Even the large ad networks show paid content that violates what I would consider widespread ethical norms - presenting everything from hyperbolic claims to straight fraud to people with little repercussion. I'm reminded of a poignant example in television, where episodes of Jeopardy! are intertwined with their shilling quackery like Prevagen to an audience using the fear of aging. Perhaps I'm growing increasingly blind to any positive impacts of the discipline, but ethically I find it hard to separate the fraudsters from the engineers that enable them.
I guess advertising is saving me a lot of money in the end by cultivating this hatred, and though I can't change the world this screed was therapeutic.
This is just not ok. I understand that screening everyone in the world's personal posts/shares for 'fake news' is a daunting task, but KYC-ing advertisers and screening/auditing ads for blatant and obvious scams or false marketing is many orders of magnitude less resource intensive... and should be required by laws with teeth.
If the costs of doing so mean that it's impossible to make a profit as an ad platform, then that business model should die.
And very easy to automate. We know they can do it. But until there is sufficient threat of action if they don't then they are happy to let their users get fleeced in exchange for the advertising $.
There is an argument that "if they crack down on the easy to detect stuff, the scams will just get more clever" but that is not at all why they aren't making more effort.
One funny thing I've noticed with facebook, is that if you start responding to such adverts with comments along the lines of "this is obviously a scam because..." responses, they start showing you more and more of that sort of scam presumably because you have shown engagement with the previous ones.
"Not OK" is forgetting to clean up your table after the meal. What these scammers are doing is simply fraud and Facebook should be liable as they enable it.
I remember when I set up my first FB ad (maybe 10 years ago?) it took a few days because some of them were manually reviewed. Fast forward 10 years and they accept any fraudster who pays them a few bucks. Just low scum, that's all.
Glad I deleted mine in 2010.
I've said it before: Advertising is a psychological attack on human weakness.
> I find it hard to separate the fraudsters from the engineers that enable them
Paraphrasing because I can't find the original:
"What does it say of humanity to have so many of the smartest minds in the world working on making advertising more effective"
> this screed was therapeutic
I'm absolutely not letting my computer get infected through the ad networks, which is a separate issue really.
In my dream world, all forms of push advertising would be illegal, full stop. Meanwhile, I'll put whatever effort it takes to block everything.
Contrast this with email and phone, the only successful federated systems. Spam is illegal in some countries, and there's a concerted effort by everyone to fight it.
When no one controls the whole experience end-to-end, there is simply no technical possibility to expose you to something against your will. This is why decentralized social media is the future. I just can't see how Facebook could survive much longer unless there's a drastic change of some sort.
Sadly, I think things need to get much worse before they get better. People still don't understand the dangers of it, though I believe this has already become a sociopolitical problem instead of just an annoyance.
If I want to buy something, and if I don't know exactly what, I'd like an unbiased list of things in that category to choose from. And when I don't want to buy anything — which is, again, when I'm reading an article for example — I don't want to be reminded that economy exists AT ALL. There is no place or circumstance in my life where advertising, as it is known today, would be anything but annoyance to me. Which is why all my devices have ad blockers installed and third-party cookies disabled.
I use ad blockers.
Pay for YouTube premium. Use a sponsorship skip extension.
Only watch ad-free TV / streaming.
Pay for Spotify.
Use tweetdeck for Twitter.
Don't use Instagram or Facebook.
I certainly don't listen to the radio.
Where else can I possibly see an ad? A billboard? That's easy to ignore.
Imo it's all worth it.
We should be charging vendors for traffic that is only designed to forward their business, when it happens on our own local loop.
Episodes of Jeopardy, now temporarily hosted by Dr. Oz.
I would love to see how an alternative reality without advertisements would look. I'm not sure if we could ever fully accomplish this given that there always will be people willing to pay for eyeballs and people happy to take money or goods to change their messaging.
Because that is small potatoes compared to the tracking, matching and profiling of individuals. I believe that is the big threat to society (and possibly democracy)
- Do the ads still track users?
- Yes, but they are not unobtrusive
- Yeah, that is not acceptable.
