> Incoming data runs through
> Internal data runs through
> Outgoing data runs through
And then wants to be vague about what data they will be pumping to their back-end for analytics/data mining.
I have had a long standing proposal for home automation and I'm curious to know, in this era of insecurity and people vacuuming up all your data, how many of the tech minded people here would be interested in a device which ensures your 'home automation' data stays in your home. This can be quite clearly achieved in hardware and by having an out-of-band oversight controller that literally will not allow certain data to exit the physical domain of your home...
Cloud nonsense? It's called an application and a home automation application doesn't need to run in someone's cloud...
Whose interested? I think it's about time this cloud foolishness for the sake of monetizing someone else's data in an insecure manner come to an end. Everyone loves to rant about 'disruption'... I feel its about time this data monetization cloud bananza be disrupted.
I don't get it. It's become so obvious and people still seem to categorically refuse to admit the elephant in the room and to act upon it.
It's as if everybody was in some kind of unbreakable state of permanent cognitive paralysis.
Don't get a Google Router. Okay.
Don't use Google Fiber. Well, shucks - there's not a lot of 1,000 megabit ISPs in my area.
Don't use a Chromebook. Okay. What virus scanner should I install, then? And where should I store my data for backup? And didn't we hear that Microsoft tried to have Windows 10 phone home every damn keystroke or something?
Google browser. Fair enough, Firefox is decent.
Google DNS. Fair enough, unless I have Google Fiber. Then it's kinda weird to not pair them.
Google Mail. Something that looks like GMail has all of the problems of Google Mail. Is Microsoft really a better solution in your mind?
Google News. Come now, the problem of monopoly in news existed long before Google News did. I'd rather people also use Google News than JUST CNN, MSNBC, or shudder, the other one.
Google+. Right, because Facebook is so much better at respecting users.
Google Docs. Again, is Microsoft really better? Or Microsoft + Dropbox?
Google Search. What, I should use Bing?
AdSense and Analytics. Not really my choice, is it?
I genuinely ask this question. What do you think the common person could or should do, that would be better for them?
What, the Apple computer, Apple router, Apple browser, Apple Mail, and Siri?
You have pointed out many of the reasons why this is indeed a hard problem. That's why some of us have been trying to warn about these dangers for almost 20 years. The problem was significantly easier to fight 10 (or even 5) years ago, but everybody - including the technically knowledgeable people that should have known better - decided that shiny features were more important than paying attention to the larger picture and defending their future freedom.
> What do you think the common person could or should do, that would be better for them?
They should not use any service that goes against their long-term interests. While having a replacement is nice, this might require making a sacrifice. The lack of an alternative doesn't justify supporting the bad option.
Do you think that this problem is going to get any easier as time goes on? The cost of leaving Google is only going to increase, so it might be a good idea to find a way to pay that cost sooner rather than later.
 "...we've proved it again and again, that if once you have paid him the Dane-geld you never get rid of the Dane." ( http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html )
> What, the Apple computer, Apple router, Apple browser, Apple Mail, and Siri?
The difference between Apple's services and Google's equivalents is that Apple makes its money by selling you the boxes that the services run on - it doesn't directly profit on the services themselves. For Google, the service is the product, so if they can't make you pay for the service, then it has all incentive to data mine it for profit.
> all incentive to data mine it for profit.
Yes, and it has all incentive to protect my privacy, because if they screw that up, they lose all of my business, and all of everyone else's business, too.
I'm talking about your privacy and mine-ability, not your attack surface. (Though it does help with that too, in a way - a bigger chance someone will get some of your data, perhaps, but a smaller chance they'll get all of it.)
There have been innumerable data breaches and we haven't seen those companies go bankrupt.
No more good guys, I am afraid. Mozilla profited greatly from being spread by hackers initially, but now they no longer qualify for being supported.
No source here, I am on a crappy notebook, on the move.
Furthermore, I will never understand why people would use Gmail, if there's IMAP and hundreds of email clients to choose from.
