The History of Barcodes: From Railroad Cars to Every Product - Part 2

it took so long for barcodes to become commercially successful after their invention in 1948. The delay resulted from multiple technological prerequisites that didn't mature until the 1970s. Reliable, affordable lasers weren't available until the late 1960s. Computer systems capable of processing scanner data in real-time required the minicomputers of the 1970s. Printing technology that could consistently produce scannable codes at high speed only became widespread with improved flexographic printing. Most critically, the business case required industry-wide adoption to achieve network effects—a classic chicken-and-egg problem that took regulatory pressure and major retailer commitment to overcome. People often wonder about alternative technologies that competed with barcodes and why they failed. Besides RCA's circular bull's-eye code, numerous systems were proposed: magnetic strips (too expensive and sensitive to demagnetization), radio frequency tags (prohibitively expensive until recently), optical character recognition (unreliable with 1970s technology), and various proprietary codes from companies like Charecogn and Litton Industries. Barcodes succeeded through a combination of low cost, reliability, and open standards. The decision to make UPC a royalty-free standard, rather than a proprietary technology, proved crucial for widespread adoption. The question of who profits from barcode technology reveals interesting economic dynamics. While the basic barcode patterns aren't patented, companies make billions from related technologies and services. Scanner manufacturers like Zebra Technologies and Honeywell generate substantial revenues from hardware sales. GS1 collects membership fees from companies needing barcode numbers—ranging from $250 to $10,000 annually depending on company size. Software companies provide inventory management, point-of-sale, and supply chain systems. The real profits, however, flow to retailers and manufacturers through operational efficiencies, with Walmart alone attributing billions in savings to barcode-enabled supply chain management. Many ask about the first products to carry barcodes and early adoption patterns. While Wrigley's gum was the first retail product scanned, it wasn't the first to carry a barcode—that distinction likely belongs to products in the 1972 Kroger trial. Early adopters included products with high turnover rates where inventory management provided immediate value: grocery items, pharmaceuticals, and magazines. Resistance came from luxury goods manufacturers who felt barcodes diminished premium appearance, small producers who couldn't afford printing changes, and products with irregular shapes that made barcode placement difficult. Some industries, like jewelry and fine art, still resist visible barcodes, using alternative solutions like hidden tags or database lookups. The role of government in barcode adoption generates surprising revelations. While the U.S. government didn't mandate retail barcodes, federal influence proved decisive through military commissary requirements and the FDA's pharmaceutical barcode mandate in 2004. The European Union's traceability requirements for food products accelerated agricultural barcode adoption. China's product quality scandals led to mandatory barcoding for domestic products. These interventions suggest that transformative technologies often require regulatory catalyst to overcome coordination problems, even when benefits are clear. Questions about failed barcode implementations provide valuable lessons. The KarTrak railroad system's demise showed that technical success doesn't guarantee commercial viability. Early hospital barcode systems failed due to resistance from medical staff who saw scanning as beneath their professional dignity. Some developing countries' attempts to leapfrog directly to RFID failed due to infrastructure limitations. The most spectacular failure was probably Japan's attempt to create an incompatible national standard in the 1970s, which they abandoned after recognizing the importance of international compatibility. These failures underscore that successful technology adoption requires not just technical capability but also economic incentive alignment, cultural acceptance, and ecosystem support.