Particular negatives were the price tag, single LAN port, poor wifi performance (particularly important if you're not supposed to use wired Ethernet...) and no web interface.
[0]: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-g...
Especially considering the talk around the device collecting data when it was announced.
It's a Trojan horse because it is their way of rolling out "connected-home" devices without people having to decide to "move to a connected home". That's what all the non-enabled sensors and hardware are for.
It's a smart play on Google's part, and Ars is correct to note it.
It doesn't mean it is malicious in anyway.
And, "Trojan horse" always implies malicious deception; its an inappropriate metaphor for any other intended message.
So, I'd say this is doubly misguided.
[0] would disagree:
"more elaborate systems could easily reach up to $1000 if you have a lot of hardware to install and don't shoot for the cheapest units you can get. Putting in a smart switch in three bedrooms, a living room and a kitchen can be $200-250 by itself, and that assumes a fairly spartan set up and excludes any power outlet installations. Be sure to tally up all of the parts you'll need before you start buying anything."
>"Trojan horse" always implies malicious deception; its an inappropriate metaphor for any other intended message.
It's commonly used in this way. [1][2][3] are good examples.
[0] http://lifehacker.com/how-can-i-get-started-with-home-automa...
[1] http://www.taniaellis.com/blog/the-trojan-horse-changing-bus...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-schachner/a-trojan-horse-...
[3] http://www.techrepublic.com/article/microsofts-trojan-horse-...
If you're not talking about NSLs, please provide a reliable citation for this claim. :)
Every company that receives an NSL that passes the laugh test is more-or-less obligated to comply with it. It's my understanding that Google fights as hard as they legally can to protect the private information of their users.
Fun fact: Did you know that from 1986 until very, very recently the law of the land in the US was that emails stored on third-party servers for longer than 180 days were considered abandoned and could be retrieved -in their entirety- by law enforcement with nothing more than what is effectively a note that declared that the information was relevant to a law enforcement investigation? It's true! [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Priv... but also http://www.cnet.com/news/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mai...
"United States v. Warshak is a criminal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that government agents violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his Internet Service Provider (ISP) to turn over his emails without first obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause."
So, yeah, I fucked up. :( It's a circuit court decision, so it's not law of the land, but it is promising.
For this price point, the OnHub has to do something special, or it will be a loss, like the Nexus Q.
Given Google want to quietly add features down the line (which are bound to eat up CPU time and memory), that's probably relevant.
If you look at OnHub, it has a lot of little hardware components that aren't active yet. The light sensor and a 802.15.4 sensor.
I don't see OnHub being priced that far away from competing wireless routers (for 3x3 antenna with 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac support). My guess is the routers you're talking about don't have AC or 5GHz support, both of which seems to add a lot of cost to wireless routers.
[0] http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833320...
http://en.avm.de/products/fritzbox/fritzbox-7490/
http://www.amazon.de/AVM-FRITZ-Router-DECT-Basis-Server/dp/B...
They don’t really care much about growth or profits – as long as they don’t make losses, their current situation is "good enough", and that’s it.
That’s including shipping. Also available on amazon.co.uk.
Yes, it’s not exactly 200$, but it has more features at the same price.
Essentially, it was just a statement more like "Google is neither producing something new nor disrupting a market".
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...
While a bit of a sidetrack, that review is horrible. Aside from the unnecessary narrative, the complete hackery of their tests leaves me fondly remembering the old days when tech sites actually did regimented, repeatable, bonafide tests among multiple competitors (the Anandtech gold standard, once even shown by sites like Toms Hardware and even rag PC magazines). Now someone hangs a couple of routers off each other, does some non-descript random test (from the web?) at some cherry picked position, and calls it a day.
Maybe this is the result of the ad-supported and then ad-blocking world, but the raw, profound laziness is just too much.