Same is true for Google Reader, that apparently caused a lot of buzz when it went away. Never understood this.
The only Google product I use is Google Maps, and Google Search occasionally. Replaced the latter with DuckDuckGo mostly and works well most of the time.
Do you have a good to alternative Gmail/Inbox which has Inbox like archiving, and easy cleanup of the ... inbox, hiding emails for some period of time, pinning emails?
As for the hosting of emails (assuming I don't want to have 10GB dedicated to emails on my machine), do you have anything that gives me 10GB of mail and has the ease of use of Inbox on all the devices (desktop and mobile)?
Ditching GMail changes nothing about your privacy situation.
An E-Mail is a postcard. Sending a postcard via
DHL instead of USPS doesn't make it any more confidential,
even if you happen to be the owner of DHL.
Disregarding the (slow) advancements of E-Mail encryption (DANE), and the fact that's desireable that no one company has your data. The big point is that it's fair to assume that everybody has access to your mails while in transit, but using gmail Google has access to all your mails at rest.
Actually, there is quite a bit to be gained by running your own mail server - especially in relation to other people on your mail server.
For instance, everyone at rsync.net logs into (al)pine over SSH. So yes, if you email rsync.net and we converse, that is like the postcard - every hop it goes through can see it.
But no piece of internal rsync.net email has ever traversed a network of any kind. Internal rsync.net emails are just local copy operations from one mailspool to another.
The same could be true of your company ... or your family.
Sovereign includes instructions/configuration to run an upstanding email server citizen, including SPL, TKIP, MTA encryption, etc. Remote mail servers seem to respect it at least as much as gmail.
It also runs a rbl-check script once a day to notify you if your IP ends up on a blacklist. In two years running on both DigitalOcean, I've had no issues. Even gmail routinely gets added to RBLs from time to time.
There might be dedicated search engines for emails though, if search is very important.
See, if you use search a lot and Google has the superior product for your use case, that's totally fine. But I guess most people use Gmail out of habit and not because it is truly superior to other email clients.
I tried Bing Maps the other day and was surprised how much more usable it is. It loads faster, moves faster, and actually has a nicer interface because it uses semitransparent text to show names of areas.
I'll go back to dial-up rather than have all my activity centralised in the Google ether.
I have watched over many years as this 'cloud' software bonanza has eclipsed the tech industry. It went away from its original intent a long time ago and now is used as the holy-grail method of :
> ensuring (rent) is always paid for service(s) people should OWN
> vacuuming up and selling people's data.
I have several projects on my plate. However, I have a solid one for securing people's data when it comes to the IoT movement (in hardware)... It revolves around the same hardware/technology that the industry uses to scrape and funnel your data except the home user will now have it at their disposal as well.
Users should have 100% control of their data. If someone wants to 'monetize' it or use it to 'improve' their platform, the user should be rightfully paid for the opportunity to do so.
Disruption? Yeah, I think it's time. The foolishness has gotten far too long in the tooth.
.. And the backwards thing about it is: there are simple and straight forward ways to secure data (in hardware). It's only because everyone in the industry wants to ship your data all over the place and data-mine the snot out of it that things are as insecure as they are.
The very (loop-hole) or (door) that is used to funnel/mine/monetize/cloudify data is the very one used as an attack vector. Complicating the crap out of things at that point defeats the whole purpose.... Get rid of the door all together and the home is the least of all places where you should be exposing yourself.
My concern is how to make the benefits of this huge amount of data (medical information, travel etc) possible while charging the other use.
It's just - how - does one attach the metadata and enforce the lolicensing?
That being said, you come up w/ the 'solution' and you'll have your 'product'... I already have a general architecture/approach outlined for myself. Create one and, from the looks of the interest here, you'll have an audience to buy it.
Also, with the scale and depth of hacks occurring around the world, you'll soon have an even broader audience.
