I am pursuing a PhD in indoor localization, and UWB is still far superior. That is the reason why major phone companies still include a UWB chip and are not switching to BLE 6.0.
I have compared them, and because BLE is a narrowband signal, it is highly susceptible to Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) conditions compared to UWB.
I also attended a prototype presentation by a large European silicon company. I noticed that even in their demo, BLE did not achieve 30 cm accuracy, but rather hovered around 1 m.
I have only tested PBR and RTT ranging with a simple Kalman Filter, so maybe someone has found a clever combination of these data sources (I hope).
New devices, such as Pixel 10 already support channel sounding.
Basically it's alternative to UWB.
One phone sends signals on multiple frequencies, another receives them. Obviously devices should be connected via BT.
Also tracking people already works with BT/WiFi RSSI (signal strength). Channel Sounding works better because it works even when the signal line of sight is obstructed, for ex. headphones lost under pillow.
How do they compare in actual use? I have a Pixel 6a connected to $40USD bone conducting headphones and the range and punch-through are incredible; the phone is sitting in the living room playing music and I can almost make it to my mailbox at the end of the block (about 3 houses away) before it starts to degrade or cut out.
Do these alternatives compare with just how well UWB serves regular, normal daily activity like this? Because to me, what I have is absolutely excellent in use with daily routine.
Edit: It seems I'm wrong. Channel sounding requires an encrypted connection. It's not something that can be done between a passive device and your phone.
It will allow things like secure entry (walk up to a door and it opens, be near your car and you can open it), finding your devices (lost keys, headphones, remotes, etc.), auto-unlocking for your laptop, and more.
--------------
This is a really cool technology that is going to allow essentially indoor GPS. Imagine going to a mall, and you open a map on your phone, and it immediately knows where you are to under 1m error.
Do you still need "satellites" installed indoors to work? Because then you'd have to convince every business that this cost has a direct positive effect on their sales.
A lot of brick and mortar stores are based on the assumption that a lost customer will buy more things, so I don't see this happening.
Readit News
I have compared them, and because BLE is a narrowband signal, it is highly susceptible to Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) conditions compared to UWB.
I also attended a prototype presentation by a large European silicon company. I noticed that even in their demo, BLE did not achieve 30 cm accuracy, but rather hovered around 1 m.
I have only tested PBR and RTT ranging with a simple Kalman Filter, so maybe someone has found a clever combination of these data sources (I hope).
Do these alternatives compare with just how well UWB serves regular, normal daily activity like this? Because to me, what I have is absolutely excellent in use with daily routine.
It will allow things like secure entry (walk up to a door and it opens, be near your car and you can open it), finding your devices (lost keys, headphones, remotes, etc.), auto-unlocking for your laptop, and more.
--------------
This is a really cool technology that is going to allow essentially indoor GPS. Imagine going to a mall, and you open a map on your phone, and it immediately knows where you are to under 1m error.
A lot of brick and mortar stores are based on the assumption that a lost customer will buy more things, so I don't see this happening.
BT hardware is also rather affordable.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sounding