Google Product Search and Barcode Intent!
This afternoon the Google Product Search group released a new feature that called the Android barcode intent. Greg Kumparak over at TechCrunch predicted that they would include the intent a while back and he must have been pyschic. Google’s product search features have been optimized for use on Android handsets and now Google has just revealed how Android might just be the killer phone operating system. Websites, like Google Product Search, can offer ‘intents’ that allow for interaction between websites and mobile applications.
While Google doesn’t have their own barcode application, Zxing has Barcode Scanner and we have ShopSavvy. Both can answer an intent published on a website. See below:
If you go to Google Product Search on an Android phone you can click ‘Scan Barcode’ and the browser will call Android asking for ‘barcode’ intents like Barcode Scanner and ShopSavvy. Just click on the one you prefer and presto you have launched a barcode reader. Barcode Scanner sends you to the Google Product Search page, ShopSavvy provides the same results only in a mobile UI (augmented with additional products not yet included in Google Product Search today). As Greg noted, “Google indicates that Product Search’s barcode index currently works best with electronics, books, movies and video games, though they promise to expand quickly.” To see the barcode intent in action watch the following video:
Still doesn’t provide local pricing which is the key I think to ShopSavvy’s success.
[...] ShopSavvy es una aplicación disponible para Android y en breve también estará disponible para iPhone. Hay quien ya lo ha puesto a prueba como nos explican en MicroSiervos. [...]
very cool! Great use of intents and of course Shop Savvy!
Barcode scanner intent works. Shop savvy doesn’t show. Any ideas?
Do you have ShopSavvy installed?
Was going to send the comments here to a colleague, when I noticed you deleted my two comments here. Your first admin comment was in reply. Why? Wasn’t off topic or nasty, just trying to correct your misconceptions about the nature of the project you refer to. Your remaining comment is wrong, and you removed my reply. Odd.
Not sure what you are referring to. We use the WordPress comment system so it should be working.
Look at your first comment. Whom are you answering? It was my response, which does not appear now. I accept it may be a technical glitch, weird.
Anyway, to restate: it is odd to claim Google did not publish the ZXing project. They plainly did. It was developed by employees, on the clock, and not even within 20% time entirely (I know, because I was one of them). This was a component of a Print Ads strategy initiative. I do not see any evidence the company ‘disclaims’ the project either, or where you get that. For instance it still has the Google label on code.google.com.
It is of course open source and ‘outside the wall’ in that sense. There is not much of a special relationship between the two entities, other than the fact employees still work on it occassionally, and its client functions tie, rather by default, to Google services.
I am not sure what you are getting at, then. What you post is inaccurate, but the point matters little anyway, so I don’t see why you try to push the point then. You have repeated it elsewhere so it seems important. Follow up privately if there is some concern I am missing we should talk about.
I am completely confused. I confirmed with Google legal that ZXing is NOT owned by Google. They suggest that it is an open source project that Google employees author. I think they are concerned about IP trolls who hope to get a fat settlement from Google for patent infringement. Anyway, it seems like a strange argument – i.e. a point without a difference. Whether or not Google owns the IP or doesn’t own the IP matters little. Don’t you agree? You guys did an awesome job! WTG.
Not sure whom you spoke to, or what exactly they said, but if it left you with the impression this was developed by people that just happen to work at the company, completely separately, then that is certainly wrong.
I doubt there is any patent troll ‘strategy’ here, though I believe I know the troll in question, because there just isn’t a patent issue here, and, anyway, truth is truth. It doesn’t serve a purpose to pretend it wasn’t company IP before being published since it quite plainly and publicly was.
I agree, makes little difference, hence I was wondering why you emphasized this point, unless you were getting at something else. If it was bad info or a misunderstanding only, all fine.
Anthony came to the first day or class. ,
Google didn’t publish Zxing – lots of people are confused. Read the about on Zxing – google disclaims ownership or sponsorship 100%. It was written by folks who work at google, but it isn’t even part of their 30% project. Completely Separate.