If you get funded, look me up ;). I'll be looking for work in the coming months =P.
Well, firstly applications should stop thinking they are CoW - data is something that gets passed in and operated on.
Secondly data operations should be side effect free - and distributed, so that we can ask for processing- in many ways I would expect not to share my data but to accept payment in return for some slice of processing someone wants
This may work ok, and generally the things we want (social networks) will be fine with local data sharing - facebooks walled garden would have to be replaced with open protocol (ie AOL -> SMTP) and no idea how to achieve that.
So im not setting the world on fire here. But I think the shape of future is clear - just getting there ...
Unfortunately they're not very efficient, and have limited security guarantees. But that's part of an approach to do it securely.
I'd rather set up my own router with pf-sense and a industrial WiFi access point.
I really love the concept of complete home automation however the data needs to stay in the home and companies need to ask for permission to mine it.
I have nothing against data mining it can be incredibly helpful but i want full control over weather i choose to share it or charge a small fee for my data.
The whole idea of home automation (and most of IoT) over cloud is absurd. The devices in your home should not communicate by sending packets around the entire globe. The data should never leave your internal network unless explicitly meant to (web interfaces are cool and all, and you want to have remote access).
I'm actually somewhat surprised people don't seem how wrong the current model is, but I suspect it's a mix of cloud being The Hot Sexy Thing and being paid not to understand this (via business models that rely on monetizing users through cloud solution; as some of my hardware startup friends told me once after talking with the investors, hardware won't be making money, the cloud platform will).
So yes, I would be very willing to help reverse this and make local network communication the default for home automation and relevant technologies.
Its a pretty big hassle
I am sticking with my Asus AC66U which has more features and is also cheaper than this Google device
Although I'm sure you're using DD-WRT or something...
Here's more... granted, these aren't all vulnerabilities that Google is responsible for, but many are:
Remember Android wasn't originally designed by Google, and many of it's security design decisions and culture were inherited.
BTW Google is not exactly known for being good at updates of hardware, just look at the mess Android is, especially older phones
So I replaced the middle antenna with a WL-ANT-157 from Asus, and wow. It's the best home wifi experience I've ever had in this price range.
Even what they do mention is enough to start inferring things about your personal life:
With "historical data consumption" they can determine who is in the house and when. With the number and make of connected devices, they can take a pretty good estimate of family size, annual income, how many of your household are working, etc.. (Though they probably first care how many Apple devices there are connecting... maybe we need to send you some more Samsung adverts)
And sure it strips the URLs from the logs -- but between Google DNS and Google Analytics being on much of the web, they can piece back together every site you visit anyway and now your router has a Google account they can tie it right back to the router in your home.
And of course it's a $199 router with a license agreement that says Google can stop it working at any time they like (clause 5c).
It's okay to decide not to adopt the device in question, and it's fine to weigh how much you trust Google against what benefits you might get from any given device. For the average tech-savvy user, perhaps there's a lower value prop, perhaps there isn't. Some people like having absolute control, other people like someone managing things for them.
There's been some movement in industrial applications via stuff like https://twitter.com/FilamentHQ which leverages hardware accelerated ECC and telehash, using blockchain based DNS systems and other decentralized methods of command and control.
I think a similar direction needs to be taken for consumer hardware and data. The cloud needs to become just another peer.
I've been working with a bunch of interesting ideas on trying to get a distributed IoT network setup using programmable blockchains and Eris industries stack as part of an internship with them.
In P2P networks you'll need reliable peers with sufficient capacity. Making a home server into an always connected peer could solve plenty of issues, such as with routing and hosting.
Why? Most consumers aren't in the ultra-suspicious-because-it-says-Google camp, and most of those who are in that camp are likely to take using a different branding for a project from the same ultimate corporate parent as evidence that not only is the project trying to violate privacy, its also trying to be extra sneaky about it.