- Tune the advertising to best manipulate a particular person (think of it as a PID controller tuning inputs to a system);
- Ad attribution - i.e. determining which companies in the advertising chain should get paid when a customer buys something from someone.
Restricting the shape and form advertising is allowed to take addresses the driving factors behind privacy violations.
> Perhaps I'm growing increasingly blind to any positive impacts of the discipline, but ethically I find it hard to separate the fraudsters from the engineers that enable them.
There are definitely useful spinoffs - like they always are, when you throw a lot of money and a bright mind into solving tough problems. But it's hard to argue the positives here where the primary driver is a huge net social negative, and spinoffs could've been done pursuing better goals.
 - And I mean that - http://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html.
But something went wrong at some point.
Similarly with options - options were a great way farmers could offload risk to the products buyers, who, in exchange could get better prices.
But when options started to be used for something which is not much different from lottery bets, again, something went wrong.
This is important lesson. Capitalism is a great system, but it cannot be narrowed to greed. Capitalism requires working ethics since we are not able to regulate every aspect of life - it is practically impossible.
But ethics no longer works. Big IT companies owners were fixing employees wages, who cared. Amazon owner does not care about warehouses workers miserable work conditions. Facebook owner is ok to steer people into fights, as this increases "engagement", ads clicks and revenue.
Has it happened that Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg was asked to leave his country club or whatever place they are hanging out because of the unethical behavior? Obviously not.
I hear about new ones by word of mouth from collegues (from people who go out of their way to watch product releases on the apple away day or whatever it is). I hear about new gadgets by paying for someone to go to CES and look at what's new.
Tesla, and starlink, again is word of mouth, or deliberatly seeking out information on it (by visiting tesla.com for example).
The market is literally a big, greedy - in algorithmic sense - optimization engine. It optimizes away everything that stands in the way of making more money. It optimizes away quality, and it absolutely optimizes away any and all ethics. Marketing and advertising are a clear example of this in two separate ways: on the object level, they're already doing everything they can that isn't strictly illegal; on the meta level, you see that competing on marketing and advertising has a better ROI than actually trying to make better products.
You cannot expect a sense of ethics from a system which requires ethics as a containment vessel, and continuously tries to erode it. Much like you can't expect water to just keep flowing in a straight line, in absence of a bank or pipe that would constrain its expansion.
 - And enforced. GDPR demonstrates that with insufficient enforcement, otherwise reputable companies will absolutely break the law.
Whether it's still Capitalism at that point is an interesting question. Some people seem to call any market-based system capitalism. For others the lack of ethics is definitional.
My own view is that we probably ought to stop using the term "capitalism" entirely for the most part, and be more specific about what we mean.
It seems like you're mixing advertising = fraud, when in reality it's just people who commit fraud that use advertising because regulators can't seem to act.
Ads, even if self-promotion, are a bellwether for a company being desperate or greedy, neither of which bodes well for their long-term product quality, usually because it indicates sales people are making the decisions. They also often lead to a slippery slope of increasing user data collection
from 2003: https://www.theregister.com/2003/11/07/help_my_belkin_router...
I have never bought a belkin product since.
I've also had numerous cases where routing has stopped for no reason. This I find really bad as, "it has one job ...".
That was a fun thing to explain. My respect for this company was stellar, but is now around rock bottom.
For me that was the "one job" problem.
While researching I found-out that you must use a ui.com account to setup the UDM (the apologists call it "mandatory online registration"). While you can setup a local account and disconnect from ui.com afterwards, I was perplexed that they would choose to do this.
Their user forums had at least two flamewar threads with people pointing-out the security implications of linking your local network to a remote, internet-accessible service but zero communication from Ubiquity themselves. Fast-forward to January and we saw the disclosure of a massive breach on ui.com.
So I ditched the Ubiquiti cameras for Geovision (better bang for $), kept the switches, APs and have been running the controller in containers (https://github.com/jacobalberty/unifi-docker). Needless to say, I'm not going to upgrade from version 6.0.43, which does not include advertisement.
I hope it doesn't get any worse because I do love how easy it is to maintain VLANs, firewall rules and IPS services.
