Does a hardware that needs to advertise BLE signals as an iBeacon need to be MFI certified? I have noticed that is easy to turn a Raspberry Pi into a device that can send out iBeacons.
I looked at Estimotes, and nowhere does it say that it MFI certified.
Will the CoreLocation API specific to iBeacons work with a non-MFI certified beaconing hardware?
You don't need to be part of the MFi Developer program, but if you want to use the iBeacon logo or market your product as being iBeacon compatible, you will need to be part of the iBeacon Program
As for Estimotes, I am assuming that they are in the program because they have the iBeacon logo under their 'certificates' section.
Apple's iBeacon certification program is the specific MFi-variant that applies to beacons. My company makes Raspberry Pi-based beacons that are iBeacon Certified as well as battery-powered and USB-powered units.
The certification program is a way of making sure that beacons meet Apple's requirements for proper operation. Vendors who make beacons that aren't certified may work just fine for development purposes. Often times, however, the broadcast frequency of these beacons is pretty slow (1 Hz or less to save battery power), which can make for less accurate distance estimates when using ranging APIs. Just make sure you test with these beacons before counting on them!
Related
I am involved working on new hardware LED products where we are selecting a Bluetooth chipset to use in multiple products controlled by iOS and Android apps, for at minimum the next 3-4 years. Also I am not the developer, a third party will be contracted for this project.
As part of background research, I wanted to ask for feedback from Stack Overflow communities' experience with programming for Bluetooth, more specifically with custom firmware and GPIO PWM for LED?
What kind of challenges did you come across?
Are there any granular details or features to look out for with the hardware?
**Edit: based on first answer-
Requirements:
BLE 5
I do need OTA update capability
Chip size not big constraint, plastic enclosure can accommodate up to 1 inch/25mm or bit more easily.
Not high temp application
Single-chip solution, that will be programmed with our firmware, controlling 4x PWM Channels is ideal for our LED strips, avoiding separate MCU
Cost per unit (lowest average cost/unit)- important factor at volume, TBD
**Qualities I can not gauge well myself, being a designer and not an experienced programmer:
Ease of integration/support (lowest cost of development)
Quality of the chip manufacturer's software tools
Quality of the chips documentation
I have found some questions related with Raspberry Pi that seem generally helpful, but those questions don't help me with features or the support and documentation as related to BT SOCs.
**Edit: Yes I we are only considering BLE, and the NORDIC Semiconductor link I have included below are BLE and BT 5.
NORDIC chips are on my short list, they seem well supported and capable of 3x or 4x PWM channels for example nRF52832 Nordic nRF52832 Spec info. or the newer model RF5340. Does anyone have experience with them?
I really appreciate any answers regarding development considerations with Bluetooth.
I will edit & clarify if needed.
If you wish to support iOS Apps, a BLE device is necessary, BT classic requires a special apple license (for your product) to be able to connect with iOS Apps.
But other than that, your specifications dont really help to rule out ANY chip.
The first question that comes to mind is what other features do you
have already on your specification list that could be satisfied with
a common solution. I.e. if you also need WiFi, don't choose two
separate BLE/WiFi Chips, buy a chip that can do both (it's both
2.4GHz RF). If you need OTA updates for your firmware, choose a chip manufacturer with extensive and well documented tooling.
Consider special requirements:
Do you need a very small chip?
Does it need to be run at high temperatures (i.e. inside a light bulb)?
Do you need to run at ultra-low-power?
Does it need a high performance RF transceiver?
Decide whether you need a single-chip solution, that will be programmed with your firmware, or if your firmware will run on a dedicated microcontroller which is connected to the BLE chip.
Unless you have absolutely no special requirements to narrow down the selection, I'd base my decision along these criteria (not ordered):
Ease of integration (lowest cost of development)
Cost per unit (lowest average cost/unit)
Quality of the chip manufacturer's software tools
Quality of the chips documentation
GPIO-PWM Output should be possible with almost any programmable BLE chip.