Unlike most of the comments here it isn't a privacy issue for me, I totally respect the privacy argument but personally just don't care enough to make decisions based on it... for me, the issue is that when I think of Google and hardware I think of the Nexus Q, Google TV, etc. Google suddenly (and relatively quickly) drops projects like this on a fairly regular basis and when the whole thing is all "cloud-this-cloud-that" dropping support basically means you've got a conversation-starting paperweight.
If you think the Nexus Q was a fantastic product and that Google made the wrong decision to kill it, that's one thing -- you're saying they have bad taste, or bad product sense, or an inverted sense of quality vs. crap. I wouldn't agree with that assessment, though I admit it's an valid, internally consistent opinion.
But it's more likely you never owned a Nexus Q and are just using it as an example of how projects at Google get killed. Sure, Google kills projects. Just as startups fail. That's no more astute an observation than saying that sometimes it's sunny and sometimes it rains. You wouldn't expect Google to keep funding a stalled or not-quite-thriving project any more than you'd expect investors to keep plowing money into a startup that can't find product-market fit. Sure, the opposite outcome sometimes happens. But generally it doesn't, and that's OK.
Some think Google is valuable because it takes more risks than companies its size. The implication of your opinion is the opposite -- that Google should be more risk-averse (not starting this router project because a router is a crazy thing to build), or innovate more slowly (launching it later than today because it's not ready), or ignore market feedback longer than a startup would (damn the torpedoes, it sucks and nobody wants it, but let's keep its team on a death march). Is that how you'd run Google if you were its CEO?
I don't disagree, which is why I also don't spend money on startup consumer goods that have any sort of requirement on "the cloud" (if the company dying makes the product virtually worthless, count me out) and also why I virtually never back tech kickstarter-style projects.
My opinion on google is that they are extremely bipolar (or at least give the external impression of being so) when it comes to experimental projects, they seem to go through periods where they are open to trying new things and then (very quickly) to periods of retraction where things that aren't ad focused are left to wither and die or just killed outright. I don't want my money caught up in their mood swings unless the value proposition is amazing, and in this case it really isn't.
It's also the frustrating potential that the product will be 98% awesome but with niggling problems that don't seem to get fixed as it's abandoned quickly; ie- my recent Ask HN submission about Android TV.
The Nexus One was branded Google. I wouldn't say it's supported by Google anymore because it doesn't receive firmware updates. Google first released it in early 2010.
The Chromebook CR-48 was first released in December 2010, but it wasn't a Google product (unbranded). It still receives software updates today.
BTW the new router isn't a Google product. TP-Link makes it. Google just controls the software, the way Microsoft updates Windows on third-party PCs.
I have one of those, it's a Linksys router with OpenWRT acting as a firewall.
But if you can make it more user friendly and sparkle some hype all over... sure, go for it.
Ironically, having users controlling their own routers could be the best chance to do that. That is, toss out the crappy consumer routers and instead embrace the router as a user-controlled computer that sits between the user's devices (including IoT devices) and the ISP connection (e.g., modem). This router could run an open source source OS and be programmed _by the user_ to do all sorts of useful things, such as block ads, block tracking, perhaps even create private overlay networks among family and friends, protected from spam.
In a world where the Internet user can have some respite from radio, TV and other advertising, Google (=slave to advertisers) should not be selling routers. Should they come to dominate the market, the respite will come to an end. Users probably will not even know what happened. No one pays attention to routers as computers. They just want a strong WiFi signal.
Consumers have made it crystal clear that they are willing to trade their time and data for lower prices and more convenience. Watch the commercial on that landing page. It couldn't be targeted less at technical people.
But you can never expect Google to provide such a product as long as it makes money off your data. Maybe it needs to be under a different letter of the Alphabet.
I too am a bit surprised to hear tech minded people get excited about products that basically exist to collect their data.
If not, this wouldn't be so bad (for $200) running DDWRT/OpenWRT?
