The iBeacon / BLE vs NFC

Debate: Now The Truth

By: Steve Gurley

The Truth
The truth is that these well-meaning writers have
profoundly misrepresented the facts:

Apples release of the iBeacon feature in 2013

ignited on-going speculation about Near Field
Communications (NFC) viability as a consumer
engagement technology. But, is this speculation
justified? Lets look.
Since Apples announcement, the press has been
praising iBeacon for its ability to passively identify
the in-venue presence of smartphone-equipped
consumers. They have also been praising it for its
ability to passively notify and then subsequently
deliver localized information. These features, along
with the press embrace of iBeacons perceived
ease-of-use, location services, energy efficiency,
security and low cost, have made iBeacon the
sweetheart of the tech industry.
Since the press enthusiasm for iBeacon has gone
largely unchallenged, many have taken the liberty
to label NFC as irrelevant because it lacks iBeaconlike features. But, is this the truth?

Comparing iBeacon to NFC is fundamentally

wrong. A more appropriate scenario would be
to compare Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) to
NFC as it is BLEs feature-set that the press has
mistakenly attributed to Apples iBeacon.

Many readers may be surprised to learn

that iBeacon is not a device nor is it a software
application. iBeacon is nothing more than a set
of services (APIs) that operate between Apples
iOS7 operating system and iOS7-compatible
apps. In essence, the iBeacon API does nothing
more than enable iOS apps to recognize that
they are within the wireless coverage zone of a
BLE transmitter.

Comparing BLE to NFC is like comparing

a lighthouse (one way communications) to
a telephone (two way communications). While
BLE and NFC are both wireless communication
technologies, each is designed to serve different
needs and functions. The following is brief
description of each:

Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE)

BLE is an eight-year-old wireless communications
protocol that dictates the functions of a Bluetooth
4.0 wireless transceiver. One of the functions of a
BLE transceiver, when operating in a beacon mode,
is to repeatedly broadcast its device ID and a small

The iBeacon / BLE vs NFC Debate: Now The Truth

By: Steve Gurley

packet (31 bytes) of information. A mobile device,

such as a Bluetooth 4.0-equipped smartphone, will,
when it is in range of the transceiver, receive the
signal and then, via the devices operating system,
pass the information to the appropriate mobile
app(s). The app(s) will interrogate the information
and then execute a pre-programmed action such
as issuing a notification, displaying information,
processing data, etc.
Near Field Communications (NFC)
NFC is an ultra-short range wireless
communications technology that is designed to
support one-to-one communications between two
NFC-enabled entities. (One person to one person or
one person to one thing.) An NFC communications
session is composed of an initiator and a target.
The initiator, which is typically an individual with
an NFC-enabled mobile device, will position their
device near a target, which is typically an NFC
tag or another NFC-enabled device. The initiating
device will automatically activate the target device
and a communications session will be established.
The following outlines where BLE and NFC fit within
the mobile network scheme:
Cellular communications is a wireless wide area
network technology that provides miles of
wireless coverage; WIFI is a wireless local area
network technology that offers a coverage
footprint measured in yards; Bluetooth (BLE) is
a wireless personal area network technology
whose coverage footprint is measured in feet
and NFC is a close proximity wireless technology
whose coverage footprint is measured in
centimeters.

A Core Feature Comparison

As noted above, many in the press have extolled
the core features of iBeacon (BLE) while deriding
the value of NFC. They have largely done this
without offering up a true feature-to-feature
comparison. The following, therefore, is that
missing comparison.
Ease of Use
It has been said that BLE is superior to NFC
because the consumer can use it without removing
their phone from their pocket/bag, whereas an
NFC implementation demands that the consumer
always have their phone at the ready. For BLE, this
is wholly dependent on the application.
Most applications, other than those designed
only to register a devices presence, will likely
require that the BLE-enabled phone be removed
from the consumers pocket/bag in order to view/
acknowledge an action. The NFC phone, however,
need only be in the consumers hand when they
choose to make a one-to-one engagement with
someone or something. In the case of BLE, the
consumer is prompted to remove their phone. In
the case of NFC, the consumer dictates the terms
under which the phone will be used.

