
Google OnHub Review - BlackJack
http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/31/9228739/google-onhub-router-wifi-review
======
asyncwords
What I'm most concerned about, as somebody switching back to a Windows Phone
soon, is the apparent lack of a web interface for the OnHub. According to this
page [1] the OnHub requires an Android or iOS device, with the app installed,
to setup and configure the router. I don't blame Google for not supporting
Windows Phone, the market share is still very low, but I'm not convinced that
requiring an app instead of using a web interface like every other router is
what I want from this.

[1]: [https://on.google.com/hub/support/#get-
started](https://on.google.com/hub/support/#get-started)

~~~
greggman
Apple Airports all require apps. There's no web interface. They have Windows,
OSX, and Linux apps.

I agree with you I prefer a web interface. Just pointing out that there is a
pair of very popular routers that don't have one.

Fortunately they also don't need internet which it sounds like the OnHub
currently does? In other words if I'm doing some kind of installation that
users a router without internet I can still configure an Airport but if
understand correctly I could not configure an OnHub ... yet?

~~~
wickes
>They have Windows, OSX, and Linux apps.

That's sort of a crucial distinction. You have to run the application, but
pretty much everybody has something that can run it. That's very different
than requiring an application that only runs on mobile devices, and even then
only _some_ mobile devices.

I'm actually not seeing a Linux version of the Airport utility anywhere,
although apparently the Windows version pretty well with WINE.

~~~
anowell
I spent an hour fighting with the Airport utility in WINE a couple months ago.
It launched, but I had issues discoving the Airport. Eventually I caved and
had a non-technical friend with a Macbook configure my router for me. </shame>

------
tolien
Worth noting that Ars also reviewed the OnHub [0] and weren't all that
complimentary about it.

Particular negatives were the price tag, single LAN port, poor wifi
performance (particularly important if you're not supposed to use wired
Ethernet...) and no web interface.

[0]: [http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-
review-g...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-
googles-smart-home-trojan-horse-is-a-200-leap-of-faith/)

~~~
jader201
Not sure I would put much weight in an article with a click-bait label like
"Google’s smart home Trojan horse". I know there are many that are suspicious
of this, but a site like arstechnica putting this in the title when it's, at
best, speculation seems a bit sensationalist.

~~~
nl
In context the Trojan part of the title is: _Google’s smart home Trojan
horse_.

It's a Trojan horse because it is their way of rolling out "connected-home"
devices without people having to decide to "move to a connected home". That's
what all the non-enabled sensors and hardware are for.

It's a smart play on Google's part, and Ars is correct to note it.

It doesn't mean it is malicious in anyway.

~~~
dragonwriter
Smart or connected home stuff has never been about moving to such a home, its
always been ways to enhance an existing home, so its bizarre to describe what
you put out as unusual in anyway.

And, "Trojan horse" _always_ implies malicious deception; its an inappropriate
metaphor for any other intended message.

So, I'd say this is _doubly_ misguided.

~~~
nl
> _Smart or connected home stuff has never been about moving to such a home,
> its always been ways to enhance an existing home, so its bizarre to describe
> what you put out as unusual in anyway._

[0] would disagree:

 _" more elaborate systems could easily reach up to $1000 if you have a lot of
hardware to install and don't shoot for the cheapest units you can get.
Putting in a smart switch in three bedrooms, a living room and a kitchen can
be $200-250 by itself, and that assumes a fairly spartan set up and excludes
any power outlet installations. Be sure to tally up all of the parts you'll
need before you start buying anything."_

> _" Trojan horse" always implies malicious deception; its an inappropriate
> metaphor for any other intended message._

It's commonly used in this way. [1][2][3] are good examples.

[0] [http://lifehacker.com/how-can-i-get-started-with-home-
automa...](http://lifehacker.com/how-can-i-get-started-with-home-
automation-510246491)

[1] [http://www.taniaellis.com/blog/the-trojan-horse-changing-
bus...](http://www.taniaellis.com/blog/the-trojan-horse-changing-business-
from-within/)

[2] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-schachner/a-trojan-
horse-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-schachner/a-trojan-horse-called-
tidal_b_7163438.html)

[3] [http://www.techrepublic.com/article/microsofts-trojan-
horse-...](http://www.techrepublic.com/article/microsofts-trojan-horse-
strategy-to-rule-the-world/)

------
mrbill
~3 weeks ago I upgraded to an industrial-quality Cisco Aironet 1252AG access
point (no -ac but it does -n 300Mbps just fine), that I got off eBay with
power supply for a grand total of $60.

I'm a big fan of separating the NAT/router functionality from access-point
functionality, and my core "router" is a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter (X right now,
used to be the Lite).

I'm also a big fan of tweakable routers/APs (I formerly wouldn't buy something
unless it could run DDWrt or OpenWRT) and have a couple storage tubs full of
various wireless gear, including an Asus AC68U and the Ubiquiti Unifi-LR
(running OpenWRT) that was formerly my main AP.

Despite all of this, I have an OnHub on preorder that should get here
tomorrow, and I'm excited. There's tons of promise for this hardware,
including home automation features that haven't been implemented yet - and
despite what one review said, you _can_ use it just as an AP - that's what
"bridge mode" is.

However, I'm going to run it in parallel with the Cisco AP for a while before
moving all my stuff over. Always have a fallback plan...