 Also, does anyone know if the base firmware will be open source similar to Chromium? If so, one could theoretically still take advantage of their security updates (which would honestly be leaps and bounds above current consumer-grade hardware) with open source tooling.
I don't think we will suddenly abandon the cloud. If anything, we will centralize even more information. My biggest philosophical debate is what will happen to people who deliberately protect their information. Surely they are meatier targets by various adversaries, but the thing that bugs me most is the fact that you will become irrelevant. Lack of data will impede even some most basic services and probably you won't be trusted because Big Cloud doesn't have your profile.
Is this sarcasm? I guess I fail to understand how Google now knowing all the details of my life impedes "progress". It shouldn't stop them from developing new technology; why does the "cloud" need to figure out how to "personalize" things more for me anyways, outside of the obvious answer to serve up better targeted ads (which I'd rather make go away by any means necessary)?
More of irony, I guess.
Google's core is still about serving you information and possibly some knowledge. To get better insights they need more information. It is as simple as that. MS entered the same field with Windows 10. They need more data to give better Cortana experience. If it's not all the data, Siri, Now & Cortana would suck. Now we are witnessing them going mainstream.
Secure smart home servers that act as rendezvous servers for your end-to-end encrypted connections so you have smooth links and network switching, routing, file hosting for your privately shared media (using tech like Tahoe-LAFS), anonymization (why run multiple Tor/I2P clients in a network when you can have one trusted device do it?), simple access control so you can easily determine to gets to connect to your home automation hardware, etc...
Need we say more?
> Whose interested?
shouldn't that be "who's"?
Welcome! To set up your OnHub, you’ll also need:
Android or iOS device
I think you need an account for cloud-based configuration, credential sharing, etc. Maybe it's not for everyone, but I think it makes sense as a product. I highly doubt they added a Google account requirement to improve ad targeting.
Some cloud services for the device are actually optional. But AFAIK you still need a Google Account.
Here is the help page on the topic of data collection and privacy:
And see also, how to set a whole bunch of privacy settings:
Disclaimer: I work on the project. I am not a spokesperson or legal or marketing, or anything like that.
How do I configure a router if I need an internet connection to configure it? Sounds like a circular dependency issue.
Also, these days a good % of customers are walking around with an Internet connection in their hands, separate from their home connection.
There's no reason for this to be sent over the Internet, when you're both in the same room.
This is just for setup right? So the energy cost is insanely trivial, hardly worth mentioning.
There is something to be said for tying the device into an existing strong authentication infrastructure.
There's absolutely no reason your private home router should be a slave to whatever remote configuration, monitoring, or intercept that some third party may be under legal orders to implement.
IMO these devices are nothing but parasites. On the positive side, Google has no track record with selling this kind of device and hopefully they will fail badly at it.
Maybe I'm over-stating the similarities, or the actual success.
That's how it's "made to" work (needing a google account).
So is the Chromecast and you don't need an account for that, unless you want to customize it with your own photos etc
Asking for an explanation or complaining or criticizing a product is good and should be encouraged. Companies should expect negative feedback if they release products that consumers do not like. In fact this helps the Companies too in making products that people want.
I don't quite see why you're telling people to "take it or leave it". That applies to every single product in existence, and I would hazard a guess that most people here are aware of it.
I'm saying that if you're unwilling to use a Google account for this, then (in all likelihood) it probably isn't the best product for you.
The same way that if you're unwilling to use an Amazon (or Apple) account, the Kindle (or iPhone) isn't going to be the best product for you.
It gives some protection against an attacker using a default password (as with every other router in the world). Also the hardware could be locked to a particular account in case the firmware is reset and you return to a welcome page.
Also it seems preferable that Google should use it's existing infrastructure instead of creating something new just for this.
I find that a highly optimistic statement given advertising is pretty much Google's only significantly profitable product and is supporting the entire conglomerate.
Plus, unless Google can snoop into HTTPS connections, how would this help them with ad targeting? (since HTTP will be phased out within the next few years)
Hostname from TLS SNI is also useful for AD targeting.