Even if Ubiquiti was as good as it was pre-2019, if they pulled this advertising stunt then I'd not consider upgrading. There's now no chance I'll be sticking with Ubiquiti for my 6E upgrade.
I’m not frustrated when I get an email or dismissible banner ad from a company regarding a new product. It’s possibly interesting to me, and easily dismissible if not.
Sure, technically, this is advertising. But the biggest problems people have with advertising (privacy invasion, seeing too many ads, or seeing low-quality ads) aren’t present in this example.
It’s advertising in the exact same way that GitHub might show a banner informing me of a new plan they have. While it can be annoying, yes, I would disagree that it’s “as bad” as typical advertising practices.
Customer support directed me to the forums. Ubiquiti didn't respond to my post. I posted on a thread where someone else was seeing the same problem, where a number of people gaslit me and blamed me for the problem.
I still have no idea if they've fixed their band steering. Or how they decided to force 5 GHz on a 2.4 GHz chipset. Or how to get support. Or how to report a problem.
Definitely won't be buying their products in future.
I do wonder if they ever fixed the issue. The switches lock up every couple months and need a hard reboot.
We also had all sorts of problems with their APs and switched over to Cisco Meraki. As much as I hate Cisco and their ridiculous cost at least the Meraki line works.
I have an old laptop that I was trying to fire up to run some lightweight games on. I could not get it to connect to wi-fi for the life of me. Must be the band steering.
The newer MediaTek based APs have constant problems with client device compatibility, and can’t even reliably support DHCP on the newest official firmware and controller versions (or any of the last 10 releases).
I strongly advise you to look anywhere else for your WiFi needs unless they really turn the ship around somehow.
It's not like their hardware is cheap, I'd much rather pay a monthly subscription than be served ads.
Why not both?!
/s but probably for real eventually.
TP-Link has actually upped their game with routers and APs lately. The next time I’m doing an installation that doesn’t need big-boy stuff from Cisco I’m going with them.
And that's it's biggest problem.
If only few sites used it, it wouldn't be that big of a deal
Instead of focusing on their strengths like great value with self hosted management infrastructure, they look like they’re setting up to force subscriptions on their users. All of the subscription BS for centralized management is so expensive that it’s literally cheaper to hire someone to manage everything by hand (the old fashioned way).
every 3-6 hours the wifi just died and had to be again force rebooted.
will not touch linksys again. they're a consumer brand, and my requirements are clearly SMB.
imo their best product was the WRT54GL.
fast forward, and my UDM Pro handles everything, including ax.
Standards like fast roaming are fraught with issues.
And at one point they added call homes/telemetry. I think the 5.x code.
That is to say they have always been buggy in one form or another. More so than other vendors like Aruba or Cisco, I’ve managed both at campus scale in a previous life. I wouldn’t put them in an enterprise but a smb or soho deployment sure.
When they did the call homes/telemetry I created some firewall rules for the controller. The controller can only talk to the Ubuntu repos. Aps are on a private vlan with no internet. I only open the controller up for Ubnt upgrades and then shut down the rules and disable the ubnt repos in sources.list.
If I were someone new in the market I would look at the ruckus unleashed platform for wifi. You can get aps with extensive features cheaper, especially grey market.
I would and have avoided UBNT for all routing and switching.
1. I am familiar/setup to handle their quirks and had 99% of the setup already done.
2. I really wanted an AP with Dual 5Ghz AND dual 2.4 Ghz dedicated antennas for some very specific applications (multiple rtsp streams over wifi+client plex wifi streams+client traffic. With the first two largely being on 2.4Ghz.
3. I am lazy (lots of this, my wife is less tolerant of me re-designing the wheel and being locked into an upgrade for days)
4. The security stuff i had mostly addressed anyway.
If this were a greenfield purchase or I didn't really need/want dedicated radios.
Id go with a ruckus. the r700 unleashed and/or r500 unleashed can be found cheap and are chock full of features. and 2x2:2 is normally going to be perfectly fine in a home setting.
Going with ones that are "unleashed" mean that the controller runs on the AP's. not extra hardware needed.
For most home uses. wave1 is still more than enough and their Wave1 AP's can be had cheap. Hell you can probably even get one of the R710/R510's in a very good price range and be at wave2.
