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

261–270 of 641 posts

Re: OnHub

#261

Post by will_work4tears »

oz wrote: post #178
will_work4tears wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I paid almost that for my current router[0]. I think mine has better specs, even not being an AC (few, if none, of my devices use it anyway). Google's hub has no USB ports, no guest wifi (from what I can gather). Mine, however, has those things, though to be honest, most of the time, the printer or USB storage doesn't quite work right, though that could because I use a Mac and the driver's aren't supported as well. […

It has a USB 3.0 port: https://on.google.com/hub/#specs

Ah, my mistake then, I looked at the specs but didn't notice it for some reason.

Re: OnHub

#262

Post by wmf »

mmanfrin wrote: post #255

I'm not sure what the advantage of this is over any other router, other than vague 'built for all the ways you wifi'. Simplicity is nice, maybe this is trying to duplicate Nest-like success in the router realm, but people don't actively fiddle with routers like they do thermostats.

Automatic security patches.

Re: OnHub

#263

Post by tibbon »

twoodfin wrote: post #10

Hard to believe there's a huge market for $199 WiFi routers, no matter how sophisticated. On the other hand, even a sprinkling of installations is probably pretty valuable if it allows Google to derive more accurate ISP performance numbers. There's got to be some benefit in having thousands of devices directly connected to the ISP's network on the consumer end 24/7.

I bought some 802.11AC router from Asus a few months ago for around that much, and I was absolutely floored at how much better it was than my old WRT54GS that I had been using with DD-WRT for years. Now I'm easily able to download consistently at 16MB/s from the internet, and do large file transfers at even higher rates between devices at home. I've mostly stopped using gigabit ethernet at home even because it's so fast.

Re: OnHub

#264

Post by yellowapple »

This is actually cheaper than what my current router - a Linksys WRT1900AC - is going for. On the other hand, said WRT1900AC was designed explicitly for OpenWRT support (and is even advertised as being OpenWRT-compatible - which it indeed is as of Chaos Calmer RC3), whereas OnHub's page makes zero mention of installing custom firmware.

Re: OnHub

#265

Post by tibbon »

I'm just curious why so many wireless routers are flakey, need frequently reset, have connection issues, etc. That, and what Google is actually doing differently than other high quality routers.

Re: OnHub

#266

Post by andresmanz »

endtime wrote: post #215
andrewla wrote: post #184

From [1] Get started Welcome! To set up your OnHub, you’ll also need: Google account Android or iOS device Broadband connection Google account? That seems like an unnecessary requirement for a router. [1] https://on.google.com/hub/support/#get-started

(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.

Thanks, but shouldn't these features be optional? I still don't get why I need a Google Account.

Re: OnHub

#267

Post by shawn-furyan »

Shooti wrote: post #254
shawn-furyan wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And don't they have Brillo? Having this without Brillo duplicates (particularly security related) effort and signals that Google doesn't consider Brillo to be acceptable for use in its own products. I imagine going w/ Brillo would have set back the release schedule, but Brillo, if their vision for both products were to come to pass, is by far the more consequential product. Also... The wireless router market isn't ex…

http://nextmarket.co/blogs/smarthomeweekly/29309313-google-i... Going by how closely this matches the leaks, I think the onHub actually is running Brillo. They've just chosen not to mention it just yet.

Well, if that's the case then that's good. I had a line originally that had a parenthetical like "(or if they are using it, they should be announcing so with much fanfare, at least in the technical sections of the page)", but it got cut due to how cumbersome it made the sentence.

Thanks for the heads up. I genuinely hope that are using Brillo and using the experience to improve the OS. I think that Google is biting off a LOT with Brillo, and I don't think that they can afford to fragment their IoT efforts.

Re: OnHub

#268

Post by corv »

melvinram wrote: post #162
fweespeech wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I have a 1 Gbps fiber connection at my apartment. I spent a good hour doing research and finally bought this http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BUSDVBQ . It had 4.5 stars at the time and was the highest rated router that Amazon carried. I bought it, plugged it in and ran speedtest on it. Max speed I could get was 250mb/s. Not bad but not the gb/s that was getting advertised. Additional, over time, it would always sl…

I've got the same router and I'm getting close to 900Mbps. Maybe your client device doesn't support 5Ghz?

I'm very happy considering the price and openwrt support.

Re: OnHub

#269

Post by sjs382 »

andresmanz wrote: post #266
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.

Thanks, but shouldn't these features be optional? I still don't get why I need a Google Account.

These features are the value proposition. If you don't want them, a different router might actually be better for you.

Re: OnHub

#270

Post by mynameisvlad »

shawn-furyan wrote: post #173
busterarm wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like phones locked on old versions of Android once Google moves on to new ones?

And don't they have Brillo? Having this without Brillo duplicates (particularly security related) effort and signals that Google doesn't consider Brillo to be acceptable for use in its own products. I imagine going w/ Brillo would have set back the release schedule, but Brillo, if their vision for both products were to come to pass, is by far the more consequential product. Also... The wireless router market isn't ex…

I mean, Brillo just seems to be a software stack. That could easily be added in later, especially since they tout lots of software updates.
Post reply on HN