Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OnHub

on.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 641 posts

Re: OnHub

#241

Post by therealmarv »

sangd wrote: post #181

It's nice that we have Google ensure our TP-Link router to function correctly, hopefully. I'm frustrated with my current TP-Link router since it often needs a reset once in a while. Btw, should this design be changed because it looks to me that the top is very good at collecting dust and dead bugs. I don't expect to buy this and box it.

same experience here. I would never buy TP-Link again because of bad experiences. Flashing dd-wrt on one of its routers helped but it was still unstable from time to time. Well the same I said about LG phones (but having a LG Nexus). Seems software can be really important.

Re: OnHub

#242

Post by dragonwriter »

nadams wrote: post #232
adriancooney wrote: post #3

Very interesting. From looking at the specs, it looks like they're packaging a server and marketing it as a router. The configuration app is a very nice touch, routers have always a pain to configure. I'd love to stick this in my apartment (even though I can only receive a maximum of 10mb/s). 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…

> The configuration app is a very nice touch, routers have always a pain to configure. 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...). vs Buyin…

> 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.)

Re: OnHub

#243

Post by mynameisvlad »

knightofmars wrote: post #206
mtgx wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Thread?

Thread uses the same hardware and radio protocols as Zigbee but a different software layer on the top.

Which means this could easily get Thread support as one of the "software updates" to come out.

Re: OnHub

#244

Post by melvinram »

fweespeech wrote: post #67
adriancooney wrote: post #3

Very interesting. From looking at the specs, it looks like they're packaging a server and marketing it as a router. The configuration app is a very nice touch, routers have always a pain to configure. I'd love to stick this in my apartment (even though I can only receive a maximum of 10mb/s). 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…

> routers have always a pain to configure 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: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B013ALA9LA?ref=spks_0_0_2170510902&... > OnHub Wireless Router from Google and…

> Trust me.

I don't trust people who say "Trust me." :)

Re: OnHub

#245

Post by fraXis »

tomkinstinch wrote: post #169
fraXis wrote: post #78

I see no mention of being able to use 2 or 3 of these things in an Wi-Fi extender type of scenario that I can do with my current Airport Extreme routers.

Their FAQ suggests increasing coverage by having one unit act as the router (doing NAT), and having others act as (bridged) access points: https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6275097?vid=1-635755...

This method seems really cumbersome compared to the Airport Extreme and their wireless bridging method.

Re: OnHub

#246

Post by Shooti »

foobarqux wrote: post #234
endtime wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Disclaimer: I work for the same former-division-of-Google-and-now-Alphabet-subsidiary that built this, though I don't work on OnHub.) 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.

What division is that?

Fiber was part of "Access and Energy" led by Craig Barratt. Has a spot on their super out of date management page: https://www.google.co.uk/about/company/facts/management/

Re: OnHub

#248

Post by csours »

christop wrote: post #28

The only privacy link I could find on the page was Google's generic privacy policy. Is there more information somewhere? With its "advanced and always-evolving security features", I'm wondering whether and what information Google would be gathering about my local network and my network traffic.

Is it weird that I assume that both Google and NSA are recording all of my digital actions? Does no one else assume this? Which group is more delusional?

Re: OnHub

#249

Post by bg0 »

Seems a little pricey. My TP-Link router was $45 and is amazing. I'm probably missing something but $200 doesn't seem "worth it" at first glance when set up really only consists of looking at the bottom of the router to find the WPA Key.

Re: OnHub

#250

Post by chaostheory »

adriancooney wrote: post #3

Very interesting. From looking at the specs, it looks like they're packaging a server and marketing it as a router. The configuration app is a very nice touch, routers have always a pain to configure. I'd love to stick this in my apartment (even though I can only receive a maximum of 10mb/s). 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…

> I'm surprised this isn't marketed alongside the Nest branch.

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.

Post reply on HN