Author: Support

Each Beacon Manufacturer Has its Own App

Each Bluetooth beacon manufacturer typically provides its own proprietary configuration app for several key reasons. Firstly, manufacturers use different internal components and designs, meaning a custom app is necessary to tailor configuration options specifically to the hardware. Many also implement proprietary Bluetooth communication protocols for setup, requiring a unique app to handle these configurations correctly.

Security is another factor, as manufacturers often include measures to prevent unauthorised reconfiguration, and custom apps allow for the necessary authentication and encryption. Customisation also allows manufacturers to highlight unique features that may not be available in generic tools, while a branded app ensures control over the look, feel and overall user experience during configuration.

Some beacons only permit configuration within a limited timeframe after being powered on or require a special mode to be enabled and custom apps are designed to accommodate these specific procedures. Firmware updates are also often delivered through these apps, while support and troubleshooting features, including diagnostic tools and links to support resources, are commonly integrated.

For beacons that store data locally, custom apps offer interfaces to manage that data according to manufacturer-specific formats. While universal configuration tools are theoretically possible, the wide variety of hardware, protocols and features in use makes them difficult to develop, and manufacturer-specific apps remain the most reliable way to fully manage proprietary beacon hardware.

Challenges in Deploying a Location-Based Coupon Service

New research Deploying a Location-Based Coupon Recommendation Service in Retail: Challenges and Lessons Learnt explores the implementation of a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacon-based location service designed to enhance the retail shopping experience by offering personalised coupon recommendations. This system not only improves customer engagement but also provides retailers with valuable insights into consumer behaviour. The study looks into various challenges encountered during the development and deployment phases, expanding on technical, business, and user-related difficulties, and offers lessons that go beyond typical technological issues.

One of the primary technical challenges was ensuring accuracy in tracking customers’ locations within the store. Initially, the system used trilateration to pinpoint exact X-Y coordinates. However, this method proved inadequate due to signal interference and environmental factors. As a result, the team adopted an area-based tracking system, which was better suited for the retail context. To maintain robustness and scalability, advanced techniques such as fingerprinting and machine learning algorithms were employed, which allowed the system to adapt to various store layouts. Expanding the service to over 2,000 stores posed scalability issues that required innovative solutions, particularly in managing different store environments and layouts. Additionally, cost constraints, particularly in regard to hardware and devices, and ensuring compliance with privacy regulations like the GDPR, were significant hurdles. The system had to balance performance with legal requirements while limiting data collection to ensure customer privacy.

From a business perspective, the service needed to align with operational goals. One key challenge was determining the appropriate level of accuracy for tracking customer movements. After discussions with the business stakeholders, it was agreed that precise X-Y positioning was unnecessary; instead, tracking customer movements within specific store areas, such as aisles or product sections, sufficed. Defining these areas of interest was critical, as some store sections required more detailed tracking than others, depending on the season or product demand. For example, chocolate aisles may be more important during the winter, whereas ice cream sections are prioritised in the summer. This required a flexible, business-driven approach to configuring the system.

Beacon placement posed another set of challenges. Initially, the beacons were installed at human height on store shelves, but this led to significant interference from obstacles such as stocked products. Moving the beacons to the ceiling reduced signal interference and provided more stable coverage. However, this required careful calibration to ensure optimal signal strength, battery life, and overall system performance. The team also had to consider different types of mobile devices used by customers, as varying device capabilities affected the system’s performance, requiring additional adjustments and testing.

User acceptance played a crucial role in the success of the system. Initially, employees expressed concerns about the potential health risks of working near BLE beacons. These concerns were alleviated after the staff was educated about the low levels of radiation emitted by the beacons. On the customer side, users were more likely to engage with the system when offered personalised incentives, such as coupons tailored to their shopping preferences. The system proved effective, as it increased average basket size, showing that personalised coupon recommendations not only improved the shopping experience but also contributed to higher sales. Customers appreciated receiving relevant offers as they moved through the store, streamlining their shopping experience and saving them time.

The study concludes by highlighting the importance of integrating technical solutions with business goals, user preferences and privacy considerations. The deployment of location-based services in retail is not just a technical exercise but one that requires close collaboration between developers, retailers, and end-users. The lessons learned from this project provide a valuable roadmap for future implementations of similar services, emphasising the need for flexibility, privacy protection, and user-centric design.

Can an iBeacon Send Users to a Website?

The short answer is no, iBeacons cannot directly send users to a website. iBeacons do not have the capability to push content or URLs to devices automatically. Instead, they rely on compatible apps to detect their presence and take appropriate actions which can include sending the user to a web site.

There used to be a mechanism in Android that used the Eddystone-URL advertising format but this has since been discontinued by Google.