The iBeacon / BLE vs NFC Debate: Now The Truth

By: Steve Gurley

Location/Proximity Services
BLE (iBeacon) has been praised for its ability to
provide geo-positioning services. Some in the
press have reported that BLE (iBeacon) can locate
a mobile device to within inches of a desired
location by triangulating the signal from multiple
BLE transceivers. The facts are these: There is no
location triangulation feature embedded within the
BLE protocol or iBeacon API. The location of a
BLE-enabled mobile device can only be determined
by measuring the signal strength emanating from a
nearby BLE transmitter.
A strong signal indicates that a mobile device is
relatively close to a beacon while a weak signal
indicates that it is far away. Apples iBeacon API
provides three distance measures: Close, Near and
Far. While the location of a BLE-enabled mobile
device can be narrowed to within a few feet of
a BLE beacon, it cannot be narrowed to within
inches nor can it be used to distinguish a persons
proximity to another BLE-equipped thing or person.
This inability to measure a persons proximity to
someone or something means that BLE cannot be
used to identify who would be next in a line or even
which line, or position in line, a person may occupy.
Therefore, if an entity wants to deliver content to
a consumers smartphone specific to a very exact
location, NFC is a superior alternative to BLE.
One last thought on this: Although NFC is not
typically viewed as a location or proximity ID
technology, it can be used as such. A unique
location identifier (e.g. a serial number) can be
stored in a tag that is affixed to a specific location.
When a consumer scans the tag, the identifier can
be read from the tag and then cross-matched to
a location table. Once the location is determined,
a smartphone app can then log the consumers

location and/or deliver location specific content.

The key is to incent the consumer to scan the tag.
Energy Efficiency
Comparing BLEs energy efficiency to that of NFCs
is another case of comparing apples to oranges.
A replaceable battery, which is said to last up to
two years, powers a BLE transmitter. NFC tags, on
the other hand, have no battery or internal power
source to replace. A process called electromagnetic
induction powers NFC tags. Placing an NFCequipped phone near an NFC tag will cause the
tag to generate its own power. It should be noted,
however, that although a BLE battery may last up
to two years, there could be a significant effort
required to replace all of the batteries found in a
large BLE deployment.
Security/Privacy
BLE transmitters are designed to continually
broadcast a discovery signal. Any app residing
within a BLE-enabled (Bluetooth 4.0) smartphone
can be configured to listen for these signals. It is
therefore conceivable that an app developer could
design an app to monitor or record an individuals
movements as they traverse among BLE Beacons
regardless of who originally deployed or currently
operates the beacons.
Unlike BLE-enabled smartphones, those carrying
NFC-enabled smartphones cannot be monitored
as they move among NFC tag deployments.
It is possible, however, that their individual tag
engagements can be monitored, but the content
of those tags must originate from the same source
that is doing the monitoring.
Cost
One cannot realistically make a cost comparison
between BLE and NFC because each is designed

The iBeacon / BLE vs NFC Debate: Now The Truth

By: Steve Gurley

to serve a unique set of needs. One BLE transmitter

broadcasts to many individuals, while one NFC
transceiver broadcasts to one corresponding NFCenabled entity. With BLE, one is paying for public
visibility, while with NFC one is paying for a private,
one-to-one exchange of information.
It is interesting to note though that the cost of
one BLE transceiver, while it can be relatively
inexpensive, is generally over 150x greater than that
of one NFC tag. One cannot, therefore, evaluate
the real per-capita cost of the two technologies,
which is the only apples to apples measure, without
knowing the number of individuals being actively
served by a BLE beacon at any given time and the
total number of tags deployed.

