Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by cmrdporcupine | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

cmrdporcupine

The router is cloud configured from your mobile device, that is how it works.

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:

https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6246642?hl=en&ref_to...

And see also, how to set a whole bunch of privacy settings:

https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6279845?vid=1-635755...

Disclaimer: I work on the project. I am not a spokesperson or legal or marketing, or anything like that.

View on HN

> The router is cloud configured from your mobile device, that is how it works.

How do I configure a router if I need an internet connection to configure it? Sounds like a circular dependency issue.

Out of box configuration of the device is done without the need for Internet access.

Also, these days a good % of customers are walking around with an Internet connection in their hands, separate from their home connection.

Does it mean that you can set it up without a Google Account, then? Or does it let you create one (without being set up for the internet) somehow?

It's a wirless bridge, and it assumes you already have a router with an internet connection(i.e. your cable/dsl/fiber box). Setup instructions are here:

https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6246481?hl=en

That's bullshit. It should use something like Thread or Bluetooth 4.0 to let you configure it from your mobile device, which already assumes you'll be in the same room with the router in 99% percent of the cases.

There's no reason for this to be sent over the Internet, when you're both in the same room.

I wouldn't phrase it so negatively but I do share the same sentiment. I think this is the craziness that seems to be so widespread that people don't notice how crazy it is - the primary way for two devices sitting few meters from each other to communicate should not be routing packets around half of the planet. I get it's easier, but it's bad engineering, unnecessarily wasteful energy-wise and I bet the only reason this is the default is for companies to lock people down and make money on data.

"unnecessarily wasteful energy-wise"

This is just for setup right? So the energy cost is insanely trivial, hardly worth mentioning.

I'm making a general point here. In case of this router, one-time expense is indeed hardly worth mentioning. I just dislike the whole trend.

The general point is "local direct communication is hard and unreliable". Your phone falls back to 3G - connection broken. You're on "HouseWifi" and the other device is on "HouseWifi_5Ghz" - connection broken. You have a router with a guest mode and stops guests accessing the local LAN - guest can't print or chromecast or whatever.

Totally agree.

This then assumes that authentication is handled by some combination of device proximity, physically pushing a "grant admin access" button on the device, or falling back to password management (possibly on a sticker on the bottom of the device).

There is something to be said for tying the device into an existing strong authentication infrastructure.

It allows configuring while not near it too, to check what's wrong with it while at the office. Bluetooth doesn't extend that far.

If you can debug the device remotely, you can debug the device remotely without trusting a third party.

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.

Google Fiber is one of the most wanted things in the tech world. You think having your traffic go through their router is bad? I don't even want to know how you'd feel about every internet thing you do being on their network.

There is a significant difference between being the first hop after the firewall, and the firewall actual.

I'd say Google has done amazingly well with selling at least one device like this, the Chromecast.

Maybe I'm over-stating the similarities, or the actual success.

Is guest access on a private SSID? Is my traffic separate from theirs? What about VPN support? I was getting ready to by an Asus router because I'm in the market for one, and it's at a similar price point. The three features I'm most interested in are QOS (which it looks like you have), having guests segregated from my network, and VPN access to my server

>> that is how it works.

That's how it's "made to" work (needing a google account).

IPv6 support?

yes

> The router is cloud configured from your mobile device, that is how it works.

So is the Chromecast and you don't need an account for that, unless you want to customize it with your own photos etc

For users in some country can't access Google Account (e.g. China), Can I still buy and use it? That'll be no Google Account on daily use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com