This document proposes the need for a standardized "Check-in 2.0" system to improve upon current check-in technologies. It outlines some of the key limitations of current check-in methods like GPS, cellular location, Wi-Fi and ultrasound that make them inaccurate, battery inefficient, prone to fraud, and lacking a global standard. The document argues that a standardized approach is needed to drive adoption, ensure interoperability across devices, and fully realize the business opportunities of precise location-based mobile marketing. It proposes requirements for an ideal check-in standard including being automatic, precise, battery-friendly, low latency, cross-platform, inexpensive, easy to implement and secure.
The 7 Things I Know About Cyber Security After 25 Years | April 2024
Â
The Future of Check ins
1. January 5, 2011
THE
FUTURE
OF
CHECK-INS
By : 1
Pat Burns, President, DASH7 Alliance & Jayant Ramchandani, COO, Novitaz
2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Letâs Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A âCheck-in 2.0â Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
2
3. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Letâs Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A âCheck-in 2.0â Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
3
4. A Check-in:
Quite simply, making your presence
and identity known to an
establishment or business upon
entry
4
5. A History of Commerce Check-Ins
âCheck-in
1.0â
Airline check in Card swipe, E-commerce cookies, Location-based
counter, circa 1973 circa 1994 services,
circa 1965 circa 2009
7. Hello, Jane Doe
Janeâs Amazon.com
When you visit Amazon, you effectively utilize a cookie-based online
check-in, which
â Personalizes the e-commerce experience for every returning
customer
â Enables real-time promotions, discounts, recommendations,
targeted advertising
â Results in increased cross-sells and up-sells
âŚyet E-Commerce Sites Have Been Using online
Check-Ins For Years
7
9. Like online cookies, next generation check-ins are
enabling future mobile advertising and commerce
spending AND âŚ
9
10. ⌠are creating an
Amazon.com-like
personalized experience
for brick-and-mortar
retailers
10
11. But the bigger
opportunity is NOT
about being the mayor
of a donut shop or
letting your friends
know where you are âŚ
11
12. Next generation check-ins will
Enable Better Mobile Advertising,
Promotions, Search, & Mobile
Commerce
12
13. Introducing CHECK-IN 2.0
provides advertising
networks with
precise coordinates
of your location so
it can serve you
with more targeted
and meaningful
promotions
13
14. Introducing CHECK-IN 2.0
provides advertising
networks with
Solving for the
precise coordinates
âcheck-in problemâ
of your location so also helps solve for
it can serve you other lucrative
with more targeted wireless marketing
and meaningful programs
promotions
14
15. How Huge is The Check-In Market
Opportunity?
Check-ins form the basis
for accurate, auditable
mobile marketing campaigns,
a $24 billion opportunity in
2013.*
15
*ABI Research, 2010
16. Use Case Example #1: Offline âAdsenseâ
s
Novitaz uses an inexpensive, long-range, wireless smartcard to provide retailers
with unprecedented visibility into the offline behavior of their customers while in their stores
16
Source: www.novitaz.com
17. Use Case Example #2: In-Store Marketing
Customer
Enters
Customer Identified upon entry
Services Infrastructure
determines relevant offers
RETAIL STORE based on in-store presence,
e browsing and purchases
Entrance/Egress MENS WOMENS
Hotspots
Internal Hotspots CHILDRENS
e
Customer
Exits Product Offers sent on
Novitaz Hotspots Targeted Offers mobile phone
captures brand and increases sales and
product interest drives customers back to
the store
17
Source: www.novitaz.com
18. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Letâs Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A âCheck-in 2.0â Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
18
31. Check-In 1.0
Is:
⢠Not Battery-Friendly
⢠Not Accurate
⢠Prone to Fraud
⢠Without A Killer App
⢠Inconvenient
31
32. Check-In 1.0 Is High Maintenance
⢠NO automatic check-in
⢠User must consciously invoke an app
with each use
⢠Low quality location granularity âŚ
requires significant manual intervention
32
33. Battery Life is Key To Happiness
High Power Frequent
Draw = Battery =
Recharges
33
34. In Summary
Check-ins today
are novelties with
limited long-term potential
34
35. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Letâs Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A âCheck-in 2.0â Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
35
36. GPS
ď§ Massive battery drain
ď§ 20-30 meter location granularity
ď§ Relies on imprecise geo-fencing approach
ď§ Easily hacked
ď§ Enables âfakeâ check-ins
ď§ Line-of-sight only. Fails indoors and in urban
areas
ď§ Not portable to smartcards, keyfobs, most other
non-phone devices
ď§ 1-way signal, not encrypted
37. Cellular Location
⢠250-1000 meter
location granularity
⢠Requires monthly
carrier subscription
⢠Not portable to
smartcards,
keyfobs, other non-
phone devices
37
38. Wi-Fi
ď§ Major battery drain
ď§ 10-30m location granularity
ď§ Easily hacked, not encrypted.