An Application Comparison
While many in the press have mistakenly endorsed
the core features of BLE over NFC, some have also
taken the erroneous position that BLE is a superior
enabler of mobile marketing and mobile payment
services. Lets take a moment to examine each of
these.
Mobile Marketing
The holy grail of mobile marketing is twofold:

1) Drive the consumer into the store

2) Increase their basket share once they are

shopping.
Coupons, offers and promotions that can be
delivered to and then used on the consumers
smartphone, particularly on a location-centric basis,
are increasingly viewed as a means to achieve
these two goals.
The press has written extensively about mobile
marketing solutions in which BLE transmitters

deployed both inside and outside of a retail venue

passively deliver coupons, offers and promotions
(aka incentives) to the consumers smartphone.
They have also written about new shopping
experiences in which in-store BLE transmitters will
actively remind the consumer to use their incentives
as they shop.
While the press has outlined a BLE-enabled
shopping experience that has tremendous merit,
it must be remembered that it is not the BLE
transmitter that delivers the incentives or reminds
the consumer. It is the consumers smartphone app
that handles these chores. The smartphone app
simply uses the transmitters signal and device ID to
identify its relative location. The app then correlates
the location to the appropriate response, which is
either stored in the app or at a location external to
the phone (e.g. on the web or in the cloud).
Because some have perceived that it is the BLE
transmitter that delivers the incentives to the

The iBeacon / BLE vs NFC Debate: Now The Truth

By: Steve Gurley

smartphone, it has been wrongly concluded

that BLE is superior to NFC. In reality, both
technologies manage information/incentives in a
very similar manner.
With NFC, the consumer engages with an NFC tag
in response to a call-to-action presented on either
a physical sign or digital sign. Upon engagement,
the tag transmits an identifier to the smartphone
app. The app then correlates the identifier to the
appropriate response, which, like with BLE, is either
stored in the phone or at a location external to the
phone (e.g. on the web or in the cloud). It should
be noted that it is the latter that is the typical usecase for NFC.
The difference between the two marketing
techniques is that with BLE it is the consumers
location that facilitates the marketing engagement
whereas with NFC it is the consumers response
to a call-to-action that facilitates the marketing
engagement. Neither technique is superior as both
have their respective merits in relation to their bestfit use case.
Mobile Payments
Numerous companies recognize that mobile
technologies, particularly smartphones, represent a
great opportunity for retailers to provide shoppers
with a more secure, comprehensive and engaging
shopping experience.
In response, several leading brands have built
mobile wallet/payment solutions that utilize the
following engagement techniques, singularly or in
combination, to facilitate the delivery of encrypted
payment information at the point of sale: Bar
Codes, Phone Numbers, PIN Numbers, Facial
Recognition, and Wireless Transmissions (NFC).
Each engagement technique has its strengths,

The BLE Payment Model:

Upon entering a store, the consumers mobile
payment app senses a BLE Beacon. The app
responds by passively checking-in to alert
the retailers POS of the consumers presence.
At checkout, the consumer tells the checkout
clerk to post the sale to the mobile payment
account, which is visible on the clerks POS
terminal. The clerk verifies the consumers
identity and completes the transaction.
The NFC Payment Model:
Upon checkout, the consumer tells the
checkout clerk that they wish to pay for the
sale via credit card. The consumer opens their
mobile wallet, selects the desired card and
then taps their smartphone on the retailers
payment terminal. The consumers payment
credentials are automatically retrieved from
the smartphones Secure Element (a protected
area of memory) and transmitted securely via
NFC to the payment terminal.

but, with the release of BLE (iBeacon), some are

saying that BLE (iBeacon) is the ultimate solution
for mobile wallets/payments. It is believed by
some that BLE will allow the consumer to passively
redeem their offers and pay for their goods
without the need to remove their phones from their
pockets/bags.
Some have even said that BLE will be the death of
all other mobile payment delivery models, which
includes NFC. This is ridiculous as it ignores the
principle behavior of retailers, which is to be risk
averse and evolutionary in nature. (See Payments
Side Bar)

The iBeacon / BLE vs NFC Debate: Now The Truth

By: Steve Gurley

Retailers tend to evolve their systems and

capabilities. They rarely embrace revolutionary
technologies that require a wholesale change
of systems, processes and methods. They
tend to embrace improvements to their existing
capabilities as a means to limit risk, inconvenience
and cost.
BLE-related mobile wallet/payment solutions,
although intriguing in theory, fall apart in practice
-- except perhaps for all but the smallest retailers
because it demands more comprehensive change.
NFC-enabled mobile wallets/payments, on the
other hand, largely build upon a retailers existing
investments while adding new value to both the
retailer and to the shopper.
This, however, is not to say that BLE has no place
in mobile wallets/payments. In fact, BLE and NFC
can form a unified solution that creates synergies
that, in some cases, neither one could achieve
alone.

