Google OnHub Review

I haven't tried Tomato but I do use OpenWRT. I don't have anything particularly good to say about its web interface.

They're functional and usually better looking than the default interface, but that's a pretty low bar. I still wouldn't classify them as looking "good".

Ugly. Not intuitive unless you are an expert. I wouldn't expect someone's grandmother to be success using it; constraining that with the airport setup that is super simple.

Not really sure that is sufficient evidence to say Apple routers "aren't popular".

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>

There is not. Linux users have to use Wine or a Windows VM.

No - real routers use mechanical switches configured by steady hand.

No, no the dev most definitely will not have to. You didn't bother clicking the link I posted.

>Windows will run Android binaries unmodified.

HN became my source for tech news. If you find a good site, let me know.

AnandTech is the only one that has top tier content, but it's a bit too obscure

Maybe I'm being cynical, but it seems like the motive behind that wording was more likely to attract the privacy-conscious users -- as this phrase often implies -- rather than it being a hook for their other products. That's why I feel it's click-baity.

Especially considering the talk around the device collecting data when it was announced.

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.

It also doesn't mean it's not malicious. Google doesn't have the best track record on privacy. Spend some time on their advertising platforms and you can see just how deep they go. Full text email scanning with the ability to advertise to people not just in the content of their emails, but based on the content of their recipient's emails. They've cooperated on frequent occasions with warrant-less surveillance requests. Google makes some nice products but they have long since jumped the Don't be Evil shark. They don't make all of these "free" web products for nothing. It's all around one singular purpose: to gather information that they can sell about you. No matter how people want to frame it, Google is an advertising company. Buying a router from an advertising company.. Have fun with that. What is the motivation for Google to suddenly care about routers? Is that really a pain point that's profitable to solve? Not really, unless you have a long term plan to leverage that into something that serves the core business which is advertising.

The one I am talking about has both of that, costs 219$, has integration with a whole ecosystem of smart home devices, has -AC (1.3GHz), 5GHz support, DSL vectoring, can be used as proxy endpoint, all that nice stuff.

http://en.avm.de/products/fritzbox/fritzbox-7490/

http://www.amazon.de/AVM-FRITZ-Router-DECT-Basis-Server/dp/B...

The TP-LINK Archer C7 is probably the best deal on AC routers right now. It's half the price of the OnHub and includes more LAN ports, is faster (if the Ars review is to be believed), has a web interface, has NAS features, and has good custom firmware support.

https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/32...

It doesn't have all the fancy extras that the OnHub has, but if OnHub's wireless performance is in fact as poor as the Ars review suggests, you're probably better off with a traditional router for now and waiting a few generations for Google to work out the issues. I mean, most wireless N routers I've owned could do better than 32 Mbps...

You seriously think that's going to help? The entire industry is hemorrhaging like crazy already due to low add revenue. All it means is that they can't afford real reporting and the experienced reporters and editors (if they even have editors) get replaced with recent grads who are wooed in by the old glamour. Buzzfeed might survive adblocks but good luck to anyone that needs real content.

They're not "normal end user" friendly at all, but once you get them up and working they're great.

I still find it amazing that I can get what is near $1K-original-price worth of industrial-grade AP for less than $100.

kornholi, do you have an ER X? If you do, I appreciate your first-hand information. If you don't, I asked mrbill the question that I asked because I was looking for his first-hand experience.

Regardless: Much love, man! :)

I'm going to dodge your question [0] and ask a different one that cuts to the heart of the matter [1]: "Unless I'm mis-reading the datasheet, it seems like the device has a worst-case switching speed of ~8.3 mbit/second. Have you played around with it to try to determine its performance when filtering or routing packets? (As opposed to just switching packets.)."

[0] Thanks much for the other info, though! That's useful stuff.

[1] Sorry for not asking this question in my original post. :(

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.

Which UAP are you using?

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.

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, 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)

Google voice is amazing! I travel all over the world, in fact, haven't been to the US for two years, and I haven't found anything as good and cheap (free).

What do you mean by "home business account"?

(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".

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.

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.

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

In order of your comments:

1. In most cases, Google services are free to the user and leverage ads to cover the R&D and operational expenses of the service, and of course for profit. The difference between that model and a device you purchase for what certainly appears to be a non-subsidised price seems pretty stark to me. As a result, I balk at your blanket, unsupported statement such as "This will no doubt be any different". Are documents such as https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6246642?hl=en outright lies? If so, please provide some citation or reason.