~~~
unprepare
Sorry this is a bit off topic, but - What made you move away from the Unifi
LR?

I'm actually going to be upgrading my networking equipment soon and was
considering doing an edge router x and a unifi LR - I've deployed a few LR's
professionally and found them very stable with far reaching quality signal.

Was there an issue you ran into with the AP, or did you just want something
more that it couldnt do?

~~~
simoncion
Do you have access to the UniFi beta forums?

I've _heard_ that UBNT is going to release some new UniFi APs soon-ish-ly. You
might want to consider waiting to see their specs and price point before
performing your upgrade.

------
robk
This review seems based purely on one anecdote. I'm curious whether the
antenna positions on his Asus were partly to blame.

The Wirecutter review [1] was a bit more negative on performance.

But, even with Wirecutter there's not much consistency in review quality with
APs. I usually trust the methodology of Wirecutter but Smallnetbuilder has the
most comprehensive coverage I've seen and they rate the Wirecutter top pick
(the Archer C7/C8) quite middle-of-the-road for its class. I'm interested in
what SNB's test results say once he tests the OnHub.

[1] [http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-wi-fi-
router/#](http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-wi-fi-router/#)

------
lnanek2
Seems pretty lacking. The best dual band routers have MU-MIMO, the ability to
talk to multiple clients at once without making them each take a turn, or at
least send an extra spatial channel to help reception with more limited SU-
MIMO clients. This which would go nicely with the support in the Nexus 6, it's
a nice advantage iPhone 6 doesn't have, but I don't see it mentioned or listed
for the OnHub.

The reviewer points out the disabled USB, so no storage options, and lack of
ethernet ports. For routers that don't have MU-MIMO, the best ones right now
are tri-band (one 2.4GHz, one low 5GHz, and one high 5GHz channel) and the
OnHub is only dual band.

There's also no mention of open source firmwares and distros like some routers
make sure to mention they support ("open source ready" WRT routers by
Linksys). So this product seems like a failure in the $200 router segment
according to features power users care about.

I guess maybe a rich consumer willing to pay the price tag despite the lack of
features might go for it, though. The claim is that the design is unique, but
D-Link has had similar design for a long time. Here's a round router of theirs
from 2 years ago:
[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422521,00.asp](http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422521,00.asp)

~~~
Lewisham
Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not for OnHub and know nothing about it
that hasn't been made public.

TBH, this comment reads a lot like "No wireless. Less space than a nomad.
Lame." [1] I'm not sure why you would buy an OnHub if you wanted to put your
own distro on it (that's clearly not the target audience), USB is only
disabled for _now_ (why have it there if there were no plans to use it?) and
The Verge notes that the connectivity is very good, which is what I think the
target audience very much does care about.

[1] [http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-
ip...](http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ipod)

~~~
kuschku
This router [1] can do everything yours can, costs the same, integrates with
an existing ecosystem of smart home devices, can be used as NAT, VoIP server
(with their own app), is moddable, etc.

Your connectivity is worse than competitors (especially the LAN-port is an
issue), and it has less features.

If you don’t change something in either functionality or price point, the
OnHub will end up like the Nexus Q – beautiful device, practically useless,
economic failure.

[1]
[http://en.avm.de/products/fritzbox/fritzbox-7490/](http://en.avm.de/products/fritzbox/fritzbox-7490/)

~~~
narrowrail
You've written the same comment several times now, so I'd like to point out a
few things:

1) The Fritz!Box seems to be much more focused on telephony, rather than home
automation.

