Hubbry Logo
CueCatCueCatMain
Open search
CueCat
Community hub
CueCat
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
CueCat
CueCat
CueCat
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
CueCat barcode scanner and interposer cables with male and female PS/2 connectors

The CueCat, styled :CueCat with a leading colon, is a cat-shaped handheld barcode reader designed to allow a user to open a link to an Internet URL by scanning a barcode. The devices were given away free to Internet users starting in 2000 by the now-defunct Digital Convergence Corporation.[citation needed]

By year-end 2001, barcodes were no longer distributed for the device, and scanning with the device using its original software no longer yielded results. The CueCat can read several common barcode types, in addition to the proprietary CUE barcodes which had been promoted by Digital Convergence.

Description

[edit]

The CueCat was named CUE[1] for the unique bar code which the device scanned and CAT[2] as a wordplay on "Keystroke Automation Technology".[3] It enabled a user to open a link to an Internet URL by scanning a barcode — called a "cue" by Digital Convergence — appearing in an article or catalog or on some other printed matter. In this way, a user could be directed to a web page containing related information without having to type in a URL. The company asserted that the ability of the device to direct users to a specific URL, rather than a domain name, was valuable.[4] In addition, television broadcasters could use an audio tone in programs or commercials that, if a TV was connected to a computer via an audio cable, acted as a web address shortcut.[5]

The CueCat was connected to computers in the same way as a keystroke logger, as a "keyboard wedge", interposer, or pass-through between the keyboard PS/2 jack and the motherboard PS/2 port. Because of USB-PS/2 compatibility, USB-PS/2 adapters may be optionally used. A native USB version of the CueCat scanner hardware was also produced, but fewer of them were made before all manufacturing of the hardware was discontinued.[6]

Marketing

[edit]
A CueCat "cue". The bars are tilted 22.5° to the left, both for aesthetic reasons and to avoid Lemelson parallel barcode patent concerns.

The CueCat patents are held by Jeffry Jovan Philyaw,[7] who changed his name to Jovan Hutton Pulitzer after the failure of CueCat.[8][9] Belo Corporation, parent company of the Dallas Morning News and owner of many TV stations, invested US$37.5 million in Digital Convergence, RadioShack $30 million, Young & Rubicam $28 million, and Coca-Cola $10 million.[10] Other investors included General Electric, and E. W. Scripps Company.[11] The total amount invested was $185 million.[12]

Each CueCat cost RadioShack[13] about $6.50 to manufacture.[14]

Starting in late 2000 and continuing for about a year, advertisements, special web editions, and editorial content containing CueCat barcodes appeared in many US periodicals, including Parade, Forbes, and Wired. The Dallas Morning News and other Belo-owned newspapers printed the barcodes next to major articles and regular features like stocks and weather. Commercial publications such as Adweek, Brandweek, and Mediaweek employed the technology.[15] The CueCat bar codes also appeared in select Verizon Yellow Pages,[16] providing advertisers with a link to additional information.

For a time, RadioShack printed these barcodes in its product catalogs, and distributed CueCat devices through its retail chain to customers at no charge. Forbes magazine mailed out the first 830,000 CueCats as gifts to their subscribers, since the magazine was starting to print CRQ ("See Our Cue") barcodes in their magazine.[17] Wired magazine mailed over 500,000 of the free devices as gifts to their subscribers. Each publisher private-branded the CueCat hardware they sent to their mailing list.[18][19]

Marketing partners

[edit]

Organizations that used the :CueCat and compatible :CRQ software:[20]

Magazines

[edit]

Catalogs

[edit]

Newspapers

[edit]

Broadcast stations

[edit]

User experience

[edit]

Installation of software and hardware, configuration, and registration took around an hour.[21] Registration required the user's name, age, and e-mail address, and demanded completion of a lengthy survey with invasive questions about shopping habits, hobbies, and educational level.[21] Then users could scan bar codes on groceries, bar codes on books, and custom bar codes in ads in magazines, newspapers, Verizon Yellow Pages, and RadioShack catalogs. The :CRQ software then used that unique serial number from the device to return a URL which directed the user's browser to the sponsored website.[21] It also created a permanent advertisement-displaying taskbar on the user's computers, and could log the web-surfing habits associated with a user's real name and email address.[21]

Reception

[edit]

In The Wall Street Journal, Walter Mossberg criticized CueCat: "In order to scan in codes from magazines and newspapers, you have to be reading them in front of your PC. That's unnatural and ridiculous." Mossberg wrote that the device "fails miserably. Using it is just unnatural." He concluded that the CueCat "isn't worth installing and using, even though it's available free of charge".[22] Joel Spolsky, a computer technology reviewer, also criticized the device as "not solving a problem" and characterized the venture as a "feeble business idea".[23]

The CueCat is now widely described as a commercial failure. It was ranked twentieth in "The 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time" by PC World magazine in 2006.[24] The CueCat's critics said the device was ultimately of little use. Joe Salkowski of the Chicago Tribune wrote, "You have to wonder about a business plan based on the notion that people want to interact with a soda can",[25] while Debbie Barham of the Evening Standard quipped that the CueCat "fails to solve a problem which never existed".[26] In December 2009, the popular gadget blog Gizmodo voted the CueCat the #1 worst invention of the decade of the "2000s". In 2010, Time magazine included it on a list of "The 50 worst Inventions",[27] adding that people didn't accept "the idea of reading their magazines next to a wired cat-shaped scanner".