For switching...mikrotik is solid for cheap and works and stable. Even modems etc. For firewalls my preference is BSD, so something like opnsense...But mikrotik will probably do okay as well.
This is the problem with Ubiquiti, and maybe why they feel they can advertise in their UI and let their quality slip: a new r710 lists for $1295.
That's almost four times as much as a UAP-AC-HD. On sale for $810 it's still over twice as much. Some of the Ubiquiti WiFi 6 stuff can be had for $100-150.
Like, yeah, I'm sure Ruckus is way better, but I'd hope so for the price difference.
Regardless of list price. They can be had as cheap as ubiquiti and their software/firmware is not only better but doesn’t have all the telemetry crap built in.
I'm assuming you're talking of used hardware as this isn't the case, at least in the UK.
Ruckus refreshes their gear fairly frequently and the overstock can be had at a steep discount. Those not needing to do huge, high density deployments in things like auditoriums, stadiums, classrooms and the like but are just looking for something for their home can get a really solid piece of gear (imho better than ubnt) at a steep discount.
Its not really the same as even grey market Cisco stuff.
Like i said, i stuck with ubnt because of some specific things, including the fact that I could re-use mounting holes/measurements and could upgrade in an hour vs rebuilding entirely.
There is some hope on the horizon with v7 and the newest devices like Audience. Have seen reports of 1.3gb/s on these. But it's barely even beta right now.
Ruckus is pretty solid and you can usually find them used for great prices. Many units have a stand alone firmware available that negates the need for a controller.
My testing even on gigabit chipsets mirrors your 400 mbit per AP comment, at least in my situation.
If you are talking long distances you need to start looking at directional antennas...But to say..span an A-Frame house...they would do fine as others as well.
EDIT: The "Wireless Bridge Topology" is exactly what I need, here, but it's not entirely clear to me yet if I'd really need two APs on the gateway side as the picture suggests: https://docs.ruckuswireless.com/unleashed/188.8.131.52/c-Suppo...
Note: regardless of the vendor Meshing will basically 1/2 your available wireless bandwidth. Its handy to extend coverage, and you will still be able to stream netflix and probably even things like facetime etc, but you are going to be essentially inducing a half-duplex connection into your "backbone".
I'm waiting for some company to take their place. And I don't see how making router software open source for a company that is selling hardware is not a win.
There are several business tactics that are foreclosed by making the router software open source, mostly around price discrimination.
For example, you can't sell the same hardware for different prices with some hardware features turned off in the higher-volume cheaper SKU (which lets you apply greater efficiencies of scale to producing the hardware).
Of course, most companies that use price discrimination are only trying to maximize their profits, but it is worth noting that since hardware vendors that keep their software closed are able to pursue this tactic, it can leave hardware vendors with open software at somewhat of a disadvantage.
Tesla doesn't release the software to their cars.
Has the makings of an internal power struggle where the people who actually hold things together we’re not on board and bailed.
A lot of manual settings with obvious features (NAT acceleration, NAT loopback, good VPN client, easy QoS, reasonable firewall) being extremely hard to configure well in comparison to competing SOHO equipment.
Opposite way is much harder, as we can see with Ubiquiti: they hide and remove options, that are needed. With USG devices, I could have config.gateway.json configuration for some of those hidden options (like having site-to-site VPN using hostnames instead of IP addresses... well, Unifi UI cannot do that, but strongswan doing the IPSec on Unifi has no problem doint that). With UnifiOS devices, they are not addressing the issues, they are taking away the workarounds instead.
So they can advertise as much as they want, until they make devices fit for the purpose, there's no point in purchasing them. I don't see the situation improving anytime soon, they don't listen on their own community forums.
I think it's one of the better standalone WiFi router/AP's out there. If you want a long term supported open source/openwrt one it might be the best choice out there.
The original 3.11 release track has been super stable for many years, and is still being updated with security fixes. The 4.0 branch was a bit bumpy ride but since the 5.0 release early last year I've had zero issues.
Note that the default WiFi chipset is not the latest generation, and although the dev team is actively looking at the possibility to get some wifi6 working , I think it might be a while before that is out and stable.
