Intel’s RFID Move To Slash Reader Prices

Written by Evan Schuman
March 6th, 2007

Intel on Tuesday will aggressively move into the RFID, integrating enough RFID into one of its chips to cut reader prices anywhere from 50-60 percent.

Intel is expected to make its first move into the RFID space and will try and cram enough discrete components into its chip to slash reader prices, reduce power consumption and shrink the needed footprint.

The UHF RFID transceiver branded by Intel will be called the R1000 and the chip giant is claiming to have schmooshed “approximately 90 percent of the discrete components found in a typical RFID reader radio (including receive, transmit, baseband, modulation and demodulation functionality) onto a single chip.”

That miniaturization effort brings with it quite a few Intel claims, some of which are more legitimate than others, but the most significant part of the introduction is simply that Intel is doing it, said Drew Nathanson, a senior RFID analyst with VDC in Natick, Mass.

The $35 billion chip company’s move “gives so much credibility to the RFID industry,” Nathanson said. That’s merely by Intel lending its name to the effort. It’s “not tapping into their own capacity at this point” and they are outsourcing the actual manufacturing, he said.

Intel internally launched its RFID plans about three years ago, with about $20 million in initial seed funding for a small startup team, said Kerry Krause, the marketing director for Intel’s RFID operations.

Krause said the new design should force reader prices to about half of where they are today. Nathanson agreed that reader prices will plummet, but he is projecting a much steeper fall than even Krause predicted.

“By integrating these components in?at a $40/pop price point?you’re going to significantly bring down reader” costs, Nathanson said. Today’s typical EPC UHF reader costs about $1,600 to $1,700, Nathanson said, adding that he expects to see those prices quickly hit about $500.

Intel’s “cutting out a lot of the components” that reader manufacturers such as Symbol Technologies and ThingMagic have historically had to put in themselves.

Another advantage claimed by Intel is less power needed. The R1000 will need about one-and-a-half watts of power, compared with typical readers today that they need anywhere from 20-40 watts, Krause said. That’s low enough that it could allow limited deployments with non-traditional power sources, such as short-range power supplied by the USB and long-range powered by Ethernet. But, Krause concedes, “most reader modules will be powered in the more traditional way.”

The small size of the unit?an 8-millimeter 56-pin QFN package?also makes it attractive for various form factors, such as mobile phones.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.