BLE and NFC Use-Cases

The bottom line is this; BLE and NFC are designed
to serve two very different purposes:
1. BLE, like a lighthouse, is used to call a mobile
apps attention to its current surroundings so
that it may initiate a pre-defined action
appropriate to the given location.
2. NFC, like a telephone, is used to facilitate a
one-to-one, data-oriented communication
session between a person and a thing or
between two NFC-equipped individuals.
Although BLE and NFC are designed to serve
different purposes, they can be used together to
create a collaborative application. The following is

an example of a collaborative use-case:

A consumer enters a retailer. Their BLE-equipped
smartphone senses a signal emanating from an instore BLE transmitter. The consumers smartphone
automatically employs the operating systems
BLE extension (iBeacon if its an iOS7 device) to
evaluate the transmitters device ID so that it may
execute the appropriate action. The ID results in a
prompt to the consumers smartphone to display a
notification that they have an offer from the retailer.
The consumer removes the smartphone from their
pocket and acknowledges the notification on the
screen. They then choose an option on the nowvisible offer to save a coupon to their mobile wallet.
Once saved, they shop, select the promoted item
from the store shelf and use their phone to tap on
its NFC-equipped shelf tag for additional savings.
Once satisfied with their selection, the consumer
puts the item in their basket and continues
shopping. They soon pass a digital sign advertising
another product that catches their attention. They
tap their phone on the NFC tag affixed to the
digital sign and receive detailed information about
the product plus a coupon for its purchase. They
then select the product from the shelf, save the
coupon in their mobile wallet and then proceed to
checkout.
The checkout clerk rings up the purchases and
then redeems the mobile coupons by scanning the
coupons embedded barcodes. Once the sale is
complete, the consumer selects the appropriate
payment card from their mobile wallet, and then
touches their phone to the retailers payment
terminal. The consumers payment credentials are
then securely transmitted to the payment terminal
via NFC and the payment transaction is then sent

The iBeacon / BLE vs NFC Debate: Now The Truth

By: Steve Gurley

to the payment processor for approval.

Once approved, the sale is complete and the
consumer leaves the building having utilized both
BLE and NFC wireless communications. Before
he/she exits the premises, however, the consumer
stops at a soft drink machine by the door, selects
a beverage and then uses their NFC-enabled
phone to pay for the purchase with just a tap of
the phone on the vending machine. He/she is then
credited points for the purchase, which can be
monitored via his/her mobile wallet. The consumer
leaves the building with their items.

Summary
In summary, BLE offers tremendous opportunities
for brands, marketers and retailers to touch the
consumer in new ways. It also enhances the
delivery of proximity services and it will, based
upon the innovativeness of the supporting
application, fundamentally change how many
services are delivered. But, it does not and it
will not replace NFC. Neither will it negate its
value. Both NFC and BLE are complementary
technologies that can co-exist and thrive as long
as their respective stories are accurately told and
understood.

About The Author

Steve Gurley is the
president and CEO of
Pyrim Technologies, a
mobile business and
new market development
consultancy.
Steve is broadly recognized
as an industry expert and
thought-leader on mobile, mobile content management
and mobile/digital signage convergence. He is a
widely published author of numerous papers, articles
and blogs on mobility and digital signage, has filed
numerous mobile-related patents, is a sought-after
speaker on mobile and digital signage customer
engagement and serves on numerous mobile advisory
boards and committees, including having served as
the Chairman of the Digital Screenmedia Associations
Mobile Council.
Steves insights on mobile and/or the convergence of
digital signage with mobile can be found on Pyrims
web site at www.pyrim.com or on his personal blog at
www.steve-gurley.com. His views on the mobile
industry can also be found on his blogs at Digital
Signage Today, Mobile Payments Today and the Digital
Screenmedia Association.
Steve can be reached at slgurley@pyrim.com or at
(469) 366-4440.