describe things like where I've been, when I was there, and/or who I hang out with. Fun times!
Even with cash and without discount cards: One random food label out of a recycling bin can relate all the way to photos of the purchaser's face at checkout, track them walking to their car, and see where that car went. This could happen months or years down the road.
Most of those pieces are already in-place: Our photos are already recorded alongside of our transaction details -- that's been going on in POS world for a long time. Tracking people to their vehicle is a function of Avigilon camera systems. Tracking the car itself is the primary purpose of Flock.
All that's missing right now is serialization records and a centralized database.
I'm sure that nobody will ever finish fitting these things together into a cohesive system and that nobody would ever use it with ill intent.
It probably would never happen anyway, since there's not a single retailer on Earth who would ever exchange this kind of data for an upgrade to their in-store surveillance systems and a monthly check. ;)
(And we still don't get directly-useful consumer information into or out of these new 2D barcodes. I love losing.)
I also like the aesthetics of QR codes better than traditional barcodes. They do kind of invoke the look of a Go board partway through a game, which is more visually interesting than the boring straight lines of the traditional barcode.
Remember the most important fact about these codes: Nobody cares.
I have been deep into this space for a fair bit of time now. The real power is in Recalls and Return Fraud. There a ton of other nice things that this will empower of course. AMA - I will do my best to answer.
For some other stuff to read about how they can help have a poke at https://blog.closient.com/
Not advertising - just trying to get the word out on 2D codes and RFID and what they provide consumers.
For those saying "Why not something else?" - it comes down to adoption - QR was just the more popular winner. While the register/till is where most of the scanning is happening the QR is just a normal URL and consumer can scan them.
HN readers are probably much deeper down the AI rabbit hole than people who buy barcode software. The fact you see and judge an AI-created website poorly doesn't mean customers of the product will.
It's possible that you're in the middle of the Venn diagram of barcode software buyers and HN readers though. In that case your comment is very insightful.
Just don't bury the core concept of your product in marketing-slop on your website (this site is certainly pushing that limit for me).
Barcodes are easy and cheap to read in a way that QR codes aren’t (particularly complex ones)
Any old cheap laser scanner will read a barcode and they can be made at large sizes e.g. how Aldi use them on products in the UK to make self scan faster
QR codes need a camera, their complexity goes up as more data is encoded in them so require better cameras especially is high speed situations
They both have places in the world and will co-exist for years to come
Bar code won't go away exact for the reason it's super simple to scan and print. Even QR codes can't stand that (and if you tried scanning yourself grocery in soft bag with barcode in the corner which gets crumpled you know what I mean).
Hopefully they can reproduce and ensure the survival of their species.
While it can indeed be helpful as an indication, cost often doesn't factor in externalities such as pollution during production, and recycling after use. Paper has much fewer problems in those areas.
Nothing to see here and there can't be any possible negative consequences when people are making so much money.
Utility is key and RFID has a lot of advantages over bar codes (and QR codes).
Even if the customers does it, it still takes a lot more time and space than scanning a basket full of RFIDs labels. It literally takes seconds.
Perhaps not for files, but definitely for equipment.
My diving mask and backpack certainly went through optical.
Even better: you can encode an ID like in qr/barcode or what ever you want or you also can encode URLs and have some backend processing the "access to the partial URL". You can have a lot information encoded. As i remember its more than with ordinary QR code at the same area. May be I have forgotten something.
Its actually the base for the "holy grail 2.0" initiative to make recycling of printed packaging better. It then doesnt even matter if you only have a peace of the packaging. It must be big enough to carry the code (that roughly 4x4 cm). The code has some ID which is looked up and then all the information neccessary to know what material it is, how to recycle it - all the important things can be looked up in the DB and then handled accordingly.
its a nice thing with own problems, but better approach as barcode/qr code.
Reminds me of RFID labels pipe dream.
Visit a decathlon when you have time, they’ve been using that since a long time, it’s neat
This won’t work for groceries though: the margins are too thin and there’s too many manufacturers.