[Animats]

Isn't this what QR codes on signs were supposed to do?

You don't need an "app" just to talk to some retail thing. Many retail apps are a dodge to get inside your phone and snoop around, acquire your contacts list, and track where you are.

[solipsism]

Yep, this is just QR codes made better. It's similar to pet microchip implants too. The only app you need is one that knows how to listen for the signals and point you in the right direction when you choose to visit one.

[x1798DE]

How is this similar to pet microchip implants? If there were a way to robustly put a QR code on my pet instead of using a microchip, I would - you'd be able to identify easily that the pet is tagged, and the readout devices would be more widespread.

I also don't see at all how this is better than a QR code on a physical object, other than that it's invisible - which is itself not great, since unless you allow these things to be intrusive and pop up something on your phone when you get too near to one (no thanks), there's no built-in call to action. You'd basically need a sticker on everything supporting this that says, "I support Physical Web!"... in which case you might as well have a QR code.

[solipsism]

How is this similar to pet microchip implants

In that it's a thing that's hidden in an object that you can scan for that identifies it and gives information about it.

there's no built-in call to action.

It's trivially and plainly better than a QR code on a physical object. Even if you did have to have a sticker on everything saying "I support Physical Web", the fact that I don't have to scan the sticker -- instead I can just click it in my phone -- makes it better. But I don't think you're using your imagination if you think you'd have to have a sticker on every single thing that broadcast itself. Let me use my imagination for a second.

When I enter a garage it would be nice to not have to look around for a QR sticker, reach my hand out of the car with my phone, and scan it. I would just know that when I enter a garage my top hit when I bring up the Physical Web (for lack of a better name) will almost certainly be the garage's interface to allow me to pay.

When I'm walking around a city it might be nice if I, casually browsing the Physical Web, could notice that someone near me is willing to sell bitcoins for cash-in-hand in a virtually untraceable transaction, without having to see and scan a QR code on that person's forehead.

It would be nice if I could set my phone to automatically tell me over headphones that the next bus is expected in N minutes whenever I walked up to a bus stop, all without requiring me to pull my phone out or take my gloves off in the middle of a Chicago winter.

You're just not thinking outside the box.

[x1798DE]

I don't know that it's plainly better than a QR code, but your point is presumably well taken that if a broad area were saturated in ID signals that would be better than a single fixed QR code, once the user knows that the physical web is supported. I was thinking mainly of this in the context in which it was presented, which is being embedded in discrete objects like vending machines or the like, in which case the search space for a QR code is fairly small, and advertising that the physical web is supported could be replaced by existing technology.

I also don't see that it's "plainly better" to click on it through a phone. It depends on the different interfaces. How much do each of these things cost? If we're allowed to spend infinite money on any minor improvement, why not give everyone HUDs with high resolution cameras that can scan any QR code within line of sight? How much battery life are these scans taking? How much complexity do they add to the phone UI? What will the security issues be? I'm just not sold on the big benefits here.

[bmelton]

Technologically, they are fairly dissimilar, but on use cases, they're more closely aligned to the layperson than their tech distinctions would indicate.

Both require relative proximity -- in the case of the pet sensor, physical propinquity is a constraint imposed by the technology, while a QR code, that constraint is imposed by the camera attempting to read it. Either way, you have to be close.

Both technologies act as a bridge for data. In the case of the pet sensor, it basically encodes a unique ID, which is then used to query against a database housed elsewhere, which holds the real information. In the case of the QR code, the same is basically true -- the real payload is after the redirect.

Either way, the mechanics aren't too different -- get close to something, read (or scan) it, and be taken to wherever the magic really happens.

[wuliwong]

I was thinking along these lines as well. I suppose the difference is that these are QR codes that "broadcast" themselves to whoever wants to listen?