2) Many of us do not like modem functionality integrated with our router (I
have a Docsis 3 cable modem).

3) Fritz!Box doesn't have a Zigbee transceiver, which seems to be the
technology ideally suited to home automation(replacing de facto standards that
have been around for years, i.e. zwave).

Just so we're clear, I have no interest in Onhub, and would never consider
letting Google have access to my router firewall.

~~~
kuschku
Yes, but now you have to see that in some countries, like Germany, the
standard router you get from your ISP is the Fritz!Box 7490 – if you already
have that, the OnHub is literally a waste of money, because it does everything
slightly worse.

One thing the Fritz! System does to retrofit existing devices with "smart"
capabilities is that it also allows you to use socket adapters [2] to old
stuff, so you can automatically turn on / off devices like your sprinkler,
etc.

In general, it uses DECT (or WiFi) for home automation, which also allows you
to connect normal phones, babyphones, wireless cameras, etc to it.

[1]
[http://en.avm.de/products/fritzpowerline/fritzpowerline-546e...](http://en.avm.de/products/fritzpowerline/fritzpowerline-546e/)

~~~
simoncion
> [I]f you already have [the Fritz!Boz 7490], the OnHub is literally a waste
> of money, because it does everything slightly worse.

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is pretty much equivalent to saying
"If you already have a good router that you're happy with, a similarly priced
router with similar features and performance will not interest you.", which is
a statement that should surprise no-one. :)

~~~
kuschku
Well, it wasn’t a "this device is shit", more a "well, the OnHub isn’t really
filling any niche, nor disrupting the market – it’s a mediocre product in an
oversaturated market".

~~~
simoncion
> Well, it wasn’t a "this device is shit"...

That's not how I interpreted it. ;)

The situation in Germany appears to be _very_ different than the situation in
the US. If folks get a router and/or AP from their ISP it's almost always a
flaky pile of shit.

If this doesn't become yet another abandoned project with in a year (or
vaguely-rubber-stamp compliance effort inside of two), the Google folks will
likely put a sizeable chunk of R&D effort into ensuring that they push the
state of residential wireless APs forward.

As it stands now, there are _ALL_ _SORTS_ of really cool things that WiFi APs
should do, but just fucking don't for reasons that are beyond my
comprehension.

~~~
kuschku
Well, except for the Fritz!Box, all other routers we get here are also shit.
But the Fritz!Box is something special xD

AVM, originally a huge advertising company on German BTX (a kinda internet
before the internet), became large with modems and home phones, so their
routers are an extension of that.

And, well, as all devices are assembled in Germany, the price tag is usually
accepted, as you get the best of the best out of it – the routers are prolly
gonna last a lifetime.

But yeah, Google OnHub might have some potential, but if the ISPs in the US
didn’t give their users a Fritz!Box in the past decade, they won’t give them
an OnHub either.

And only for Google Fiber or self-bought seems pretty... wasteful.

~~~
simoncion
> And only for Google Fiber or self-bought seems pretty... wasteful.

Eh? If your current wireless router either sucks or dies, then you're in the
market for a new one. When it comes to networking gear, it pays to pay for
quality. Not everyone knows that, but many people do.

> ...if the ISPs in the US didn’t give their users a Fritz!Box...

It seems that the only people I hear talking about Fritz!Boxes are Germans.
I've known many techies with many strange devices, but I've _never_ seen a
Fritz!Box in person. Their fame _might_ be restricted to Germany and maybe
neighboring countries. :)

------
jader201
_> But I’ve had zero issues with the OnHub: coverage has been shockingly good,
I haven’t needed to use the wireless repeater at all, and the interference I
saw with the baby monitor has disappeared. In areas that were formerly dead
zones, the OnHub has given me enough bandwidth and throughput to stream 4K
video, even in my basement, a full two stories below my office. This is
despite putting the router in a less-than-ideal location: upstairs, in my
office, far from our general living areas._

This is what I was hoping for. It seems every router I've tried -- and I even
have the ASUS RT-N66U, which is supposed to have great coverage -- never fails
to have multiple bad spots in our home (and it's not that large).