2. HN is not an entity to whom I need to explain. The accounts are throw-away by design. It exists because HN requires I have an identity in order to operate in its context. Requirement set. Requirement met. Here we are. Freedom.

3. I am sad to hear you found my comment "minimal and non-contributing". This concept has resurfaced in many conversations I've had in regard to this and similar topics. Allow me to expand and hopefully add value.

I think of opposition to Google (or other corporate entities) as having two distinct brands: people who consider them as adversaries and people who disagree with or dislike their business models. The difference in my mind is that an adversary is an entity that is expected to be malicious and should only be trusted if bound by strong technical controls. If you believe that Google is an adversary in this sense, then your position makes sense to me. Deliberately avoiding Google's products/services/devices is one of the very few technical controls available to you as a private citizen. I disagree with your assessment, but the course of action you're advocating is consistent with your world view. You can can hardly be blamed for discarding the policy I referred above as patently false. That's the long winded version of what I said. Fair?

There is an alternative: you disagree with Google's business model, and don't trust Google to act with your best intentions in mind. It is not evil, but its actions may have effects you do not condone or expect. Yet, from time to time it releases products/services/devices that solve some problem you have. In that case, I'd argue that you can afford to operate in "mixed mode", where you make decisions product by product based on some analysis. This analysis could be something like auditing Google's products where feasible (e.g. AOSP, CrOS, Chromium, etc.). Hurrah for open source. The demands this option places on you are quite high. The return is comparatively low. I claim the return is low because meaningful analysis requires a lot of time and less than common skills, and in return you may get a tool to solve some primitive problem (e.g. browse the web, make a call, send an email, etc). I expect that the the vast majority of people will not go down this path. Certainly nearly no one will review all post-facto software updates for adherence to initial audit criteria/standards. Another flavor of "analysis" is to delegate the decision to trusted parties. For example follow EFF's recommendations to minimize risk. (e.g. HTTPS everywhere, Privacy Badger, and their "Who Has Your Back" reports, etc). This approach scales quite well. It allows the user to do some basic inspection (e.g. reading reviews, articles, maybe skim the source, etc) and make up their mind. They feel informed, but are in fact removed from underlying details and reasoning.

The questions I have for you are as follows. Which camp do you belong to? If it's the first, I'd be curious to understand why. Is Google your sole adversary or is Cisco/Juniper, Asus/Netgear, etc in the same boat? They all play a role in mangling, mirroring, and forwarding your packets. The vast majority of network devices are upgraded, patched, reconfigured without your input or knowledge. Is that not a concern? If not, why not?

If you're a mixed mode sort, then why advocate a response tied to the more extreme position? Also, unless you've done first hand analysis or can cite some, I don't grasp how you could have arrived at your conclusions already. OnHub code will be open sourced at some stage. It can be audited. You can even wait for someone to audit it and defer to them. Why jump the gun and call to abandon ship?

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?

When the majority of your demographic won't need more than a single port (if that) I would argue that an "accessory" is just fine.

Exactly. It's enough to make me wait for the next version.

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.

This is the best comment on this topic I've read to date.

I agree with everything you say and I still do business with Google. Let me go through your list.

1. No. Not me.

2. I hope I'm not that naive. I've made similar arguments to other people in related discussions.

3. Yep. I understand this.

4. Also true.

So - I understand those things and agree with you and I still do business with Google et al.

The thing is I also drink, fail to exercise, drive a petroleum-consuming vehicle and recycle poorly.

I do many other things that harm myself directly or perpetuate or accelerate trends in society I perceive as negative.

You might consider this apathy and that is probably true to some degree.

But I am also running a continual cost/benefit calculation on every action I perform.

Some of my conclusions are out of whack and some are frankly irrational but the list of things I consider every moment of every day is extremely long and I've decided that the cost vs benefit of doing business with Google is in my favour. I've evaluated the costs you set out above and decided they fall far enough down my list that I'll tackle them at some point after I've started jogging and voting, stopped drinking scotch and begun regularly volunteering at my local worthy cause.

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.

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

What, you don't actually want to make a bet? I was hoping for easy money! :(