That indirectly does increase ad revenue and targeting, and you can be sure that over time different people in the company will keep having the "bright idea" that if they correlate OnHub data with data from Analytics, DNS, and location services, they can improve ad-targeting by 0.x%, leading to $Y million in additional revenue, and within a few years it will be.
I highly doubt they added a Google account requirement
to improve ad targeting.
Terms of Service  is the real deal. For e.g. - (I've removed examples given in brackets)
When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.
The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services.
Our automated systems analyze your content to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customized search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection. This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored.
So yeah, the Terms of Service is filled with so many legal loopholes that only a lawyer would love.
Sure! What else doesn't it do "for now"? You should make a list. Subliminal messaging out of the speaker, ad hoc mesh for coordinating kill-bots...
More seriously, one nice feature of that page:
If changes are made to this article (which should be rare), a revision history will be available on this page to let you know what has changed and why.
All privacy policies should have this.
Ad delivery networks, and google is one of the biggest, have one core business: delivering ads. Everything is setup to make that as big and as solid as possible. Whatever it takes (and we all know how far ad delivery networks will go: almost infinitely far).
Now they ship a piece of hardware, require signing up with an account, and it's not for prolonging / helping their core business? If you believe that, I have a piece of land I want to sell to you, special price.
At a strategic level, if we make wifi better and people use the internet more, sure, we can show them more ads. Maybe that and/or other strategic concerns are part of why the project got funded in the first place. But the people actually designing the features are probably a disjoint set of people from the ones thinking about that kind of strategy.
- Typed on Google Chrome on my Android Phone, connected to my Google Fiber network via my onHub router.
It's made by an alphabet subsidiary, not google. Google are the bad ad-selling guys, they're the good guys. 100% true!
I suspect 95% of people do not change the default credentials, which are stickered or engraved on their routers.
Which having a seemingly random admin and wifi password with WPA pre-configured is better than no password.
I remember a story where an individual connected to an open AP, scanned the network, found a windows network share with everyone read access, that had NES roms and their tax returns. The sad part, and still is true today, you couldn't help them without admitting that you committed a crime (a felony I believe).
This is too funny - why would you admit, to a cop, what you are doing??? You just say you are sitting in your car enjoying a nice day - and it wouldn't be a lie because technically you are. It just so happens you are doing other things as well.
> He had been accessing the Internet through a nonprofit agency's network from a car parked nearby and chatted with the police officer about it.
If you are thinking "but surely the legal system should understand this concept, right?"
> "I had a feeling a law was being broken, but I didn't know exactly what"
Or how about the library who didn't mind a patron was using their wireless system - but the police still wanted to press charges:
> The library director said that Tanner had not broken any rules, and local citizens criticized police for their actions.
From one of the news articles:
> The police officer confiscated Tanner's laptop in order to inspect what he may have been downloading,
That is a big NO. If a police officer ripped my laptop from my hands - I guarantee it would be a decision we would both regret.
I used to work there, and one eternal subject of lunch-table conversation was how interesting it would be to make consumer routers with the same ease of management... but how the consumer market is such a hellhole to work in because margins are so low and consumers are more sensitive to price than to management complexity in their purchasing decisions.
A good brand like Google's can get around that, though.
Could be worse - a G+ account.
When I tried it after hearing it would shut down soon, it seemed neat.
Wave was a cool idea, though. But refusing to integrate it with e-mail under the assumption everybody will stop using it was a tad optimistic.
As a side note, I'm surprised this isn't marketed alongside the Nest branch. It really has the look and feel of Nest products with the LEDs and the speaker aesthetic. Also surprised this isn't an "Alphabet" product.
It pretty much is... it's their way of sneaking the 'home automation' core/aggregation box into people's homes masked as a wireless router (for now).
I'm sure the capability you mention will come heading into the future. The only question will be : execution/security and will a competitor come up w/ a more secure/well executed product which won't serve as a data vacuum hose to google.