If OnHub has the advertised coverage, it may set a bar that hopefully other
manufactures will be forced to follow.

~~~
Someone1234
Have you considered either doing actual ethernet or failing that powerline
ethernet?

A lot of these dead spots are caused by the physical materials or distance of
the property, which often cannot be overcome WELL unless you used directional
antennas, or exceeded the legal power of your WiFi equipment (which can
sometimes cause overheating or signal issues).

Instead of trying to break through the dead spots with better and better WiFi,
maybe you should just cut your losses, get wired internet onto the other side,
and then set up an inexpensive AP there to complete the coverage picture. If
your budget is $200, then you could easily do powerline ethernet and a cheap
AP.

Just a thought...

~~~
jader201
I've tried multiple solutions, actually. Re: ethernet, everything that _can_
be ethernet in our home, _is_. All of our consoles & desktops are on ethernet,
as is our printer. Fortunately our home was built with ethernet installed.

The problem is my laptop and handheld devices (which don't support ethernet
obviously). For these, we've tried various routers, multiple locations for the
router (though this is somewhat limited), and even setting up multiple access
points.

The problem with access points, is that WiFi devices are notorious for hanging
on too aggressively to the wrong (weaker) access point. So we found we were
frequently having to manually switch between the access points. So I gave up
with that, and decided to go back to a single router.

Which is why, as you say, I keep shopping for better and better WiFi.

~~~
simoncion
This feature may be present in other manufacturer's devices, but I know that
Ubiquiti's UniFi APs let you set a minimum client signal strength [0], below
which the AP will disassociate the client. [1] Folks in the support forums
report that this works really well, but that you _do_ have to play around to
find the right setting.

The three downsides to UniFi APs are:

* There is controller software which is required to configure (but not _run_ ) the APs.

* The price of the UAP-AC v1 and v2 models.

* Every AP setting change requires that the controller reboot the affected AP. The APs take ~60 seconds to reboot.

The controller software is reasonably well done [2], easy enough to use, and
makes managing a swarm of APs pretty easy. I fire it up when I need to change
channel settings or add an SSID or whatever and shut it down afterwards.

I _hear_ that Ubiquiti is going to be releasing some new, lower-priced
802.11ac units soon-ish-ly that aren't _much_ slower than (and are _much_ less
power hungry than) their existing 802.11ac units. So, if you want to give
their hardware a try, you might want to wait until the new units are released.
(Edit: Unless -of course- you don't care about 802.11ac, in which case I hear
good things about the UAP-Pro, which does 2.4 and 5Ghz 802.11n.)

If you have questions about the APs or controller software, feel free to ask.

[0] AKA RSSI.

[1] The idea is that the newly-disassociated client will search for a new AP
to attach to, find that the one it was ignoring has better signal strength
after all, and attach to _it_ , rather than the previous one it was attached
to.

[2] It's some Java software that presents a web page on localhost that you log
in to to manage your existing APs and adopt new ones that you've attached to
your network.

------
discardorama
Several people are complaining about the lack of ethernet ports.

Back in 2012(?), Apple came out with the MacBook Air, which did not have an
optical drive. Everyone was up in arms: NO OPTICAL DRIVE?!? Has Jobs lost his
mind??!? I was the same: what the heck? How will I get along without an
optical drive?!?

Then I thought about the last time I used the optical drive on my MBP. After a
bit of thinking, I realized that I had basically never used it in the ~4 years
I had that MBP! I had been lugging around an optical drive, which I had used
zero times! Then it dawned on me: I've been getting along fine without an
optical drive.

Something tells me that the story will be similar with ethernet ports. Most of
our devices today (laptops, tablets, phones) don't use wired ethernet. Ye
cranky old desktop does, but..... what if you could put a $50 ac card in it,
and presto, no wires!

~~~
BorisMelnik
I see the point, but can't those people just throw on an extra hub?

------
AdmiralAsshat
Single, non-functioning USB port is disappointing. I'd hope for a $200 router
that I could at least get a NAS out of it.

~~~
kijiki
This is a Google product. NAS isn't cloud-dependent, and it keeps data out of
their hands. So probably not going to happen.