New ATEX-Certified Beacon

There’s a new ATEX-certified beacon from Teltonika. ATEX means it’s suitable for use in hazardous environments such as the oil, gas and chemical industries.

There are two variants, one that just sends out its ID and another with temperature, humidity, movement and magnet detection.

These beacons aren’t yet on our web site but are available to special order for use in consulting projects.

What Bluetooth Systems Can Track Working Using Their Smartphones?

Contrary to popular belief, it’s not possible to directly track smartphones using Bluetooth alone. Both iOS and Android devices have built-in privacy protections and limitations that prevent this kind of tracking.

For iOS devices, Apple has implemented randomised MAC addresses for Bluetooth transmissions. This means that the unique identifier broadcast by an iPhone or iPad changes regularly, making it impossible to consistently track a specific device over time. Android doesn’t continuously send out Bluetooth transmissions.

However, whilst smartphones themselves can’t be directly tracked via Bluetooth, there are systems that can perform location tracking using Bluetooth beacons and gateways. These systems rely on people carrying small Bluetooth beacons, often in the form of keyfobs or badges, which broadcast a unique identifier. Fixed gateway devices are then installed throughout an area to detect these beacons.

When a gateway detects a beacon, it records the beacon’s identifier and signal strength to infer distance, along with a timestamp. By combining data from multiple gateways, the system can estimate the location of the beacon, and by extension the person carrying it, within the covered area. This approach is often used in workplace settings for things like occupancy monitoring or contact tracing.

It’s important to note that these systems require active participation – people must choose to carry the beacon devices. This is quite different from the idea of passively tracking smartphones without user consent.

Some retailers have experimented with using Bluetooth beacons to track customers’ movements within stores. However, this still requires customers to have the store’s app installed and Bluetooth enabled on their phones. These work the other way around by having fixed beacons and the app detecting the beacons. It’s not a covert tracking system, but rather one that customers opt into, often in exchange for discounts or other benefits. It’s less reliable due to the nuances of ensuring the app runs on all phones, at all times.

In summary, whilst it’s not possible to directly track smartphones via Bluetooth due to privacy protections and limitations, there are Bluetooth-based systems that can provide location based services when users actively participate.

Low-Cost AoA Wayfinding

There’s a new paper (pdf) on a low-cost wayfinder system using Bluetooth’s Angle-of-Arrival (AoA) technology. This system is designed to help visually impaired individuals navigate public spaces, such as airports or shopping centres. The innovation lies in moving the antenna array required for angle measurement onto the user’s device, simplifying the beacon infrastructure. Each beacon becomes a low-cost, single-antenna transmitter, significantly reducing the deployment cost compared to traditional indoor positioning systems.

The prototype, built with Bluetooth 5.1 boards and developed using Python, successfully demonstrated accurate angle and distance measurement. The system achieved a 10° angle accuracy within 15 meters and calculated distance using the Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI). For visually impaired users, the system could be extended with a voice notification feature. The ultimate goal is to develop the system into a smartphone app.

Future enhancements include addressing front-and-back signal ambiguities by adding orthogonal antennas and extending the system’s range.

Bluetooth vs WiFi Range

When it comes to wireless connectivity, Bluetooth and WiFi are two of the most widely used technologies. While they serve different purposes, they share some similarities in terms of range and frequency usage. Typically, Bluetooth has similar range as WiFi. Standard Bluetooth connections and WiFi can reach up to 50 meters depending on reflection and blocking.

While standard Bluetooth and WiFi devices have limited ranges, there are special Bluetooth beacons designed for extended range capabilities. These beacons can achieve ranges that surpass typical WiFi connections, sometimes reaching up to 4Km. This extended range is achieved through the use of higher power outputs and additional signal amplifiers. However, it’s important to note that the more extreme long-range beacons are specialised devices requiring power via USB rather than battery and are not representative of typical Bluetooth functionality.

Bluetooth 5 brought significant improvements to the technology, including the potential for extended range. Theoretically, Bluetooth 5 can achieve ranges up to four times that of previous versions in ideal conditions. However, it’s important to understand that most Bluetooth beacons, even those supporting Bluetooth 5, don’t usually utilise these extended range capabilities. This limitation is primarily due to compatibility issues with smartphones.

Most smartphones on the market today don’t support the long-range features of Bluetooth 5. As a result, beacon manufacturers often choose not to implement these extended range capabilities to ensure their devices remain compatible with the widest range of smartphones possible. This decision prioritises broad compatibility over the potential for increased range.

Bluetooth Stickers

The term ‘beacon sticker’ often causes confusion. Here’s an explanation of the origins and misconceptions surrounding this term.