The CueCat device was controversial, initially because of privacy concerns about its collection of aggregate user data.[28][29] Each CueCat has a unique serial number, and users suspected that Digital Convergence could compile a database of all barcodes scanned by a given user and connect it to the user's name and address. For this reason, and because the demographic market targeted by Digital Convergence was unusually tech-savvy, numerous websites arose detailing instructions for "declawing" the CueCat — blocking or encrypting the data it sent to Digital Convergence. Digital Convergence registered the domain "digitaldemographics.com", giving additional credence to privacy concerns about the use of data.[citation needed]

Security breach

[edit]

According to Internet technologist and Interhack founder Matt Curtin, each scan delivered the product code, the user's ID and the scanner's ID back to Digital Convergence.[30][31][32]

The data format[7] was proprietary, and was scrambled so the barcode data could not be read as plain text. However, the barcode itself is closely related to Code 128, and the scanner was also capable of reading EAN/UPC and other symbologies, such as Priority Mail, UPC-A, UPC-E, EAN-13, EAN-8, 2-of-5 interleaved, CODABAR, CODE39, CODE128, and ISBN.[33] Because of the weak obfuscation of the data, meant only to protect the company under DMCA guidelines (like DVD-Video's Content Scramble System), software for decoding the CueCat's output quickly appeared on the Internet, followed by a plethora of unofficial applications.[34][35]

":CRQ" ("see our cue"), the desktop software, intercepted the data from both the keyboard and the CueCat, before passing it on to the operating system. Versions for both Windows 32-bit or Mac OS 9 were included. Users of this software were required to register with their ZIP code, gender, and email address. This registration process enabled the device to deliver relevant content to a single or multiple users in a household.

Privacy groups warned that it could be used to track readers' online behavior because each unit has a unique identifier.[36] Belo officials said they would not track individual CueCat users but would gather anonymous information grouped by age, gender and ZIP code.[11]

In September 2000, security watchdog website Securitywatch.com notified[37] Digital Convergence of a security vulnerability on the Digital Convergence website that exposed private information about CueCat users.[38] Digital Convergence immediately shut down that part of their website, and their investigation concluded that approximately 140,000 CueCat users who had registered their CueCat were exposed to a breach that revealed their name, email address, age range, gender and zip code. This was not a breach of the main user database itself, but a flat text file used only for reporting purposes that was generated by ColdFusion code that was saved on a publicly available portion of the Digital Convergence web server.

This failure was given a multi-citation Octopus TV "Failure Award" regarding brands that failed to take off and were hacked.[39]

Aftermath

[edit]

Digital Convergence responded to this security breach by sending an email to those affected by the incident claiming that it was correcting this problem and would be offering them a $10 gift certificate to RadioShack, an investor in Digital Convergence.[38]

The company's initial response to these hacks was to assert that users did not own the devices and had no right to modify or reverse engineer them. Threats of legal action against the hackers swiftly brought on more controversy and criticism.[40] The company changed the licensing agreement several times, adding explicit restrictions, apparently in response to hacker activity. Hackers argued that the changes did not apply retroactively to devices that had been purchased under older versions of the license, and that the thousands of users who received unsolicited CueCats in the mail had neither agreed to nor were legally bound by the license.

No lawsuit was ever brought against "hackers", as this tactic was not employed to go after specific users or the hacker community, but to show "reasonable assertion". This would prevent another corporation from developing integrated software within an operating system or browser, which could take over the device and circumvent the :CRQ supervisory software and the revenue model that Digital Convergence desired.[41]

In May 2001, Digital Convergence fired most of its 225-person workforce.[42]

In September 2001, Belo Corporation, CueCat investor and owner of newspapers and TV stations, who had sent at least 200,000 free CueCats to its readers, wrote off their $37.5 million investment,[11] and stopped using CueCat technology with newspapers's editions, notably The Press-Enterprise, The Dallas Morning News, and The Providence Journal.

Investors in CueCat lost their $185 million. Technology journalist Scott Rosenberg called the CueCat a "Rube Goldberg contraption", a "massive flop", and a "fiasco".[10]

Awards

[edit]

In 2001, Computerworld named CueCat as a Laureate in the Media Arts & Entertainment category.[43]

In 2001, Software and Information Industry Association named Digital Convergence Corp.'s :CRQ Technology as Best Reference Tool.[44]

Surplus liquidation

[edit]

In June 2005, a liquidator offered two million CueCats for sale at $0.30 each (in quantities of 500,000 or more).[45]

Once available for free, the device can now be found on sale at eBay for prices ranging from $5 to as much as $100.[46][33]

Open source

[edit]

Hobbyists have reverse-engineered the firmware, software, and the customer database.[35][47][48][49][50][51] Other unrelated companies sold and supported surplus new CueCats as low-cost barcode scanners for use with their software, such as the Readerware library cataloging utility.[6] Eventually, the widespread availability of barcode scanner smartphone apps made the CueCat's capabilities mostly superfluous.[original research?]