~~~
kuschku
Yup. Another feature competitors have, that we won’t see here, is integration
with VoIP and phone apps – if someone calls your home number, you can respond
on your mobile. You have an app where you can see who called when – and listen
to the recordings of the answering machine. Essentially competitors have self-
hosted Google Voice, Google has... well, US-only Google Voice.

~~~
pgeorgi
Since you're quite obviously an AVM fan (given that you promote their product
all over the thread) and it seems you're referring to them here as well (the
"phone app" integration is a historical emphasis/accident of that company,
given that they got into the DSL-Modem business by expanding from their
telephone systems and ISDN cards, and much more of an issue for them than for
any other vendor of dsl/cable/wifi modem/router thingies):

Outside the German (speaking) market AVM doesn't matter much. And looking at
the tiny selection on the German version of
[http://store.google.com](http://store.google.com), the German market doesn't
matter much to Google.

That's market segmentation at work, and OnHub likely won't be a threat to your
favorite DSL modem brand (and it isn't a DSL modem, btw)

~~~
kuschku
Well, it’s not my favourite brand or anything, the issue I’m just seeing is
that I’d like to see a good deal from Google.

And what we’re seeing here is that a lot of people say "this router is
awesome", "it does so much and is so cheap", "there’s no other router with
that performance", and I’m just here, facepalming.

It’s an upper-mid-range device in an oversaturated market, not something worth
hundreds of reviews and articles.

Tbh, I don’t care about AVM – the Fritz!Box 7490 was just the first router I
could find with a similar featureset and similar price.

Also, the Google Store is even more empty in many other countries – US,
Canada, sometimes UK, NZ and AUS get the nice products. Some european
countries still have no Google Books, Google Movies, Google Music, or even the
ability to buy Nexus devices.

------
serve_yay
If ease of setup and attractiveness of the device are the issues, Apple has
been making AirPorts a long time (at a similar price point, I'll add).

~~~
Corrado
Agreed. However, Apple has a nasty habit of disabling features (such as power
settings) and making the control software less and less friendly. I love my
Airport Extreme it's software doesn't do everything that the OnHub software
does. Some things I would really like is the ability to quickly see who/what
is connected to my network, some history of connections, and even a way to
tune QOS for specific devices (i.e. my Roku boxes should have more bandwidth
than my phone).

------
benevol
Sorry, but this device is idiotic. It gives Google the ability to entirely
remotely control your network from outside, is entirely designed to facilitate
their own services, and will become a privacy nightmare ... because if they
can access it, someone else can, and law enforcement will be able to go to
them and say "OK, we need access to that network, you have to give it to us".

This is the "bend over and take it" device which puts control of your home
network in the hands of Google .. primarily to benefit Google.

This is a terrible idea, and it's not something I'd trust even a little. This
is all about locking you into Google, and making it easy for them to manage
your home remotely.

I would put absolutely zero trust in this device.

~~~
pgodzin
From the privacy policy:

"Importantly, the Google On app and your OnHub do not track the websites you
visit or collect the content of any traffic on your network. However, OnHub
does collect data such as Wi-Fi channel, signal strength, and device types
that are relevant to optimize your Wi-Fi performance."

The first sentence is even bolded for emphasis.

~~~
mey
[https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6279845?hl=en](https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6279845?hl=en)

DNS Settings While OnHub doesn’t track the websites you visit, your DNS
provider can associate your web traffic with your public IP address. OnHub
sets your default DNS provider to Google Public DNS. (This can be changed in
the Advanced Networking settings of the Google On app.) Google does not
associate Google Public DNS information with your Google Account. Learn more
about Google Public DNS.

We are constantly working on new features and controls that help you get more
out of your OnHub. It’s possible that, in order to implement these new
features, we may need to change the way it collects, stores, and uses data.

Jump over to Google DNS [https://developers.google.com/speed/public-
dns/privacy](https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy)

For what they keep permanently. (Network AS and requested DNS Site, with my
home business account, that is enough to uniquely identify my houses traffic)

~~~
asuffield
(Tedious disclaimer: my opinion, not my employer's. Not representing anybody
else. I'm an SRE at Google, and my team is oncall for public DNS.)

I believe you have misunderstood what a network AS number is. This identifies
your ISP, not your account. So the permanent logs would say something
approximating "a level3 user queried news.ycombinator.com".

------
zouhair
I'm gonna be that guy.

I can't trust Google with my router.

~~~
niceguiman
Cool. Out of curiosity, who do you trust in this domain?