Estimote, a former prominent manufacturer of Bluetooth beacons, popularised the term ‘sticker’ by naming one of their beacon models the Estimote Sticker. This product was a small, thin beacon designed to be easily adhered to surfaces. The name caught on, and many articles and discussions began using the term ‘sticker’ when referring to beacons.

Despite the popularity of the term, there is now no specific product category called ‘beacon stickers’. What people often mean when they ask for beacon stickers are actually small, thin beacons that can be easily attached to surfaces.

Beacons typically come with additional or built-in adhesive layers or can be attached using double-sided stickers. These adhesives, often using special 3M glue for strong fixing, allow beacons to be securely mounted on various surfaces.

Minew i6 Beacon

While Estimote Stickers no longer exist, there are several small, thin beacons such as the K15, E8 and i6 that share characteristics with Estimote’s original Sticker model and come with a 3M double-sided sticker. Stickers are also available separately.

Bluetooth Backward Compatibility

Bluetooth technology is designed to be backward compatible across different versions. Here are the key points about Bluetooth backward compatibility:

General compatibility: Newer Bluetooth versions are typically backward compatible with older versions. This means that devices with newer Bluetooth versions can usually connect to and communicate with devices using older Bluetooth versions.

Classic and Low Energy: There are two main types of Bluetooth: Classic (BR/EDR) and Low Energy (LE). Classic Bluetooth radios are backward compatible with other Classic radios, while LE radios are backward compatible with other LE radios. However, Classic and LE are not directly compatible with each other.

Version-specific compatibility: Bluetooth 5.0 devices can connect to devices using Bluetooth 3.0 and later versions.

Feature limitations: When a newer Bluetooth device connects to an older one, it typically operates at the capabilities of the older device. This means that advanced features of newer versions may not be available when connecting to older devices.

Performance considerations: While backward compatibility ensures basic connectivity, there may be differences in performance, such as audio sync issues or reduced transmission rates when connecting devices with significantly different Bluetooth versions.

Future developments: As Bluetooth technology continues to evolve, backward compatibility remains a priority. For example, the upcoming Bluetooth 6.0 is expected to maintain backward compatibility with previous versions.

It’s important to note that while backward compatibility is a core principle of Bluetooth design, specific device implementations may vary, and some features may require both devices to support the same version and have implemented the relevant part(s) of the specification, for optimal performance.

Bluetooth 6.0

The Bluetooth® Core Specification version 6.0 introduces several key feature enhancements aimed at improving performance, efficiency, and functionality, particularly in Bluetooth Low Energy (LE).

Bluetooth® Channel Sounding: This feature enables secure and accurate distance measurement between two Bluetooth devices, which is essential for applications like digital keys and location tracking.

Decision-Based Advertising Filtering: This enhancement improves scanning efficiency by allowing devices to filter and selectively scan for relevant packets, thereby reducing unnecessary scanning and saving energy.

Monitoring Advertisers: This feature allows observer devices to track when a specific device moves in or out of range, which helps avoid energy waste from scanning for devices that are no longer nearby.

ISOAL Enhancement: Improvements to the Isochronous Adaptation Layer reduce latency in data transmission, making Bluetooth more suitable for time-sensitive applications while also enhancing reliability.

LL Extended Feature Set: The capacity for devices to share information about their supported features has been expanded, accommodating the growing complexity of Bluetooth LE.

Frame Space Update: The previously fixed time interval between packet transmissions is now adjustable, allowing for more flexibility in connection events and isochronous streams, potentially enhancing performance.

But how are future beacons and gateways likely to use the new features introduced in the Bluetooth 6.0?

Specialist sensor beacons are expected to utilise the Channel Sounding feature to estimate distance, potentially offering an alternative to the current beacons that rely on time of flight (TOF) measurements. However, it remains uncertain whether Channel Sounding will outperform existing TOF-based beacons in terms of accuracy and reliability.

Some gateways may adopt Decision-Based Advertising Filtering to improve scanning efficiency. By selectively scanning for relevant packets, these gateways could achieve higher throughput, making them more effective in environments with heavy traffic.

The Monitoring Advertisers feature might find application within smartphones, although this seems unlikely given the lack of a clear use case. While this feature could theoretically help in tracking devices that move in and out of range, the practical benefits for most consumer applications appear limited.

The LL Extended Feature Set is technically interesting but may have limited practical impact. The widespread presence of older beacons and smartphones that do not support this feature could hinder its universal adoption, reducing its overall usefulness in mixed environments.

In summary, while these new features offer exciting possibilities, as with Bluetooth 5.0, their real-world impact will depend on whether and how they are adopted and integrated into future devices, especially considering the existing ecosystem of older Bluetooth devices.