Books

[edit]
  • Grand, Joe; Mitnick, Kevin D.; Russell, Ryan (2004-01-29). "Declawing Your CueCat". Hardware Hacking: Have Fun while Voiding your Warranty. Elsevier. pp. 48–82. ISBN 9781932266832. OCLC 741395468.
[edit]
  • :CueCat

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

CueCat

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The CueCat (:CueCat) was a cat-shaped handheld scanner developed in the late by Digital Convergence Corporation, a now-defunct company, designed primarily to read proprietary barcodes called "Cues" embedded in print media such as advertisements and articles. These Cues, distinct from standard UPC or EAN codes, encoded links to advertiser websites, with the device connecting via PS/2 keyboard or USB to a running that interpreted the scan and launched a . Launched in , millions of units were distributed for free through partnerships with publications like Wired and retailers such as , aiming to bridge print and by enabling quick access to online content without manual typing of URLs. Despite initial hype as an innovative tool for media convergence, the CueCat quickly became a symbol of early internet-era overreach, plagued by technical limitations, including incompatibility with non-Windows systems and the requirement for constant connectivity to resolve Cues via Digital Convergence's servers. controversies arose because each scan transmitted a unique device —functioning as a —back to the company, allowing tracking of reading habits without explicit consent, which fueled backlash and hacking efforts to "neuter" the devices for general use. vulnerabilities, such as unencrypted data transmission, further eroded trust, while the proprietary ecosystem stifled adoption amid rising access and simpler alternatives like hyperlinks. Digital Convergence filed for in 2001, rendering the devices obsolete as server support ceased, though CueCats persist as collectibles and have been repurposed by hobbyists for generic scanning due to their low cost and optical quality. The product's highlighted early missteps in user-centric design and data ethics, prefiguring broader debates on in consumer tech.

Development and Technology

Origins and Founders

Digital Convergence Corporation, the company behind the CueCat, was established in 1997 in Dallas, Texas, with the primary goal of creating a device to link printed media barcodes to online content. The firm was founded by J. Hutton Pulitzer (born Jeffry Jovan Philyaw), an inventor and entrepreneur who served as its chairman and chief executive officer. Pulitzer, recognized for his work in scanning technologies, had developed the foundational CRQ (Cue Reader Query) barcode system as early as spring 1992, which formed the basis for the proprietary "CUE" codes used by the CueCat. Under Pulitzer's leadership, Digital Convergence focused on producing the cat-shaped handheld scanner, trademarked as :CueCat, which combined optical reading with PS/2 connectivity for computers. The initiative stemmed from Pulitzer's vision of "scan commerce," enabling users to scan codes in magazines, ads, or products to access web-linked information without manual typing. By late 1999, prototypes were in testing, leading to the device's free distribution starting in 2000 through partnerships with media outlets and retailers. Pulitzer's prior experience in patenting scanning innovations and his role in Digital Convergence positioned him as the key figure in the project's , though the company's rapid growth to over 300 employees reflected broader contributions in and . The origins of the CueCat thus trace to Pulitzer's early technological groundwork, commercialized through the 1997-founded corporation amid the dot-com era's enthusiasm for bridging analog and digital worlds.

Device Design and Specifications

The CueCat featured a distinctive cat-shaped ergonomic , approximately the length of a but roughly half as wide, with a wand-style form factor held between thumb and forefinger. It included stylized elements such as paws for grip alignment and a forward-facing "nose" or "eye" serving as the scanning tip. The device's lightweight construction facilitated handheld use for scanning printed media. The scanning mechanism utilized an optical red light requiring direct contact with the surface to capture data, outputting undecoded strings that emulated keyboard input for compatibility with standard systems. A status light indicated readiness, flashing in standby mode and solid when active for scanning. Connectivity variants included PS/2 keyboard ports via a with pass-through design, inserting inline between the keyboard and computer without needing drivers, and USB 1.1 interfaces recognized as Human Interface Devices for plug-and-play operation. Power was supplied directly from the host computer through these connections, with no separate battery or required. Supported symbologies encompassed standard formats such as UPC-A, UPC-E, EAN, and ISBN, alongside proprietary CUE barcodes tailored for linking physical media to digital URLs. The hardware encoded a unique device serial number with each scan, though this was primarily handled in associated software for user tracking.

Software Architecture

The CueCat system's integrated embedded within the hardware device, a client application installed on the host , and backend server components hosted by Digital Convergence for barcode-to-URL resolution. The , executed on the device's , handled optical scanning of barcodes—including standard UPC-A/EAN formats alongside proprietary CUE codes—via an integrated and . Upon detection, the applied a lightweight XOR-based algorithm to the raw data, incorporating a unique device serial identifier (GUID) for tracking, before emulating (HID) keyboard input to transmit the encoded string over PS/2 or USB interfaces as a series of keystrokes, typically formatted as ".CUE" followed by the . The client-side software, primarily a Windows-compatible application distributed via by Digital Convergence (branded as :CRQ in some implementations), operated as a background service to intercept the emulated keyboard events produced by the CueCat. This application performed decryption of the XOR-encrypted output using a fixed key reverse-engineered by early users, extracted the cue code and associated GUID, combined it with a identifier obtained during mandatory setup and online registration, and constructed an HTTP GET request to Digital Convergence's central servers (e.g., at domains like cuecat.com). The software then parsed the server response, which contained the target , and automatically launched the user's default to that destination, thereby bridging scans to without direct local mapping of codes to links. Server-side operations relied on a infrastructure to map decrypted CUE codes—proprietary identifiers assigned to media partners—to partner-provided URLs, while query parameters including user IDs and scan timestamps for aggregated and demographic profiling. This enforced dependency on Digital Convergence's by withholding plaintext barcode-to-URL mappings from clients, with serving primarily to channel all interactions through monitored server queries rather than enabling standalone use. Compatibility was limited to Windows environments in official releases, though third-party drivers and utilities emerged for DOS, , and alternative decoding, often exploiting the simplistic to repurpose the device as a generic .