~~~
zouhair
A router where I can install DD-WRT.

~~~
niceguiman
I see. Makes sense to me. I'm glad there are people who love to tinker, test,
and modify. FWIW, no steps were taken to prevent installation of DD-WRT or any
flavor of Linux. There are no carriers to de-certify the device, just the FCC.
There is a developer mode. More details to come. You can install whatever you
want, just like with an Android or CrOS device.

------
fndrplayer13
I have an Apple Extreme which is good, but getting a bit up there in age.
Might hand it off to my parents and upgrade to this. My experience has been
that investing in good routing hardware makes my life much more pleasant.
Internet when I need it, and none of the nonsense. When I've had cheap
hardware in the past (growing up, in college), I feel like I was constantly
battling it to get it working -- ddwrt or not. I actually inherited a nice
Apple Extreme when my startup graduated to pro-grade networking hardware, and
I've loved using it.

------
tarikjn
I am not worried about the lack of extra ethernet ports, or internal storage
as most content is moving to the cloud and off-site backup and video security
is a best practice.

What do I find to be missing is a backup WAN, ideally 3G/LTE cellular modem
via USB. This is important if you are setting, say, Dropcams for security
while away from home -- in addition of backup power.

That's one thing I do like about Peplink/Pepwave routers, such as the Balance
One or Pepwave SoHo -- I am curious to hear anyone's opinion on these devices.
Granted, Peplink goes a level further with extra WANs to increase bandwidth
and allow business continuity.

I assume Google may actually add this functionality on the USB port, and I
think this would be more important than storage.

------
dmritard96
My take has been that this is basically a combinatition of a smart hub (like
wink and smartthings) and router/access point. The real question I have is
whether radio level integrations for IoT really makes sense. The good news I
suppose is that a lot of heavy hitters are following google. The bad news is
that a lot aren't. As a consumer, there aren't that many use cases where I
really need a radio level integration as opposed to something over the web (or
even if it stays in my local network) so I would argue this is going to be a
bit of a mess. With that said, if I were Wink I would be more afraid of this
than if I were Linksys...

------
Eric_WVGG
Would be nice if there was an additional model that had a built-in DOCSIS 3.1
cable router.

It’s cute that Google is going for “something you’ll want to leave in the
middle of the room,” but cable modems make that a non-starter.

~~~
yincrash
What's the difference between routing a coaxial cable to the middle of a room
versus an ethernet cable? At least you can get long flat ethernet cables.

~~~
fixermark
I think there's insufficient difference, and that's the original poster's
point.

The fact that the device is aesthetically pleasing isn't a misfeature (other
than perhaps bumping it in the cost bracket, if it even did so). But as long
as it's connected to a bulky, obnoxious Surfboard by a physical cable anyway,
it's not something you'll be using as a room centerpiece unless you intend to
put an unusual amount of work into cable-routing.

~~~
yincrash
I think I was being misunderstood.

Even if it wasn't connected to a surfboard (assuming the OnHub was also
capable of being a modem), you would then need to route a coax cable to the
middle of the room. There's 0 reason to keep the surfboard physically close to
the AP, and IMO, it's preferable to not keep it close (because that way I can
keep my network switch near the modem instead hidden behind all my electronics
never to be seen). Either way, you will be routing a cable to the center of
the room, you're just deciding whether you're routing a coax cable or an
ethernet cable.

~~~
simoncion
I know from experience that _I_ would rather run Cat5 than coax to the center
of a room. :)

------
andrewstuart2
I think the main reason I probably won't be getting an OnHub (for myself at
least -- it might be perfect for my parents) is my love of tinkering and
learning networking. I like that firmware like DD-WRT lets me poke around at
the internals, and actually calls features by their standardized names instead
of some made-up copyrighted marketing name.

~~~
noja
I'm no DD-WRT fan: I find the interface is inconsistent and ugly. And the
support forum is full of aggressive bofhs.

~~~
andrewstuart2
The interface is definitely not going to win any Awwwards. The feature set,
though, is one you'd usually have to pay a considerable amount more to get
directly from a router manufacturer.

~~~
noja
The feature set, yes, but definitely not the interface.

------
ericfrederich
Good throughput?... This review says otherwise.
[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-
review-g...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-
googles-smart-home-trojan-horse-is-a-200-leap-of-faith/)

------
hyperliner
hmmm, just bought the Nighthawk X6 AC3200 and it is still unopened. I think I
will keep it and wait for another rev on this.