As a bonus it has some cool features like built in support for CZ.nic's honeypot as a service  and lxc.
1. Everybody is excited with Github's new features that they promote on the dashboard. Sometimes popups and flashes too. Are they not ads?
2. Nobody ever complains about Github showing ads.
3. Github is a SaaS.
4. unify.ui.com is a SaaS
5. OP is complaining about ads on a SaaS.
6. Most people here don't seem to like this banner in question, but that's not how they phrase their responses.
Is this a case of some random Amazonian complaining about intrusive ads or or a case of ads, even for self promotions, aren't allowed in SaaS?
This screenshot shows the ad takes up a huge chunk of real estate and can only be turned off by presumably opting out of some new experience, which means it might become permanent. If enough of the internet protests, obviously Ubiquity might re-think their recent actions... but it won't change their overall product direction which is to try to encourage you to buy newer products by any means they can.
The proper equivalent would be if my Amazon Echo started showing me ads for a new Amazon Echo, or if I launched the Echo app and it said, hey, do you want to buy the new Echo at the top and I couldn't remove it. Perhaps another comparison: What if Nest suddenly changed to show an ad when you went to change your thermostat's settings such that you could learn about the new Nest that replaces your old hunk of junk? Or imagine if you opened System Preferences or About This Mac, and saw an ad for the latest and greatest MacBook from Apple? Like, do I really want to see stats about how my battery life is only 10% that of the newest Apple Silicon?
SaaS or not, there's a difference between advertising some new service I don't need and advertising new HARDWARE I don't need within my existing, perfectly good, management control panel for my existing hardware. Whether its hosted on a website or not is just an implementation detail. They could have used Electron, same result.
I don't disagree much with what you said, I'm just not sure if people actually know what they are arguing for. If the Ubiquity ad is too intrusive, complain about that. If it's a sweeping stance against all ads in things you've paid for, argue for that. I'm not seeing people make that distinction here. It's always both, and you can't argue for both at the same time.
The first tweet argues against ads in SaaS, and the second tweet argues against intrusive ads. If you argue against intrusive ads, then that means non-intrusive ads should be okay. If you argue for a blanket no-ad policy in products or services you've already paid for, even if the ads come from the same company you've bought your goods from, you don't need to argue whether the ads are intrusive or not.
This is what OP and lots of people don't seem to understand, and I'm quite surprised that this kind of logic actually flies on HN.
Outside of that, I’m okay with Apple showing ads for their music service or iCloud storage. As I said earlier, ads for services are one thing but ads for hardware are another. Intrusive or otherwise, I think it crosses a very big line to advertise your new hardware that replaces my old hardware from within a management control panel for said old hardware.
That said, I let it slide when it’s a feature distinction, for instance the management for the EdgeRouter X would mention features only in upgraded hardware or my AP management would have more features if combined with a Smart Firewall. That’s acceptable because I’m not asking you to fork your software to hide features I can’t use — it would be nice, but it’s understandable if you want to rub it in my face that there’s more you can do for me, like Premium Service upgrades or new software features (maybe).
Where I absolutely draw the line though is when perfectly good hardware advertises its replacement and I’ll stick with that, even if others are less consistent.
The Ad has shown on my locally deployed piece of software that's controlling hardware. It's not SaaS, it's a program for managing physical hardware running on my hardware.
And it has replaced USEFUL information (channel utilization and client counts) with a fullscreen unremovable ad.
How can you defend this crap?
That's not what the article suggests. The article suggests an ad on a page with an ubiquiti url.
While it may be the same software under the hood, I agree that seeing an ad when I'm on someone else's hosted page is (somewhat) acceptable unless I'm a paying customer, but seeing it on my own machine isn't.
In the end since those are two entirely different things and the article seems to be discussing their hosted version, It's important to keep those things apart
It's both. UniFi is product line of network hardware which is managed by a central controller. The controller is available as a software download, and Ubiquiti sells a few devices that are pre-configured to run it (the "Dream Machine" from the ad, and their "Cloud Key", which is just a PoE-powered mini-appliance that runs the controller). The controller's UI can be accessed either directly, or via a Ubiquiti-run cloud service. The tweet shows the latter, but having recently upgraded my controller, I can confirm that the ad also appears when directly accessing the UI. What's worse, there's a link offering to go back to the "Classic Dashboard" on my install, but it doesn't appear to work.