Launch and Business Model

Initial Rollout and Timeline

The :CueCat barcode scanner was initially rolled out by Digital Convergence Corporation in early September 2000, with free distribution to subscribers of magazines including , Wired, and . Devices were also made available at no cost through stores, where each unit cost the retailer approximately $6.50 to manufacture. By late September 2000, promotional advertisements featuring :CueCat-compatible barcodes began appearing in high-circulation publications, enabling early users to scan for linked online content. In 2000, select newspapers, such as and other Belo Corporation-owned titles, integrated proprietary :Cue barcodes alongside major articles to drive traffic to digital counterparts. This marked the expansion from magazine inserts to broader print media partnerships. Digital Convergence projected aggressive adoption, aiming to place 10 million :CueCat devices on consumer desktops by the end of 2000 and scale to 50 million by 2002, positioning it as one of the fastest technology rollouts in history. The initial phase emphasized free hardware paired with required software installation and user registration to access CRQ barcodes, which encoded URLs distinct from standard UPC formats.

Marketing and Distribution Strategy

The :CueCat was marketed as a revolutionary device enabling the convergence of print media and the , allowing users to scan proprietary barcodes—termed "cues"—in magazines, advertisements, and product packaging to instantly access related websites without typing URLs. This positioning targeted tech-savvy consumers and media companies seeking to enhance engagement with during the late 1990s dot-com boom, with promotional efforts highlighting ease of use and potential for interactive . Distribution relied on a freemium model, providing the hardware at no upfront cost to encourage mass adoption and cue scanning, which generated user data for the company's revenue through licensing to advertisers. Devices, manufactured at an estimated cost of $6.50 each, were disseminated via multiple channels starting in 2000, including direct mailings to millions of households, subscriber inserts in publications, and in-store giveaways. Key retail partnerships facilitated broad availability, notably with , which stocked and promoted the scanners in its outlets nationwide as part of an aggressive push to reach electronics enthusiasts. Marketing campaigns leveraged these outlets and media allies to distribute over 10 million units, bundling software installation CDs and emphasizing the device's cat-like design for memorability, though unsolicited mailings drew some consumer backlash for perceived invasiveness.

Partnerships and Media Integrations

Digital Convergence established partnerships with prominent print media outlets to embed proprietary CUE barcodes in advertisements, articles, and promotional content, enabling users to scan links to advertiser websites or editorial extensions. Magazines including Wired, , BusinessWeek, and integrated these barcodes and distributed free CueCat scanners to subscribers as part of promotional campaigns, with Wired and BusinessWeek featuring them prominently at launch to drive traffic from print to digital content. Newspapers such as The Dallas Morning News, owned by investor Belo Corporation, were early adopters, printing CUE codes in editions starting in September 2000 to link readers to online stories, classifieds, and ads; Belo distributed over 200,000 scanners to subscribers. These integrations extended to television through partnerships like NBC, an investor, where barcodes appeared in broadcasts for on-screen scanning to access web content. The company licensed its technology to media and advertising clients for revenue, rather than selling scanners, which were given away free through channels like stores and mail-in promotions tied to magazine subscriptions. , another investor, supported ad integrations across partnered publications to track consumer engagement via scanned links. Despite these efforts, adoption varied, with some outlets like and scaling back after initial trials due to low user uptake.

Operational Mechanics

Scanning Process and Functionality

The CueCat functioned as a wand-style optical scanner, designed primarily to read proprietary "CUE" barcodes printed in magazines, advertisements, and product . Users initiated the scanning process by connecting the device to a computer's PS/2 or USB port, where it emulated a keyboard to transmit scanned data. To scan, the operator held the scanner's tip at approximately a 45-degree angle to the barcode surface and drew it steadily across the code, either left-to-right or right-to-left, allowing the internal red LED light source to illuminate the bars and spaces while an optical sensor captured the reflected light variations. This optical detection converted the barcode's alternating black-and-white patterns into a , which the CueCat decoded into a alphanumeric string prefixed with ".cue" and including encoded data such as content identifiers and checksums for error detection. The device output this string as keyboard keystrokes into the active software application, requiring no additional drivers beyond basic USB or PS/2 support in most systems of the era. Successful scans typically occurred within seconds, though users often needed multiple attempts due to the manual swipe mechanism's sensitivity to speed, angle, and lighting conditions. Upon receiving the decoded string, the installed CueCat software—provided by Digital Convergence—intercepted the input and appended user-specific identifiers from prior registration before sending an HTTP query to the company's central servers. These servers maintained a database mapping each unique CUE code to corresponding URLs for advertiser websites, product pages, or promotional content, resolving the request and redirecting the user's default to the linked destination. This server-mediated functionality ensured centralized control over links but necessitated an active internet connection, distinguishing the CueCat from standalone readers. While optimized for CUE barcodes, the hardware could technically read standard formats like UPC-A or EAN-13 if unmodified input was captured, though original software filtered for codes and the process relied on server validation for full functionality. The system's design prioritized seamless integration of print media with digital access, aiming to drive traffic to partner sites without requiring manual URL entry.