Anybody has any opinions on the X6 AC3200? Bought it for $399 based on "I
don't want to have Wi-Fi problems at home" (tons of devices, works from home,
etc. etc.)

~~~
dangrossman
There are 237 critical reviews of the Nighthawk on Amazon, with problems like
needing daily reboots and the 2.4GHz network maxing out at under 15mbps
repeated across reviews, where the cheaper router it's replacing had no such
problems. All of the consumer AC3200 products have similar high percentages of
negative reviews, probably because they largely share the same chipset. I
wouldn't spend $300 on something that'll create more problems than my current
$20 N router, and it appears there's a high probability of that being the case
with that product.

------
urda
Sorry, I'm not trusting Google with my edge device under any conditions. I'm
not even trusting Google as an AP hardware option under any conditions.

Google has too much to gain from farming data right at the network level, they
have no business being on any home network.

~~~
niceguiman
If you see Google as an adversary, then this is a great position to take.

~~~
urda
It's about being realistic, you _are_ the product for most of Google's
services. This will no doubt be any different.

If you see Google as your "friend", then your minimal and non-contributing
comment could be considered of value. I see that you just made this HN
account, and appear to be astroturfing for this new device. Mind explaining to
HN why that's the case?

~~~
urda
As figured, the user has gone inactive since the Google device has gone off
the front page. Can we get an HN mod to look at this user?

------
kbd
The main dealbreaker for me here is the lack of ethernet ports. I currently
have a Sonos bridge and a NAS device plugged into my router.

The lack of a web interface is also a problem, but should be resolved at some
point based on other comments in this thread.

~~~
sciurus
You should be able to pick up a 5-port gigabit switch for around $25.

~~~
dublinben
But you shouldn't have to. This is a $200 router.

~~~
simoncion
I would rather have my LAN stay up while my router is rebooting than save a
slot on a power strip. Perhaps I am in a minority.

~~~
kbd
What does it mean for your LAN to stay up if your devices connected wirelessly
lose connectivity and the other devices on your LAN lose Internet access when
your router goes down?

~~~
simoncion
The majority of the devices on my LAN are wired and -even though this _might_
not apply to OnHub users[0]-, my wireless APs are also attached to a switch.
So, what it means for _my_ LAN when my router reboots is that the LAN loses
Internet access [1] for about a minute.

[0] I guess we don't know how sophisticated the link handling is in the OnHub.
It might be able to keep the AP active and pass traffic through it (and its
LAN port) while restarting the OS and do similar things while restarting the
AP. The marketing copy _does_ make it sound like you'll get near-constant
connectivity, no matter what the software on the thing is doing, and I _have_
seen (ages ago) NICs that would do basic packet handling even if the machine
they were attached to was powered down.

[1] And -I _think_ \- all uPnP-initiated port forwards.

------
cdnsteve
Interesting, even though there's only an app interface your router must be
acting as a pure API. The question is what kind of API is it providing?

Can you update your routers firmware through your phone app for example?

------
coverband
When I saw this, the first thing that came to my mind was Amazon Echo and
whether Google had come up with a smart router that embedded Google Now
features.

------
sharang
I want to know how much of a difference in terms of speed/range was observed
by the author when compared against the Asus router.

------
benlower
All these comments, while interesting, miss the point: how on earth does one
trust Google with their router? Google makes some great products but their
entire business model _requires_ them to hoover up more & more data from
customers.

That's not a company whose products I want to use anymore. Not for email. Not
for search. Not for a thermostat. Not for a realtime JSON database. And not
for listening in to all the data in my house.

~~~
the_watcher
> That's not a company whose products I want to use anymore. Not for email.
> Not for search. Not for a thermostat. Not for a realtime JSON database. And
> not for listening in to all the data in my house.

While I can't say I disagree with your point on Google's incentives being
exactly the opposite of absolute privacy, you're clearly in a tiny, tiny
minority. Even assuming that the majority of users simply aren't aware of this
(which is a faulty assumption in my opinion), there are many (myself included)
who have simply accepted this and go about our lives, preferring to have a
simpler, easier to use life than obsess over every single privacy concern.

~~~
teacup50
I'm guessing you were born after the Berlin Wall came down, and missed all of
the palpable Western demonstrations of just how fragile freedom is, and just
how dangerous it would be to build a turn-key surveillance state.

In my experience, the people who "don't care" (as opposed to simply not
understanding the insanely complex topic) are the people who:

1) benefit from it, e.g., SaaS/startups heavy on analytics, and

2) lack the context to understand that the current state of Western
civilization is not in any way immune to regression, and

3) don't understand how their own actions can in fact induce that regression
by creating a high-value turn-key totalitarian system ready for the taking,
and

4) don't understand that their actions are _already serving this purpose_ in
more totalitarian states outside of the USA.

That's even ignoring the implications of __massive__ information asymmetry
when it comes to negotiation between corporations and individuals.