This is vital information. This is definitely not okay for practical reasons.
If I buy a gadget and use the manufacturers’ cloud service “for free” (apart from the hardware purchase) then I expect anything.
I wouldn’t want to use a cloud service to access what’s on my own hardware. Apart from ease of configuration, what’s the point of it? Why wouldn’t I rather go to my own server?
As far as I am concerned, UniFi is a set of compatible hardware products. Physical goods. Expensive, high-quality physical goods that I have already paid for. None of that is like GitHub.
But it looks like they want to be a SaaS instead, maybe because that's where the ad revenue is. But that's not what I as a buyer of WiFi APs want from them in any way whatsoever.
Even if they burn the brand, they won’t care. It’ll become SonicWall Cloud or some BS sub brand of a bigger vendor.
Look at the UDMP. There’s no reason that thing couldn’t have let’s encrypt integration for people that want external access without the cloud BS. Plus, local access over http is a bad design IMO. So if it’s a worse product and less secure, why do it? Usually when things don’t add up it’s safe to assume something is amiss.
> 4. unify.ui.com is a SaaS
One of those is not like the other. Unify UI is completely useless without a corresponding purchase of a physical good.
I don't care about Github's "ads" (quotes are intentional) because (1) they most unintrusive (2) not selling me an expensive piece of hardware
You pay Ubiquiti for the hardware and software to control the hardware. And they still show you ads in the software!
You're paying nothing to GitHub.
unify.ui.com is not just any software. It's a hosted management interface. They are selling you a service on top of some hardware. Services self-promote.
At this point, I'm willing to argue the issue at hand isn't even about intrusive ads or whether SaaS should self-promote. This is likely a case of people's idea of ownership has been challenged. They thought they bought a physical good, they hold complete ownership of it, and they didn't tell the hardware to sell them things. What lots of people have failed to connect is, Ubiquity routers are hardware/software/service bundles. Specifically in this case, they are trying to sell you "powerful insights and control", AKA some analytics and remote management capabilities that's only available on specific hardware/unify combo. People don't have a problem with SaaS running on some cloud hardware self-promoting, so logically why should people have a problem with SaaS attached to some hardware that you can touch self-promoting. Well, it turns out people don't like that. It's too drastic a change, it upends our traditional understanding of what purchasing physical good means. People still think they bought a piece a hardware, they can move it around and open it up, and therefore they own everything related to it. It requires thinking to process that in fact, you've bought some hardware, but the service is just a license, and you don't own it. None of these reactions are rational, it's just human psychology.
I think some of the responses in this thread reek of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
* telling the customer they’re wrong...
* and with multiple typos.
Yes, very cool.
"This is unacceptable and this change makes me very angry. I will not be considering future products from Ubiquiti"
Have you never interacted in a non-business sense with someone who worked customer support? They DO NOT have control of what they tell you. They will get fired real quick if they don't follow the script. Especially someone working the first line of support in a chat box.
I've been a UI fan for many years and was also dismayed by the 6.x releases and the switch to Mediatek, but every time I went looking around, I saw the same tire fires at other vendors. At least with UBNT it's "the devil you know".
Cambium is interesting, I've been playing around with their cnPilot stuff and it's been pretty solid.
I won‘t switch to the UniFi series for now even though they would provide easier management. But I‘m a bit worried that it‘s going to be an Apple-style product line where the pros are somehow not respected as much as before.
OTOH not sure what i'd recommend to others - there must be 20+ unifi networks out that via recommendations i've made to friends + network
Sticking with Mikrotik for now.
My dream networking gear for my house is whitebox switches that I can run Debian on, but I can't find any at an economical price. Anyone know of 5-12 port ARM switches?
But if you're doing this for a home network you don't really need that much bandwidth out of the home and can use the 2-port one with whatever switch you want.
I ran openwrt on a laptop in a one-armed router network configuration and it worked quite well.