This kind of product launch on the heels of their massive alphabet re-org with no understanding where it came from (division wise) or what its goal is leads me to question whether the re-org is really going to move google beyond its former execution flaws ...
Deeper than that, even. It seems like this is intended as a local-network cloudlet substrate.
Launch an app on your phone that needs a companion frontend server instance to talk to? One gets launched "in the cloud"—specifically, in a virtual cloud owned by the app author. But where is that instance, physically? Usually a provider like AWS... but with a cloudlet peering arrangement, that instance could instead end up running on your router. (Not as crazy as it sounds if your app has an N:M frontend-backend server topology.)
* It’s a play on the word “shard”.
* It suggests privacy and protection.
* It suggests something that is nearby, as opposed to “the cloud” that is far away.
Unfortunately, the word is probably too susceptible to negative connotation.
Revolv Hub supported devices:
I know it's anecdotal, but the Insteon forums are filled with similar stories. I was a very early adopter and have been through several generations of devices, and I'm committed to using another platform when I start replacing the remaining Insteon switches that will inevitably die.
I wouldn't recommend Insteon to anyone. X-10 was more reliable in my house. I'm evaluating Zigbee options now.
Basically this boils down to:
The average home router which has basic to no settings (many even lack channel selection) but usage is poor to suboptimal. I had a Netgear router which had broken internal static routing - and netgear's response was to buy a different router (even though you could set it inside the router...).
Buying a higher power router or installing DD-WRT, Tomato or any of the other firmwares - now you have 1000 configuration items but you don't know which ones to tweak to give you good performance.
I believe most people fall into the middle - they want something that's easy to use with good performance but with the ability to adjust the 1000 configuration items if they wanted to.
I think most people want something that just works. (Most HN readers might want something where they can adjust 1000 configuration settings, but most people I think would never want to.)
Alphabet has been announced, but AFAIK the actual corporate transition hasn't yet occurred.
I'm surprised that it isn't a Nest branded product that the Nest division ultimately controls. Looking at Google's history, I wouldn't be surprised if the Nest division came out with their own wifi router as well.
I'm hoping that this doesn't turn into another Google TV release where the product is barely beta.
The specifications are on a par with low-end consumer-grade NAS products, and it has a USB 3 port, but nothing on the site says anything about providing storage or other services, except for router-type and supporting configuration services (I suppose "keep an eye on your network" is a bit of an extra).
"Plenty of room, OnHub has 4GB of storage space, so there’s plenty of room for auto-updates and the latest software features" is hardly selling a server. All it claims to be is a fancy router.
The detailed specs page shows a 1.4 GHz Dual Core processor and a 1GB of DDR3 RAM. Thats a little ridiculous for a router
At some point you need a general purpose CPU to run everything and it's not hard to just throw an ARM SoC at it which is going to be in the 1-1.5ghz range and dual core because that's just what low-end is now.
Agreed, the specs between the WRT1900AC and the OnHub are strikingly similar. Even the advertised smart features.
The RAM is about 4x what other routers are packing but the cost difference between a 1Gbit chip and 4Gbit chip is a few dollars. Prices have been plummeting this year and 8Gbit chips replaced 4Gbit as the new hotness. Not to mention DDR4 rolling out so there might just be dumping going on that makes adding 1GB of RAM a non issue.
Eh? You must buy some shitty routers, no offense.
Compared to the rest of the market, paying $200 for a router isn't competitive. It just is not worth it given Google's "eh-we-will-do-it-and-stop-if-people-complain/sue" mindset.
To Melvin, since I'm submitting to fast:
> OnHub Wireless Router from Google and TP-LINK
> by TP-LINK
1) You complain about the quality of TP-LINK products and think the solution is....another TP-LINK product, likely measured in the same way.