I have a couple of questions concerning BLE beacons:
1) Are beacons based on nRF51822 chip the best solution? Or are there any other chips better than nRF51822? I want to take up BLE beacon development and struggling to find the right hardware for these needs. As a novice developer I want the beacon to be as cheap as possible in order not to waste money in case of a failure.
2) Is it possible to buy pure Eddystone beacon (not iBeacon)? The reason for choosing Eddystone is that Eddystone is capable of broadcasting URLs that are essential for me.
The second question stems from my failed attempts to find a pure Eddystone beacon on Chinese electronics sites like alibaba.com or aliexpress.com where the only firmware available is iBeacon. But iBeacon is not an option because it can't broadcast URL the way Eddystone does.
Apart from the above questions It would be great if someone wrote a quick guide for taking up BLE development with Eddystone and covered basic topics like: chip to use, beacon model, best website to buy beacons at, etc.
Thanks in advance,
Pavel
1) I've worked with Estimote beacons and Chinese beacons from Amazon and in my opinion, they do not differ in terms of accuracy too much. Especially for prototyping, I'd buy cheaper ones to test if your use case can be satisfied with BLE beacons. If it is too inaccurate with Chinese beacons, chances are that it won't work with more expensive ones either.
2) Why do you need the URL broadcast? If the app is going to use the url, it would have to be connected to the internet. Therefore, you can just query the beacon's IDs to a web service to get back an URL and use that. Personally, I think this is a better approach as you can configure the web service from anywhere to change the url for beacons where as if you want to change the URL of the Eddystone, you have to go to the beacon to configure it.
The nRF51822 is a common implementation, is flexible, well understood and can be very inexpensive. Be aware though that development costs, add on circuitry for power and/or peripherals, and packaging can easily eclipse the Bluetooth chip when you get to production cost savings.
If you want to buy an off the shelf beacon, most models supporting Eddystone also support iBeacon, simply because supporting both adds no additional hardware cost. Newer Radius Networks and Estimote beacons all support both. And, yes, cheaper generic Chinese suppliers often have bulk manufactured inventory from before Eddystone existed at only support iBeacon.
I'm looking to implement the Bluetooth protocol over a physical Wi-Fi based transport, if that makes sense.
Basically my phone has Bluetooth, and my laptop has a Wi-Fi card (802.11a/b/g).
I know that Wi-Fi operates over the range 2.412 GHz - 2.472 GHz, and that Bluetooth operates over the range 2.402 GHz - 2.480 GHz.
I couldn't help but notice the overlap here. So my questions are:
What sort of low-level APIs would I need (preferably in C, on Windows) in order to send a signal out at certain frequencies on the Wi-Fi card?
Would I be able to implement a Bluetooth stack on top of this?
So basically, can I transmit Bluetooth using my Wi-Fi card as essentially a radio transmitter?
Thanks
Implementing the Bluetooth protocol over a physical Wi-Fi based transport does make sense!
Bluetooth high speed (v3.0) defines the possibility to use alternate MAC/PHY layers, known as AMP feature. The L2CAP and higher layer protocols from Bluetooth can be transmitted over a Wi-Fi MAC/PHY layer rather than a Bluetooth MAC/PHY layer with a resulting higher throughput. Some products are on the marked supporting this - look for 'Bluetooth High Speed', AMP or Bluetooth v3.0 support.
No, you can't do this. Bluetooth devices are typically wrapped up all in one chip. Plus, they use completely different modulation techniques. No low-level anything is going to allow you to transmit anything different, unless you are flashing the device. Even then, it may not get you much closer.
Bluetooth Modulation Information:
http://www.palowireless.com/infotooth/tutorial/radio.asp and http://classes.engr.oregonstate.edu/eecs/spring2003/ece44x/groups/g9/jon_gillen/white_paper_jon.pdf
About the only thing you can share between WiFi and Bluetooth devices is the antenna. (Assuming only one device is using it at a time... don't blast 32mW into the receiver of the other radio!) The radio itself is all wrapped up into the same chip. The same is generally true for WiFi.