ď§ Enables âfakeâ check-ins
ď§ Fails while moving
ď§ Not portable to smartcards, keyfobs, and most other non phone
devices
ď§ 1-way signal
ď§ No global standard for WiFi location
38
39. Ultrasound
⢠User must actively invoke application, no background check-ins. Creates
check-in fatigue.
⢠Major battery drain
⢠Very poor location granularity
⢠Ultrasound detection is unreliable in many cases, e.g. carrying phone while
inside purse/jacket
⢠Not portable to smartcards, keyfobs, other non-phone devices
⢠Easily hacked, not encrypted. Unsecured signal creates phantom
check-in risks
⢠1-way signal
⢠Proprietary, no global standard for ultrasound location 39
40. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Letâs Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A âCheck-inâ Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
40
41. âA better solution would
be for the various
services to adopt a
standard for places.â
-- MC Siegler, TechCrunch
41
42. Check-ins Require a Global Wireless
Multiple Benefits Of A
Check-In Standard Beyond GPS!
Standard For advertisers:
A common metric for
auditing advertising
spend
For end users:
Solutions that are
For solution easier to use and
providers: less costly than
ensures proprietary
interoperability solutions
across a diverse
array of devices and
markets
42
43. Yet without a Check-in Standard
⢠Merchants would be required to deploy and
maintain multiple, incompatible check-in
technologies
⢠Handset and other device vendors will have
to deploy multiple check-in technologies on
their devices
⢠Customers would feel pain
In short, a huge revenue opportunity will be STALLED
43
44. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Letâs Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A âCheck-in 2.0â Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
44
45. To Invest in Check-in 2.0, Local Advertisers Will
Require:
⢠A huge audience
⢠Repeated, ongoing check-ins
⢠Repeated, ongoing merchant participation
⢠Reliable, âfraud freeâ targeting
⢠Auditable results
⢠Surmountable privacy concerns
45
46. Itâs Not Just About Phones
âWhat is not going to happen
In 2011â, Dec 17, 2010
46
47. To Attract A Large Audience
⢠Do not limit check-ins to mobile phones!
⢠Include smartcards, keyfobs, tickets, tablets,
watches, laptops âŚ
Allow end users to âcheck inâ using the form factor that is most familiar and
convenient to them ⌠47
48. To Encourage Frequent Check-ins, Make It
Reeeeeaally Easy For The Customer
â Automatic/background check-
in option
â Many device options
â No setup or maintenance
hassle
â Low or zero incremental
cost
48
49. And While The Standard
Should Enable Check-ins âŚ
49
52. Requirements For A Standard
ďąAutomatic
ďąLocation Precision
ďąBattery-friendly
ďąLow latency
ďąCross-platform
ďąInexpensive
ďąEasy to implement
ďąSecure
52
53. Requirement #1: Automatic
⢠Enables âbackground locationâ
so end user doesnât need to
ďąAutomatic
âdoâ anything when entering a
ďąLocation Precision âplaceâ
ďąBattery-friendly
ďąLow latency ⢠Users can continuously share
where they are with friends or
ďąCross-platform merchants
ďąInexpensive
ďąEasy to implement ⢠Allows users to âpassivelyâ
check-in and check-out without
ďąSecure
invoking an application
53
54. Requirement #2: Location Precision
⢠Must be accurate indoors and
ďąAutomatic in urban areas
ďąLocation Precision
⢠Locates customers with
ďąBattery-friendly precision of a few feet
ďąLow latency
ďąCross-platform ⢠Prevents âfakeâ check-ins
ďąInexpensive
⢠Not impacted by location of
ďąEasy to implement the device (e.g. in purse or
ďąSecure wallet)
54
55. Requirement #3: Battery-Friendly
⢠Minimal impact to a smartphone
ďąAutomatic battery ⌠no more energy than
ďąLocation Precision a phoneâs LED âmessage
waitingâ light
ďąBattery-friendly
ďąLow latency ⢠Multi-year battery life for
ďąCross-platform very small form factor devices
(e.g. smartcard, keyfob)
ďąInexpensive
ďąEasy to implement
ďąSecure
55
56. Requirement #4: Low Latency
⢠Allows check-ins while the
ďąAutomatic customer is moving, i.e.
ďąLocation Precision customer does not have to
âstand stillâ to check in
ďąBattery-friendly
ďąLow latency ⢠In the future, allows the
ďąCross-platform customer to check-in to a
moving object (e.g. Conan
ďąInexpensive
OâBrienâs blimp)
ďąEasy to implement
ďąSecure
56
57. Requirement #5: Cross-Platform
ďąAutomatic
ďąLocation Precision ⢠Not limited to a single
device type (e.g. smartphones)
ďąBattery-friendly but can be used in a variety
ďąLow latency of consumer devices including
ďąCross-platform smartcards, keyfobs, access
ďąInexpensive control badges, etc.