User Registration and Data Handling

To activate the CueCat device, users were required to complete an online registration process after installing the accompanying software, which involved submitting personal details such as , , , and sometimes age range. This step generated a unique user identifier (:CC ID) associated with the individual's profile and stored in the for device activation. During operation, each scan—whether a CUE code or standard type—encoded the CueCat's hardware alongside the scan data, which the software transmitted to Digital Convergence's servers via HTTP requests. The servers decoded the transmission to retrieve the corresponding for display in the user's default , while simultaneously logging the scan details linked to the registered user ID for aggregation into behavioral profiles. This linkage enabled Digital Convergence to track scanning patterns, infer interests from media interactions (e.g., magazine ads or product cues), and compile demographic datasets for sale to advertisers, with the software ID incorporating profile elements like for refined targeting. Data retention policies, as outlined in Digital Convergence's statements, permitted the company to store and analyze user-submitted information indefinitely for marketing optimization, without explicit mechanisms for scan logging at launch in September 2000. Users could not fully anonymize transmissions without third-party modifications, such as software hacks that substituted randomized IDs for the , though these bypassed official functionality and risked service denial.

Compatibility and Installation Requirements

The CueCat scanner primarily connected to personal computers via the , requiring users to insert the device inline between the keyboard cable and the computer's to enable keyboard passthrough alongside input as emulated keystrokes. A secondary USB version was produced for direct connection to USB ports, functioning as a (HID) without needing specialized drivers, and compatible with operating systems including Windows, Mac OS X, and that support standard USB HID peripherals. Official software compatibility was limited to 32-bit Windows systems—such as , 98, and 2000—and , with installation requiring an internet connection for barcode resolution and user registration. The setup process entailed plugging the device into the host port, inserting the provided or downloading the 1Cue software from Digital Convergence, and completing registration by submitting details including , , age range, and to activate profile-linked content access. No minimum hardware specifications beyond a standard PC with a functional keyboard port and web browser were explicitly stated, reflecting the era's low computational demands for barcode emulation and web linking. Post-launch, third-party tools expanded usability; for instance, USB models integrated seamlessly with modern systems via built-in OS drivers, while software like Readerware's utilities supported cataloging without proprietary registration on compatible platforms. However, original PS/2 connectivity posed challenges on newer hardware lacking legacy ports, often necessitating adapters or virtual machines for emulation.

Reception and Performance

Commercial Metrics and Adoption Rates

Digital Convergence distributed millions of CueCat devices free of charge through partnerships with print media publishers and retailers, aiming to drive widespread adoption for linking to online content. By September 2000, nearly one million units had been given away, with expectations of further large-scale distribution via magazines and stores like . alone provided more than 3 million devices by April 2001, supported by a $30 million investment in the venture. Despite this volume, actual user activation and engagement remained limited, indicating low adoption rates relative to distribution. Publishers reported distributing devices to several million subscribers by early 2001, yet usage metrics highlighted disinterest; for example, Wired magazine, which mailed over 400,000 CueCats to subscribers, recorded only about 60,000 instances of codes being scanned. Daily demands for activation codes peaked at 1,000 to 5,000 during business hours in late 2000, but this did not translate to sustained activity. The initiative secured $185 million in venture capital funding, reflecting initial investor optimism amid the dot-com boom, but failed to achieve commercial viability as scanning habits did not materialize at scale. This shortfall contributed to Digital Convergence's eventual dissolution in 2001, with unsold inventory and underutilized hardware underscoring the disconnect between giveaway volume and practical uptake.

User Feedback and Usability Critiques

Users reported significant inconvenience in the CueCat's core scanning process, as the device required a physical connection via serial or USB port to a , necessitating that users position magazines, newspapers, or products directly in front of their PC screen during operation. Wall Street Journal columnist critiqued this setup in an October 12, 2000, review, stating that "in order to scan in codes from magazines and newspapers, you have to be reading them in front of your PC. That’s unnatural and ridiculous," highlighting how the tethered design undermined the device's purported goal of seamless web access. This lack of portability contrasted sharply with later mobile scanning technologies, rendering the CueCat impractical for spontaneous use away from a desktop setup. Installation and setup further exacerbated usability frustrations, with reports of the process consuming over an hour and frequently failing even for experienced users. A review from the same date as Mossberg's piece described the CueCat as "more trouble than it was worth," likening its operational feel to that of a cumbersome rather than an intuitive scanner, which deterred sustained adoption. Analysts echoed these sentiments; Yankee Group's Rebecca Nidositko noted that consumers generally rejected tools perceived as difficult without offering substantial rewards, predicting low engagement beyond initial curiosity. Perceived lack of practical value compounded these technical hurdles, as often directed users to advertiser-controlled pages laden with promotional content rather than directly useful , leading to reluctance among consumers who saw minimal benefit in scanning everyday items like soda cans or print ads. technology writer Jeff Salkowski questioned the real-world applicability, arguing that most product interactions fulfilled basic needs without prompting further digital engagement. TidBITS contributor Mark H. Anbinder forecasted that users would experiment briefly—such as scanning household items once—before abandoning due to its limited ongoing utility. These critiques contributed to widespread indifference, with the CueCat drawing "yawns" from consumers despite free distribution.