Bluetooth and Wifi have different phy layer protocols and thats what is coded into their chips, hence you can't use one chip to transmit packets of the other protocol.
Moreover most of the chip vendors, do not expose any RF logic.
Technically yes but there are some things to consider such as the pre existing coding on the chip and if the chip can support Bluetooth coding as well as wifi coding, I mean if you have two separate wifi chips go ahead and try but be warned I tried and nearly killed my computer because of preexisting copyright protection coding on other parts of my pc that prevented any programs on the chip from starting until I reset the chip to factory defalts.
I'm building an application where a mobile phone with an accelerometer is used to control an app on a computer in a similar way you would use a mouse. So I need to send the movement from the phone to the computer over some wireless protocol. I am thinking about using Bluetooth but I am not sure what transfer delay to expect. Another possibility is using 802.11g. What do you think? What delay could I expect given that I don’t hit the bandwidth limit?
I worked with a group at Motorola who linked up an external accelerometer pack to a mobile phone using Bluetooth. This work supported a mobile games development class at USC's GamePipe Laboratory, and the speed was sufficient to control the mobile games developed by the students. You'll need to make sure your handset's Bluetooth stack has the correct profile enabled to allow data communication.
Another advantage of Bluetooth over 802.11g is that the frequency hopping Bluetooth uses will make it less vulnerable to interference by all the other 802.11 devices in the vicinity, which sit on one frequency.
I wouldn't expect the amount of data sent by an accelerometer would give Bluetooth any problems.
Does anyone know how a bluetooth device could pick up the discoverable devices' device IDs in range?
I am ideally looking for the simplest solution that involves the smallest implimentation of the bluetooth protocols.
A starting point would be good, I just wish to create a device that can store all the device ids of nearby bluetooth devices with minimal power consumption, preferably just using radio frequencies and not SDP and whatever else.
If you can't help me with this, please can you help me find good reading material for low level bluetooth (step by step) communication. The reading online is so high level that I cant work out what is actually sent, when.
Laalto nailed the answer from the Bluetooth spec/stack POV, but your question implies your looking for a stand-alone Bluetooth device - not just a laptop app scanning surrounding devices.
I can only speak for the BT chips that the company I work for manufactures (Cambridge Silicon Radio - CSR) but our chips can do that pretty much out of the box. Our chips have an on-board Virtual Machine sandbox that allows access to the firmware functions and Bluetooth stack of the chip. You can easily write a C code app to run in the virtual machine sandbox, on chip, that periodically scans for discoverable devices around, grab their ids and then download them when connected via USB or Serial, or maybe over BT when a device connects to the listener directly.
www.csr.com and www.csrsupport.com for chips, dev-kits, design references, etc.. etc...
You probably want a module with the extra HW (UARTs, USB etc...) as well as just the chip but you could implement this with something the size of a BlueTooth USB or probably smaller.
It would really help to know more about what your trying to achieve, why you want something that just scans the surrounding bluetooth devices and how big the device needs to be.
Sorry if this sounds like advertising. For balance: Broadcom make BT chips too!
The Bluetooth specs from http://www.bluetooth.org are a good starting place for low-level information. You need an account to access the specs, but you can create one for free.
Basically what you need to do is to go into Inquiry mode periodically and grab the response packets as they arrive. The more time you spend in Inquiry mode, the more likely you will discover devices in range: discoverable devices enter the Inquiry Scan mode only relatively rarely; it takes some time (10.24s at least with older Bluetooth versions) to scan all the possible frequencies in the Inquiry/Inquiry Scan frequency hopping schemes. And even then you can have suboptimal radio conditions.
For implementation I suggest you at least start with existing Bluetooth libraries such as BlueZ and do not attempt to create your own from scratch.