0

I'm unclear on how a BLE Beacon and device architecture works.

As I understand, there's two "types" of Bluetooth: a classic version which has relatively high battery consumption (I imagine this being the one the user turns on to pair a device, for example), and a Low Energy version (BLE) used for receiving small signals.

If I haven't gone too far off base yet, my question is: Does a user have to have bluetooth turned on on their phone in order for the phone to receive a beacon signal?

I'm unsure if when someone "turns on bluetooth" they're enabling only that one "type" of bluetooth. It would seem practical that this "type" of bluetooth not be required to receive a BLE signal (else the usability of beacons would rely on bluetooth being turned on, which I can't imagine would be very effective).

Here's what I envision this would work like:

  1. User installs app and opts in to location services
  2. User enters proximity, with or without bluetooth turned on
  3. Device receives beacon BLE signal, says oh hey, I'm supposed to handle that
  4. Device starts or opens app and pushes the proximity notification to the app.

I'm not sure I'm exactly clear on describing the type of "bluetooth being on" I'm thinking of but hopefully the question makes enough sense. Thanks

jleach
  • 2,632
  • 9
  • 27
  • `Does a user have to have bluetooth turned on on their phone in order for the phone to receive a beacon signal?` Yes. I think so. And It needs to be fairly close to the beacon too (compared with geofencing). – Laiv Aug 08 '17 at 13:50
  • @Laiv - apparently beacons are in 2, 5, 10, 20 meter ranges. Maybe a little further before you get into geofencing range. Really need to know for sure about the bluetooth being on... that makes a big difference in usability. Thanks! – jleach Aug 08 '17 at 14:14
  • Take a look [here](http://blog.mocaplatform.com/how-to-use-geofences-and-beacons-to-engage-mobile-users/#.WYnIpFkhXqA). And I'm not sure that the required receiver are in all the devices out there. Probably yes, but worth to mention – Laiv Aug 08 '17 at 14:22
  • @Laiv - saw that one. In fact, there's a table in there that states BT does have to be on, but for umpteen articles I've read on it, this is the _only_ specific reference to that I've found. Many other articles seem to imply that they're two separate technologies though (BT and BLE). That's why I thought I'd ask here to confirm. – jleach Aug 08 '17 at 14:24
  • I think that the problem will come down to say if users can "actively" reject to be tracked by fences. What make all the sense and, despite the low batery consumption, the regular user still can demand the button for switching off BL, BLE, GPS, NFC and Wifi. So this should not constrain your decision. You can not force people to consume whatever you are selling via fencing. – Laiv Aug 08 '17 at 14:38
  • @Laiv - I don't disagree at all. Nevertheless, the ease in which the this can be employed by the user will help drive the client's decision on whether they want to invest in the technology. If an active bluetooth connection is required, they might get, say, 50% less usage as opposed to location services, in which case they may opt for a different route. Appreciate your thoughts on this, thanks for looking. – jleach Aug 08 '17 at 14:42
  • @Laiv - last comment. This lead me to a quick search of location vs bluetooth usage stats, which incidentally lead me to a blog post about percentages of people with bluetooth turned on as a factor for beacons. If you want to throw it in an answer I'll mark it green as you more or less lead me to it. http://beekn.net/2014/03/ibeacon-bluetooth-insights-empatika/ – jleach Aug 08 '17 at 14:48
  • Done. I think I didn't miss anything commented here. If I did, feel free to correct me. – Laiv Aug 08 '17 at 15:28

1 Answers1

2

Reading few articles about fencing by Beacons, we come to the conclusion that the Bluetooth still need to be on. As on as the GPS or Wifi need to be for geolocation.

Despite the very low batery consumption, I assume that should be still possible for any user to swtich it off for privacy reasons. In some countries, tracking someone's location or activity might result in a breach of privacy.

In the line with these arguments, customers might decide to don't consume whatever is being "sold" via fencing (ads, new services, etc...). So whether via app or OS, should be still possible to switch off this communication channel.

In any case, this should not be a reason for dismissing fencing. Fencing has been proven to be a profitable marketing strategy.

Something I find important and worth a mention is the device compatibility with BLE. Devices need to be built with the proper BLE receivers to make this work, because BLE it's not backward compatible with BL 4.0. Probably most of the new devices are compatible, but given the actual market segmentation, would be hard to say how many potential consumers would be excluded.

Laiv
  • 14,283
  • 1
  • 31
  • 69