FCC Filings Reveal Apple's First-Party iBeacon Hardware

[viacavour]

iBeacon to operate at 2.4ghz? Does no one at Apple see a problem with this? Not only does water resonate at this frequency to block any signal (think high humidity areas and outside venues where it may be foggy, sprinkle or rain), but a lot of businesses use internal comms and wifi modems on this frequency.

I would have picked anything other than 2.4ghz.

You are saying humid countries like Singapore, and San Francisco folks can't use BT headsets, keyboards and mouse ? What nonsense.

----------



Why would Google want to copy something so limited when they already have geo-fencing and pay pass built in? Both are more robust and don't need any additional hardware to be built, maintained, installed and paid for. iBeacon is another Maps failure in the making.

Geofencing is inferior to iBeacons, especially in indoor environments. It is decidedly less accurate. iOS has geofencing *and* iBeacon.

Pay pass is just a vertical use case compared to a horizontal platform like iBeacons.

 

[rols]

iBeacon to operate at 2.4ghz? Does no one at Apple see a problem with this? Not only does water resonate at this frequency to block any signal (think high humidity areas and outside venues where it may be foggy, sprinkle or rain), but a lot of businesses use internal comms and wifi modems on this frequency.

I would have picked anything other than 2.4ghz.

That's the frequency band bluetooth runs in, since the whole point of iBeacon is to use the ever-growing amount of BTLE hardware and software in phones, that's pretty much the only choice they had. If iBeacon had required another radio chip, with antenna, installed in devices, it was a non-starter.

Bluetooth is well-designed to work alongside WiFi, and other bluetooth devices sharing the same frequency band.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Well, considering Apple's strict control or closed-ness with:
- AirPlay
- Lightning
- Face Time
- iMessage
- App Store
- all their operating systems
Apple isn't on a course for allowing other hardware suppliers to do this.

I think it's far too early to say this, especially given that currently the technology is being served entirely on non-Apple hardware, it is platform agonistic on the client side, and even the very existence of Apple server hardware is nothing more than a rumor. But it also has to be said that if Apple doesn't produce their own server hardware (with premium features, we can safely predict), that developing and spreading the technology, as far as Apple is concerned, becomes quite pointless.

 

[PocketSand11]

iBeacon to operate at 2.4ghz? Does no one at Apple see a problem with this? Not only does water resonate at this frequency to block any signal (think high humidity areas and outside venues where it may be foggy, sprinkle or rain), but a lot of businesses use internal comms and wifi modems on this frequency.

I would have picked anything other than 2.4ghz.

I don't know why, but lots of popular hardware use 2.4GHz. There must be some advantage, despite the possibility of noise from interference.

 

[RichardH1]

I think it's far too early to say this, especially given that currently the technology is being served entirely on non-Apple hardware, it is platform agonistic on the client side...

...Like this third-party iBeacons software and hardware solution available now:
http://9to5mac.com/2014/07/14/estimote-introduces-ibeacon-power-management-tools-for-extending-battery-life/

 

[ellsworth]

I would really like to see the iBeacon technology work in association with Hollywood Street Parking signs so it can tell me if it's safe to park or not:

 

[rols]

I don't know why, but lots of popular hardware use 2.4GHz. There must be some advantage, despite the possibility of noise from interference.

It's one of only a few ISM bands available for use, most of the rest of the spectrum is licensed. 2.4GHz is worldwide available, it's a high enough frequency for reasonably fast data transfer, but is low-enough that you get decent range at low power, higher frequencies travel less-far at the same power, bad for things like bluetooth low energy which cares about every joule of energy expended.

The two ISM bands below it aren't worldwide available (915MHz and 433.92MHz), so 2.4GHz, as long as it has good noise rejection, is a good choice for a world-operable device with a compromise of speed and power use.

801.11n WiFi makes the next band, 5.8GHz available for WiFi, the power issue is less critical for that and data transfer rates are higher. The next band after that is 24.125GHz which is quite a way away from current devices.

So 2.4GHz is kind of the go-to frequency for comms and the protocols are all built around dealing with the congested bands.

 

[PocketSand11]

It's one of only a few ISM bands available for use, most of the rest of the spectrum is licensed. 2.4GHz is worldwide available, it's a high enough frequency for reasonably fast data transfer, but is low-enough that you get decent range at low power, higher frequencies travel less-far at the same power, bad for things like bluetooth low energy which cares about every joule of energy expended.

The two ISM bands below it aren't worldwide available (915MHz and 433.92MHz), so 2.4GHz, as long as it has good noise rejection, is a good choice for a world-operable device with a compromise of speed and power use.

801.11n WiFi makes the next band, 5.8GHz available for WiFi, the power issue is less critical for that and data transfer rates are higher. The next band after that is 24.125GHz which is quite a way away from current devices.

So 2.4GHz is kind of the go-to frequency for comms and the protocols are all built around dealing with the congested bands.

Thanks for explaining. So it's no surprise iBeacon uses it.

----------

I would really like to see the iBeacon technology work in association with Hollywood Street Parking signs so it can tell me if it's safe to park or not:

Image

I live in L.A. Even worse is when some of those are covered by a temporary "no parking" sign that doesn't apply yet! A digital solution would be welcomed here.

 

[Tech198]

USB port supports that this may be used to connect to future Macs (or current ones ??)