ďąEasy to implement
ďąSecure
57
58. Requirement #6: Inexpensive
ďąAutomatic
⢠Minimal impact to smartphone
ďąLocation Precision bill of materials
ďąBattery-friendly
ďąLow latency ⢠Minimal impact to smartcard
or keyfob bill of materials
ďąCross-platform
ďąInexpensive
ďąEasy to implement
ďąSecure
58
59. Requirement #7: Easy to Implement
⢠âOut of the boxâ
ďąAutomatic interoperability
ďąLocation Precision
⢠An actual global, ISO
ďąBattery-friendly
standard. NOT proprietary
ďąLow latency
ďąCross-platform ⢠Globally available frequency,
ďąInexpensive single SKU
ďąEasy to implement ⢠Low total cost of
ďąSecure ownership
59
60. Requirement #8: Secure
ďąAutomatic
⢠Avoids risks of spoofing or
ďąLocation Precision fraud
ďąBattery-friendly
ďąLow latency ⢠Allows user to
ďąCross-platform configure/turn off automatic
check-ins as desired
ďąInexpensive
ďąEasy to implement ⢠Allows full public key
ďąSecure encryption, if desired
60
61. A Comparison
Check-in 1.0 Check-in 2.0
⢠Inaccurate ⢠Accurate
⢠Not Automatic ⢠Automatic
⢠Subject to fraud ⢠Auditable
⢠Power Hog ⢠Low Power
⢠Limited to phones ⢠Multi-device
⢠Non-standardized ⢠Standardized
⢠Not secure ⢠Secure
61
62. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Letâs Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A âCheck-in 2.0â Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
62
63. A Global Standard That is
Uniquely Suited for Check-In 2.0
⢠DASH7 is the ISO 18000-7 Standard for Active RFID
⢠Uses a globally available frequency â 433.92 MHz
⢠Works in tandem with 13.56MHz Near Field Communications
⢠Long Range
⢠High Precision
⢠Multi-year battery life
⢠Low Cost
⢠Low Latency
⢠AES 128 Crypto Support 63
64. Feature Comparison
GPS Cellular Dog Whistle
Triangulation
Automatic Location Yes Yes No Yes
Indoor/Urban Location No No No Yes
Precision
Battery friendly No No No Yes
Low latency No Yes Yes Yes
Platform agnostic No No No Yes
Inexpensive No No Yes Yes
Easy to implement Yes Yes Yes Yes
Secure No Yes No Yes
64
66. DASH7 Is âPiggybackingâ the Introduction
Of 13.56MHz NFC in Smartphones, Smartcards,
And other Devices
With the addition of a two-cent circuit to current 13.56 MHz NFC silicon, all NFC-
enabled smartphones become DASH7-enabled
67. DASH7âs âGoldilocks Zoneâ
1. DASH7 operates at 433.92 MHz
worldwide
2. NFC operates at 13.56 MHz
worldwide
3. 13.56 x 25 = 433.92 ⌠i.e. DASH7
operates at the 5th harmonic
above NFC
4. DASH7 utilizes the same
antenna and nearly the same
silicon as NFC, apart from a
single two-cent circuit
67
70. Enhanced Loyalty
Existing Loyalty Card Check-In 2.0 powered Loyalty Card
What a guest purchased What a guest is interested in purchasing
Identifies cross-sells Identifies new and lost opportunities
Mass Marketing In-Store Presence Marketing
Generic rewards based on Loyalty based on understanding in-store
spend browsing behavior
Enhanced Loyalty
72. Bringing Check-in 2.0 To Market
⢠Requires an ecosystem of suppliers, systems
integrators, and end users like the DASH7
Alliance (www.dash7.org)
⢠Requires readily available and inexpensive
silicon and thin batteries
72
73. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Excuse Me, But What Is A Check-In?
2. These Check-ins Today Are So Lame!
3. Letâs Compare Current Check-In Technologies
4. Why We Need A âCheck-in 2.0â Standard
5. What Should The Standard Require?
6. A Modest Proposal for A Global Check-in Standard
7. Next Steps
73
74. Join The Fun
⢠Join the new DASH7 smart card working group
â Encompasses a range of interests including SIM, NFC,
mobile telephony, credentials, ticketing, more âŚ
⢠Attend the DASH7 Alliance Annual meeting in San Diego on
February 1, 2011 http://ht.ly/3xXGb
⢠For more information, visit www.dash7.org or email our
executive director, Paul Ritchie, at paul@dash7.org
74
Google, Foursquare, Facebook, Loopt, Gowalla, DASH7, NFC, NXP, Infineon, ST Microelectronics,
Orange, KT Telecom, Vodaphone, AT&T, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, RIM, Apple, Shopkick, NTT, SK Telecom, LG, Samsung, China Telecom, Hutchison, Melexis, Semtech, Texas
Instruments,
G&D, Gemalto, Oberthur,
Smartrac, Best Buy, Target,
Starbucks, NFC 2.0, Twitter,
Skout, Yelp, Ericsson,
Huawei, ADT, Assa Abloy,
HID, Sony, Panasonic, HTC,
TSMC, EM Micro, Nordic Semiconductor, Austria Microsystems, IBM, Accenture, EDS, HP