Achievements and Positive Assessments

The CueCat achieved notable scale in its initial rollout, with Digital Convergence distributing over 3 million units to consumers starting in September 2000, primarily through partnerships with major publications such as Wired, , and Belo Corp.'s media outlets. These collaborations involved embedding proprietary CUE barcodes in print advertisements and articles, enabling direct web links that demonstrated early potential for bridging analog media with online content during the dot-com era. Proponents, including technology commentator , have assessed the core concept positively as an innovative method for mass-distributing barcode-reading hardware paired with software to facilitate seamless transitions from print to digital destinations, a mechanism that anticipated later technologies like QR codes for experiences. The device's plug-and-play via USB or serial ports offered users a novel convenience for accessing advertiser websites without manual entry, which early adopters in media-integrated campaigns found efficient for supplemental content like audio clips or product details.

Controversies and Failures

Privacy Concerns and User Tracking

The CueCat device incorporated a unique embedded in each unit, which was transmitted to Digital Convergence servers alongside scanned data during every use, enabling the company to associate specific scans with individual devices and thereby track users' patterns across magazines, advertisements, and other print materials. This mechanism raised alarms among advocates, who argued that it facilitated granular profiling of personal interests without adequate user or transparency, as the software automatically routed scans through company intermediaries before redirecting to target websites. User registration, required for full functionality, compelled individuals to submit personal details including name, , age range, gender, and , directly linking anonymized device data to identifiable profiles for purposes. Digital Convergence maintained in its that it collected only aggregate data and did not track individual usage, asserting that device IDs served merely for inventory and error reporting; however, critics from groups like the Privacy Foundation contended that the system's design inherently supported individualized , recommending removal of user-specific tracking features and unique identifiers to mitigate risks. Early disclosures revealed that the installed desktop software transmitted scan metadata—including the cue code, timestamp, and device ID—to company servers even for non-registered users, with initial licensing agreements burying these details in , prompting accusations of deceptive practices. While the company later updated its policies to allow opt-outs and clarified practices in response to backlash, the default tracking model fueled widespread , exemplified by independent analyses showing how reverse-engineered drivers could bypass server pings to enable -preserving local decoding. These concerns contributed to user resistance, with some media outlets and privacy watchdogs labeling the device a potential vector for unchecked commercial in an era predating robust protection regulations.

Security Breach Details

In September 2000, shortly after the CueCat's launch, Digital Convergence experienced a vulnerability that exposed personal registration data of approximately 140,000 users. The breach allowed unauthorized access to users' names, email addresses, age ranges, genders, and zip codes stored in the company's database, but did not compromise data on scanned content or . Security researcher Peter Thomas of Securitywatch.com alerted the company to the issue after discovering the flaw, prompting Digital Convergence to immediately disable the affected website section and conduct an internal investigation confirming the scope of exposure. Digital Convergence responded by notifying affected users via email and compensating them with $10 gift cards to , where many CueCats were distributed. The incident amplified existing concerns about the device's mandatory user registration and tracking features, contributing to negative publicity and eroding consumer trust in the product. No evidence emerged of further exploitation beyond the initial discovery, but the breach highlighted vulnerabilities in the company's early online infrastructure during a period of rapid scaling to distribute millions of devices.

Technical and Strategic Shortcomings

The CueCat's hardware design presented several usability challenges, including its elongated, cat-shaped form factor, which resembled an electronic toothbrush and proved awkward for prolonged scanning sessions. The device connected via a , typically the keyboard input, requiring users to employ a splitter or unplug their keyboard during operation, which disrupted standard computing workflows on many systems lacking multiple ports. This tethered serial connection, combined with the need for precise alignment over barcodes, often resulted in unreliable reads, particularly on glossy surfaces or in suboptimal lighting. Software integration further compounded these issues, as the CueCat relied on proprietary desktop applications for Windows or Mac that demanded initial installation and user registration before functioning. These programs intercepted scans to launch browsers via encoded "cue" barcodes—proprietary glyphs distinct from standard UPC codes—but frequently encountered compatibility glitches, such as failure to recognize inputs without precise calibration or updates. Technology columnist critiqued the overall process as "unnatural and ridiculous," noting that scanning triggered convoluted steps like software pop-ups and mandatory online checks, rendering the device far less convenient than manually typing URLs or using emerging search tools. Strategically, Digital Convergence overproduced millions of units—distributing approximately 4 million free devices through partners like , Wired, and —at a manufacturing cost of about $6.50 each, without adequate validation of consumer demand. This approach, fueled by $185 million in venture funding amid the 2000 dot-com peak, assumed widespread adoption would generate revenue through aggregated scan data sales to advertisers, yet activation rates remained abysmally low due to the device's perceived redundancy in an era of improving . The company's response to early technical tinkering exacerbated adoption barriers; when hobbyists reverse-engineered the to repurpose the hardware—revealing embedded serial numbers for tracking—Digital Convergence issued cease-and-desist letters and updated license agreements to prohibit such modifications, alienating a potential developer community that could have extended the device's utility. Reliance on cues, rather than printable URLs, underscored a misjudgment of user behavior, as consumers resisted the gated when direct web entry sufficed, contributing to the firm's operational collapse by mid-2001.