2) Honestly, I cannot think of a consumer AP that would actually perform to your expectations [apartment complex with 30+ competitors, saturating all the channels] that would be priced at $300, let alone $200. I can tell you right now, this Google AP won't do it either. Its "up to 1900mbps" for a reason. Trust me. Buying this won't be a magical solution to your problems if you real world gigabit speeds.
To the folks complaining about "magical routers":
A) Buy something from Ubiquiti Networks.
B) Buy something you can flash with WRT firmware.
In both cases, as long as you understand the hardware specs, you'll get something better than the norm. In Ubiquiti's case, I'm 99% sure it will outperform a Google branded TP-Link AP unless Google is heavily subsidizing and QAing everything.
If OnHub fixes that second problem as they claim to, that would be more than enough reason for me to spend the $200. If they can get higher than 250mb/s speed by optimizing around the congestion, $200 will be well worth the spend.
I could actually get close to 1 Gbps with the stock firmware. But it was unstable, requiring a reset every other day. I used an open source firmware, but it didn't contain the NAT offload module, so I would not be able to get over 200-250 Mbps. (This was is all wired, not wireless).
Since I had a wifi access point, I ended up switching to an Ubiquity Edgemax router and haven't had any problems since.
Not really a fan of TP-Link.
I got a cheap TP-Link repeater. It works fine, nothing special, no bells or whistles. But for the price it was a good buy.
I'm very happy considering the price and openwrt support.
I'm talking about things such as "Enable XPRESS whatever". Help: "Turns XPRESS whatever on or off". And then you find out that no matter what the feature was supposed to do, theoretically, in practice it makes the router slow and unstable. Or, at worst, crashes it. No brand is immune. Many (non-enterprise) routers will advertise QoS features, but you find that you are better off without them.
That goes for almost all brands that are not classed as "Enterprise" - and even some that are.
Now I'm on fibre I'm using the Draytek purely as an access point, and BT's modem to connect. The Draytek'll need replacing soon.
I don't trust people who say "Trust me." :)
Tighten up your writing, and perhaps speech, so you simply state the facts as you see them. This router will meet your needs because it has these 3 features. 1,2,3. It's much harder to argue with flat statements of fact as opposed to the salesmanship trick of, i would lie to most people but i like you so i'm going to tell you a secret.
Or, you know, don't. If it's not a problem for you don't waste time on it, but that's the underlying effect.
I think the underlying problem is my incentive is for people to disbelieve me the first time I tell them something. I don't really care if they believe me since after I am proven right I get more to fix the problem. [e.g. The last time, I got ~$6k] :/
So I'm not really motivated to fix it, y'know?
I probably should fix it since I'd be a better person for it but my financial incentive isn't aligned with fixing it.
Your reply: After I've convinced them that I know enough to fix the problem (by either demonstrating my expertise/qualifications/experience or getting someone else to vouch for me), they believe me.
Well duh! If you demonstrate why they should trust you, they'll trust you. They won't just randomly pay you money to fix shit if they don't trust you.
But hey, go keep trusting the people who already screwed you.
1) You want to fix a shitty TP-Link product with another TP-Link product.
2) How is that not that?
I also have occasional problems with Linux devices being picky and flaky -- sometimes not connecting at all (repeating the "connecting..." phase ad nauseam) and sometimes just dropping the connection until I restart the device.
I find it dubious that these problems would be fixed by a Google branded router.
That's why OnHub is a Google product.
Here is the help page on the topic of data collection and privacy:
And see also, how to set a whole bunch of privacy settings:
Disclaimer: I work on the project. I am not a spokesperson or legal or marketing, or anything like that.
The team that built this is part of the same company as Google Fiber (disclaimer: for which I work), which is in fact no longer part of Google Inc.
I've heard it's mostly a liability thing. When projects like the self-driving car were directly under Google, Google's assets were fair game in any lawsuit over that technology. With the current setup, liability is siloed in each legal entity which gives the cash cow, Google, more protection.
More here: http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/13/9149431/alphabet-google-co...