Got any recommendations for access points that support wireless uplinks? My Unifi ones unfortunately tend to reboot frequently, sometimes needing manual readoption/full reset. It's bad if it happens during a meeting.
I don't think I need many bells and whistles, at this point I'm just content if it's stable.
Someone else suggested Ruckus in another subthread here. If they support wireless downlinks, that may be a good option.
EDIT: If it's known that (quality) power line stuff does not cause interference, it does become a good option.
i consider it somewhere in between wifi and an ethernet cable in terms of quality.
The CLI, on the other hand, is pretty great. Everything is consistent.
I've also tried automating it via Ansible with no success, has anyone had any luck with that?
RouterOS is not perfect but it does most things without being overly complicated. It's DHCPv6 relay agent is pretty much useless and I really look forward to WireGuard in RouterOS v7, if ever released as stable :D
Mikrotik support refuses to provide me the uboot config they use or guide me through this process :(
Made a decision long time ago to go all-Mikrotik instead of ubnt, definitely glad I made that decision several years ago.
1/ Their APs are so cool! Check out this web interface! I can manage an entire fleet of both of these, all from my home office!
2/ Aha, the APs run Linux and I can ssh to them and upload settings — even cooler!
3/ Er, you know what else runs Linux, has a pair of wired and wireless NICs, and can be managed remotely with plain text files and ssh — literally every SBC on the market for $20.
I run a mixture of UAC PROs and PoE SBCs as APs now. The latter because I’m cheap and I can manage them myself. The former because I’m cheap and refuse to retire something for which I paid $100+ a piece.
Ubiquiti provide some fantastic and well polished products. I thought I needed them, but all I really needed was commodity hardware and a shell script.
When you have gigabit FIOS backstopped by multi-hundred mbps LTE, several thousand square feet of concrete and metal construction, and actively use (and feel) hundreds of megabits in any given room, even in commercially packaged offerings there are not a lot of consumer or prosumer options.
Of the two that I’ve found: (a) eero Pro (not base), and (b) UDM Pro + Nano HD APs, it comes down to something like iPhone vs. Pixel: how much twiddling do you want to do for entertainment value?
For what it’s worth, I find better sustained up/down WiFi speeds (>600 mbps vs. 450 mbps) through eero Pro, but better sustained up/down wired speeds (>900 mbps vs. >800 mbps) and support for obscure legacy IoT through Ubiquiti UniFi®.
In locations not needing more than one AP, I find monster all-in-one gaming WiFi routers (e.g. Netgear, TP-Link) beat both of them.
What do you use to synchronise the APs and switch configuration? I'm talking things like SSIDs, VLANs, DHCP options etc.
VLANs at the switch level are handled by consumer NetGear switches. They have an HTTP interface around which one can build a simple API.
Configuration is driven by pushing from a single script. Push is not nearly as malleable as pull but it’s a very stable system. The script handles IPAM and DHCP allocations but almost everything that needs a static address is accessed via the DNS entry for its IPv6 EUI64 address.
Firewall rules between devices and other networks happen at the VLAN / subnet level — the actual IPv4 addresses aren’t needed for the rules themselves.
Ye gods. Video ads in my management interface? Are you KIDDING? This is ridiculous.
Sigh. Everything is turning to ashes. Every. Fucking. Vendor. has decided that it's perfectly OK to spam you and hoover up your personal data. And no, don't say "Apple" since I don't trust them any more than Microsoft or Google.
In any case, it makes me very hesitant to "update" my EdgeRouter, for that matter. :(
Ubiquiti has been skating on thin ice with me for a while, after their earlier telemetry kerfluffle, where they eventually did the right thing. But this is beyond the pale. The only thing I've seen worse was years ago when Belkin started hijacking HTTP connections to serve ads for censorware. 
At least the access points are capable of running OpenWRT, but I don't relish the prospect of reflashing them. The ERPoE-5 is the lone EdgeRouter I don't see in OpenWRT's hardware table. :(
Because only one firm in your list has billboards focusing on privacy (keeping your data on your device), code enforcing that, and policy and code requiring developer full transparency in the consumer app store.
