Like other technologies, beacons need a protocol facilitating the manufacturing, transmission, programming and general functionality from the beacon. Each tech product requires the game rules to be defined so that the specifications and parameters are clear to anyone wishing to join.
A familiar aspect with industries is the competing standards and this was apparent in the victory of Blu-ray over HD DVD. This was followed by many such protocols such as USB to 4G and so on. With the appearance of each technology, the market demand increased and one was pushed up, while others were out of the door. However, when performance and cost are the same, users do not show strong preference for one. For instance Coke and Pepsi that is seen as substitutes of each other and the scenario are same for beacons communication having almost same standards, iBeacon and Eddystone. Both broadcasting protocols depend on Bluetooth 4.0 and they support the deployments of beacon fully as they offer the same functionality and vary in small extra features.
iBeacon and Eddystone, both are backed by tech giants supplying protocols bridging physical and digital worlds. It is very important to remember that iBeacon or Eddystone are hardware pieces that cannot be held in your hand. They provide communication standards using the software protocols for beacons. Here the beacons are the hardware part that supports one format or even the both. In fact, here the iBeacon and Eddystone are the devices speaking the languages.
Diversity between iBeacon and Eddystone
- For practical purposes, the differences of iBeacon and Eddystone are very small as the beacons they power. The distinctions existing are on their functionalities margins. There is no reason for an end user to know about the slight differences.
- Both protocols work with iOS and Android devices. Thus the incompatibility issue is not involved with beacon transmissions. Besides, beacons broadcast in both signals, thus ensuring all beacons can communicate with every smart device regardless of the OS it uses.
Thus the answer from the end users perspective regarding the difference between iBeacon and Eddystone is ‘Not much’.
Each protocol duplicates the functionalities of the other even if different paths are taken. Some paths are more direct, the difference here is the time taken to execute commands and this is perceptible to machines only and no end user is going to know the difference.
Beacon applications developers may disagree a little, but most of the technical things are beyond focus that the end users of such apps are going to find it interesting to know.