~~~
iribe
You think you care, but you have no idea who gives you privacy. Maybe you
trust Apple, but have you seen their code? What if snarfing your data leads to
better data for siri? Then let's not talk about the millions of small sites
snarfing your data as you browse through the web, none of them beholden to
sarbanes-oxley, your cell phone conversations which are snarfed by your
carrier and aggregated with geo data and sold to the highest bidder, providing
billboard locations that maximize demographics. You say you care about
privacy, but you have no idea that you have no privacy. You may hate google /
think you're maintaining your privacy by warning people about google, but it's
just the beaten horse that you beat to make you feel better. It's the bright
colorful logo in your face that you see, but that's the tip of the ice berg.
In short you are ignorant and lashing out and making no difference whatsoever.
Google's just easy to attack because it's more up front regarding how it uses
your data, you can login to your dashboard and see everything. Your cell phone
carrier and friends, Apple, not so much. Don't remember seeing their
dashboards with the data they collect on you. So, continue on pretending like
you are making a difference.

------
eddd
This device is one these things that are not missing in your life until you
realise that they exist.

------
iamleppert
After helping people setup Chromecast and running into many issues that were
100% related to the design of the thing, I am skeptical at best.

And when the Internet isn't working I don't want to troubleshoot a blackbox
cylinder of a device with only a single status light.

No web interface, configured using an app? Let's hope they have done better QA
than their other products.

~~~
wnevets
>After helping people setup Chromecast and running into many issues that were
100% related to the design of the thing,

like what? I've setup two of them in my house and never had a problem.

------
hadeharian
Seems like it requires too many dependencies. Give me an independent interface
any day.

------
chrisallick
The term "privacy" and "security" are not mentioned. TDangerousDR;

------
oneJob
soooo, no words spent on privacy? this is akin to paying someone to build a
fence and gate for you, and then making sure they have a copy of the key at
all times, and never asking them what they do with it... rhetorical question
here, is it common practice prefer Internet servers which look cool and cost a
ton and are managed by Google, and not discussing privacy issues? the consumer
is being transformed into a marionette, and the issue isn't even mentioned in
this article. beyond frustrating that it has come to this.

~~~
tdkl
> soooo, no words spent on privacy?

It's The Verge. Personally I glance their reviews for nice videos and
pictures, but that's it.

~~~
oneJob
Fair enough, all things in context :)

------
publicfig
I've seen a lot of complaints about this router only having one ethernet LAN
port. This really could just be an issue of different use cases, but are there
a large amount of modems out there that don't have plenty of ethernet ports on
them? I have never needed to plug in anything to my router that I can't just
plug into my modem, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't connect too
much to either to begin with.

~~~
tolien
If your modem (which isn't really a modem if it has >1 LAN port) is plugged
into the WAN port on the OnHub (or any other router), anything plugged into
the ports on the modem will have trouble seeing things on the LAN because of
NAT and firewall rules.

~~~
dcherman
Has nothing at all to do with either NAT or the Firewall rules; it has to do
with routing. Assuming your modem/router has this capability, all you should
need to do is set up a static route pointing to the network/subnet that the
devices behind the other router. You should not need a corresponding route on
the other router because since it's on both networks, it already has a route
to the other network. Even if it didn't, the default gateway on the router is
the modem which can take care of routing the packets correctly. This is all
assuming that the modem/router combo is assigning an IP on a private
network/subnet to the additional router.

------
st3fan
It is a spy device to peek inside your home and your internet usage to
'improve' the quality of ads that you see.

The fact that it has sensors scares me.

Sure they can adjust the brightness of that ring with the ambient sensor.

What I would do if I ran an ad company is use that sensor to find out what
time you turn off the lights and go to bed. And what time you wake up. And
then send you more relevant ads.

Or use the bluetooth in it to find out what devices you have at home, or what
car you drive. Or what IoT devices you are using.

And I would use the microphone to find out how many people are in your home.
Or if you have kids, and how many.

~~~
shock
It is mentioned in the article that the OnHub lacks a microphone.

~~~
spullara
Every speaker is a microphone, just not a good one. Would be hard to tell if
it can listen to it.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Every ceramic capacitor is also a microphone. Better dust off the tin foil.