Decline and Legacy

Company Dissolution and Financial Fallout

Digital Convergence Corporation, the developer of the CueCat, ceased operations in January 2002 after failing to secure additional funding despite raising approximately $185 million in venture capital. The company's rapid expenditure on marketing, distribution partnerships, and device production outpaced revenue generation, which relied primarily on licensing fees from media partners rather than direct sales. By mid-2001, Digital Convergence had distributed millions of free CueCat devices but struggled with low user engagement and advertiser adoption, leading to unsustainable cash burn. In May 2001, the firm laid off most of its workforce, reducing from around 225 employees to a skeleton staff of about 20 by June. These cuts followed earlier investor concerns over the device's vulnerabilities and technical limitations, which eroded confidence and halted further investment rounds. Without new capital, operations wound down, resulting in the shutdown of servers and support for the CueCat software by early 2002. The financial fallout primarily impacted venture backers, who recouped little to no return on their $185 million investment amid the dot-com bust. No formal filing occurred; instead, the company quietly dissolved, leaving behind unsold inventory and abandoned partnerships with retailers like . This outcome exemplified broader risks in early-2000s tech ventures, where hype-driven funding failed to translate into viable business models.

Surplus Liquidation and Post-Mortem

Following the cessation of operations by Digital Convergence Corporation in , surplus CueCat inventory—produced in the millions for promotional distribution—was disposed of through liquidators and secondary markets, often at deep discounts reflecting production costs estimated at around $7 per unit. Investors, including , , and , absorbed losses from the $185 million in expended without achieving viable streams. Post-mortem analyses identify the core failure as a mismatched that prioritized for over user value, leading to widespread rejection amid early-2000s sensitivities. The device's reliance on proprietary barcodes and serial-numbered registration for tracking user behavior amplified distrust, as evidenced by user opt-outs and media scrutiny, while the awkward cat-shaped hardware and dependence on dial-up-era limited practical utility. Overinvestment in hype-driven scaling, without iterative validation of , exemplifies risks in venture-backed hardware ventures where technical novelty fails to align with .

Open Source Reverse Engineering and Cultural Impact

Hobbyists rapidly reverse-engineered the CueCat following its 2000 launch to circumvent its proprietary encryption and user-tracking features. The device employed a simple XOR-based obfuscation for barcode output, which was decoded through analysis of its serial protocol, enabling conversion to standard formats like UPC without proprietary software. Hardware modifications proliferated to disable the embedded Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) stored in a 93C46 EEPROM chip, which transmitted user-specific data to Digital Convergence servers for profiling. Common techniques included severing pins 2, 3, or 4 on the EEPROM to nullify the serial output, resulting in a non-tracking "------------------ " string, or grounding pin 4 to force a zeroed identifier. For USB models, similar declawing targeted pin 5 on the HMS91C7316 microcontroller. The "Confuse-a-Cat" mod further bypassed encryption by shorting a +5V line to a board hole near resistor R29, yielding raw barcode data such as "034707031081" on compatible revisions like TM+H Rev 0.3. Open-source tools emerged to support repurposed CueCats as generic scanners. A Ruby gem library facilitated decoding of scanned values for integration into applications. Projects like Arduino interfaces processed unaltered CueCat output via software decryption, allowing use in inventory systems or custom readers without physical alterations. These efforts rendered surplus units—over 3 million PS/2 and 500,000 USB models liquidated post-2001 bankruptcy for about $6 each—viable for hobbyist projects, including LED harvesting or basic input devices. The CueCat's engineering flaws and aggressive measures, exposed through , cemented its status as a dot-com era of technological overreach. Its GUID tracking, coupled with a 2001 security breach leaking unencrypted user data (prompting $10 compensation offers), presaged broader debates on and before such issues dominated public discourse. Culturally, it symbolized corporate misjudgment in assuming users would tolerate tethered hardware for marginal , influencing critiques of DRM and proprietary lock-in; publications later ranked it among history's worst inventions for embodying hype-driven failure. Despite commercial collapse, the distributed scanner concept echoed in adoption, validating barcode-to-digital bridging while highlighting execution pitfalls like platform exclusivity and usability hurdles. In maker communities, hacked CueCats persist as affordable, modifiable relics, underscoring open tinkering's role in salvaging flawed tech.