It’s an interesting exercise to ask:
If you don’t trust Apple any more than Google, what would it take for you to trust that a high end consumer hardware company would be less data privacy exploitation motivated than a purely ad revenue driven company?
For example, they could show “devices that integrate with <AP or Switch or Router>” or integrate the changelog of all their releases into the management UI for all products.
The list goes on for the more thoughtful ways that could have done it, but instead they did they took the absurdly lame way of advertising via banners. Jeeze.
This ad-supported model isn't needed or wanted.
Makes it almost sound unintentional.
I still like the UniFi experience and have not had any problems. I am increasingly concerned about the direction the company is going. I figure I get can a quite a few years of service from my current setup. I don't need to update or change anything for the time being, so there is no urgency. I might still recommend a Ubiquiti setup to others but it would be heavily caveated.
That doesn't sound correct. I've always been able to access my controller without internet access as long as I was on the same LAN and was hitting the controller IP directly.
but i have to agree that it is no far fetched for ubiquiti to fuck this up.
Good info here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G2g7Txgzgw
Back then, Engenius had a lot of nice features and solid products, but their radios had some issues. I think we had to replace about 60% of the Engenius devices we deployed over a five year period. We never had to replace any of the Ubiquitis.
I wouldn't buy Ubiquiti now though.
For plug-and-play home wifi, Eero might be a good choice, with some reservations.
For slightly larger scale prosumer stuff, I might look for a way to use Ubiquiti's hardware but with something like https://hostifi.com/ , maybe with older-generation hardware that I still trusted.
For the DIY hobbyist, pfsense, openwrt, and kin are still popular.
Honestly, mesh networks have been a tarpit forever. It's been exceedingly difficult to make them reliable, with all the features people want (like access point roaming), without spending a lot of time or money. I got out of that niche a few years back and have no desire to get back in to it.
For prosumer stuff -- why would you not just self-host?!? The average prosumer is never going to need more than the cheapest DO droplet to host. Or else just run it on a computer that isn't on all the time -- prosumers either already have a server on all the time or don't care if they have logs going back 5 years. This seems to cost $60/mo at the least.
Also, I do not have much faith in this company with their website being so slow (maybe too many HN people are hitting idk, never heard of them).
The rest of the gear is working tiptop for me.
I asked myself the question when Wikipedia does its calls for donation. One may argue that it has a noble goal but technically, it is a huge ad banner of the annoying kind, and I would have expected indiscriminate ad blockers like uBlock Origin to block them, and they don't. And the reason is doesn't isn't because it is Wikipedia, it is because it is self-promotion and is therefore allowed.
Edit: the definition of an ad by EasyList is "the promotion of third party content in return for goods or services" https://easylist.to/2011/07/11/the-definition-of-advert-and-...
Guess we just got to step 2.
I disagree, simply because that "space" is also known as "the top half of the screen", AKA "above the fold" and "prime real estate".
The user would obviously be better served by moving the functional parts of the UI upwards.
"Shit show" doesn't even begin to describe it.
Somebody I know has stayed on the eero train (on my recommendation before I gave up on them) and he says the company has prioritized features he doesn't care about and deprioritized features he wished it had.
I hope Ubiquiti doesn't go down this road.
Other example: the other Ubiquiti product manager check offs feature lost: IDS check, firewall check, pppoe check. Seeing that they are half baked he ignores.
I do not think that Ubiquiti problems is the engineering they outsourced. It is the product management they screwed up. They are not listening to what user wants. The indian IT guys are delivering.
And honestly: it is an ad. No ad network. They know our network better than us by their cloud management ... They do not need to analyze us. When they want to be an ad network they could do much worse things (like the telcos do).
Gets the greenlight, everyone who worked on it is invested and motivated to make the results look good, and it builds from there.
There’s virtually no regulation on data collection, every other company is already doing it with no repercussions (especially home ISPs who you have no choice over and can see/sell everything you do!), anyone doing it is making a ton of money while destroying competitors, and virtually nobody in the public cares at all.
The only people speaking against it only have a voice because they’re already rich, mostly from collecting data, so anything they say rings hollow at best.