References

  1. http://viking.org.au/mirror/cuecat/
  2. https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/352/1839
  3. https://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/10/10/the-failure-awards-defunct-branding-9-cuecat-barcode-scanner
  4. https://www.techtimes.com/articles/117026/20151217/ahead-of-their-time-cuecat.htm
  5. https://doctorow.medium.com/it-was-all-downhill-after-the-cuecat-cf8ecb250db2
  6. https://discovery.patsnap.com/company/digitalconvergence-corporation/
  7. https://aventure.vc/companies/digital-convergence-dallas-tx-us
  8. https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2021/01/jovan-philyaw-aka-j-hutton-pulitzer-rides-again/
  9. https://cuecatjovanhuttonpulitzer.wordpress.com/
  10. https://www.jhuttonpulitzer.com/post/cutting-costs-maximizing-results
  11. https://stanford.academia.edu/JHuttonPulitzer/CurriculumVitae
  12. https://blogs.exbiblio.com/2006/09/07/the-cuecat/
  13. https://www.linux.com/news/review-cuecat-barcode-scanner/
  14. https://www.readerware.com/cuecat.pdf
  15. https://www.amazon.com/CueCat-PS-Standard-Barcode-Scanner/dp/B0006SJTOY
  16. https://hackaday.com/2012/07/12/reading-bar-codes-with-arduino-and-unaltered-cuecat/
  17. https://www.instructables.com/Arduino-and-CueCat-barcode-scanner/
  18. https://www.cedmagic.com/cuecat/cuecat.html
  19. https://www.hanselman.com/blog/coding4fun-hardware-boneyard-using-the-cuecat-with-net
  20. https://cexx.org/cuecat.htm
  21. http://linas.org/banned/cuecat/oss.lineo.com.cuecat.cuecat_driver.index.html
  22. http://hemisoft.50megs.com/download.html
  23. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-oct-02-fi-30052-story.html
  24. https://www.salon.com/2000/09/15/cuecat/
  25. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/06/business/speaking-in-bar-code-personal-scanners-link-products-directly-to-consumers.html
  26. https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/101-uses-for-a-dead-cuecat/
  27. https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/consumers-fail-to-make-cuecat-purr/
  28. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2001/09/17/cuecat-was-cute-but-dogged-by-reluctant-web-consumers/
  29. https://www.businessinsider.com/cuecat-scanner-flashback-2015-8
  30. https://adage.com/article/news/digital-convergence-deploys-free-software-linking-print-broadcast-internet-pages/10070/
  31. https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0%2C28804%2C1991915_1991909_1991857%2C00.html
  32. https://adage.com/article/kafka-questionnaire/tools-toys/92588/
  33. https://thehustle.co/why-though-a-cat-ahead-of-its-time
  34. https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2000/10/23/cuecat-falls-short-being-cat/51015349007/
  35. https://archive.jsonline.com/entertainment/120978484.html
  36. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2000/09/25/cuecat-just-a-lap-dog-for-internet-advertisers/
  37. https://www.theregister.com/2000/09/26/cuecat_profiling_potential_described/
  38. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33279274
  39. https://www.llrx.com/2000/10/notes-from-the-technology-trenches-the-cuecat-conflict-shopping-wc3s-html-tidy-for-cleaning-up-code/
  40. https://cuejack.com/
  41. http://www.thewunders.org/SxS/utilities/cuecat.html
  42. https://www.dbpharrison.com/projects/interactivefloor/working-with-cuecats/
  43. https://www.readerware.com/index.php/kbase/
  44. https://www.azaleabarcodes.com/cuecat/
  45. https://www.readerware.com/index.php/kbase/how_do_i_scan_a_barcode_with_a_cuecat_scanner
  46. https://www.instructables.com/Make-a-portable-barcode-scanner-with-an-arduino-an/
  47. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114424637699117715
  48. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/28/technology/cuecat-links-printed-ads-to-web-but-skeptics-are-wary.html
  49. https://www.wired.com/2001/04/getting-product-info-on-cue/
  50. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB99359706870429328
  51. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/15/business/new-economy-device-link-old-media-web-struggles-make-good-promise-internet.html
  52. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB971305166620370724
  53. https://nypost.com/2000/10/12/cat-scanner-wont-survive-nine-lives/
  54. https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/privacy-group-slams-web-tracking-cat/
  55. https://www.zdnet.com/article/will-privacy-kill-the-cuecat/
  56. https://archive.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_7.17.html
  57. https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/new-print-to-web-linking-technology-raises-privacy-concerns/s2/a5154/
  58. https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2000/12/07/the-coming-backlash-in-privacy
  59. http://dizitalconverzence.blogspot.com/2011/02/cuecat-case-study-digital-convergence.html
  60. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/cuecat-users-information-let-out-of-the-bag/
  61. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJOsVGEDlIw
  62. https://alanzeichick.com/2009/10/cuecat-fail-and-graveyard-of-bad.html
  63. https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/31/22208033/jovan-pulitzer-cuecat-georgia-election-fraud-flimflam
  64. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2001/07/02/cuecat-fails-to-connect-with-internet-consumers/
  65. https://museumoffailure.com/exhibition/cuecat
  66. https://www.salon.com/2001/07/11/cue_cat/
  67. https://pbn.com/as-the-cuecat-howls-investors-report-losses6772/
  68. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/09/12/wasting-money-on-cats/
  69. https://www.cbinsights.com/research/corporate-innovation-product-fails/
  70. https://vcinjerusalem.typepad.com/vcinjerusalem/2007/11/20-worst-vc-inv.html
  71. https://github.com/yob/cuecat
  72. https://hackaday.com/2005/06/12/cuecat-hacking/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.