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

431–440 of 641 posts

Re: OnHub

#431

Post by MichaelGG »

daveloyall wrote: post #376
MichaelGG wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it uses some local comms to bootstrap it. Like Bluetooth or sound waves.

Yes, it says somewhere on the site that it uses soundwaves to share the initial key with your device. But that's NOT an excuse to make the device depend on the Mobile ecosystem. If it can play a code on the speaker, it can just talk. In English. Via thirty-six audio files: a.wav, b.wav, ... 9.wav. Ok, thirty-seven recordings--can't forget welcome_to_your_new_router_your_key_is.wav. :)

I'd wager that whatever they're doing, it's far more reliable than reading out English letters and doing speech recognition on it. Accomplishing the key exchange might not have been reliable in all browsers.

Re: OnHub

#432

Post by stephengillie »

jsilence wrote: post #380
ultimape wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally think the real answer is not to have a central device, but to spread it out into a peer2peer 'fog'. There's been some movement in industrial applications via stuff like https://twitter.com/FilamentHQ which leverages hardware accelerated ECC and telehash, using blockchain based DNS systems and other decentralized methods of command and control. I think a similar direction needs to be taken for consumer ha…

I very much like the term "fog computing" for P2P anti-cloud software. Hope it catches on.

Just watch out for Namespace collisions with groups like AppFog in the Container space.

Re: OnHub

#433

Post by 9872 »

fweespeech wrote: post #273
melvinram wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm sure. No one ever believes me until I've been paid to fix it. I'm used to it.

Trustworthy people don't need to tell others to trust them.

Re: OnHub

#434

Post by 0x0 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #428
hobarrera wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Re: OnHub

#435

Post by tomkinstinch »

zf00002 wrote: post #291
tomkinstinch wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could, but at that price it would most likely be a full desktop running pfsense, and who wants that kind of power draw at home? Comparable low-power pfsense boxes are about the same price, or even more for the ones advertised on the pfsense website[1]. The OnHub spec page mentions a draw of 1. http://store.pfsense.org/SG-2220/ 2. https://on.google.com/hub/#specs

I wouldn't really call it a full desktop. Intel DQ77KB mini-itx, lga1155 with dual Intel nics is what we use for $100 off Amazon. Pair it with a cheap Celeron and some used laptop memory off ebay. At the wall ~15W.

That's not bad! I'm surprised you're able to get the power consumption so low.

With a case, power supply, CPU, heatsink, and RAM the price starts to approach the OnHub though, without any Wi-Fi nics.

The DQ77KB is a cool little board. Have you tried running one as a VPN endpoint?

Re: OnHub

#436

Post by 9872 »

RexRollman wrote: post #336
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

It's computer fascism and people are stupid enough to sign up for it.

The fact that you can decide to sign up for it or not means it's not fascistic at all.

Re: OnHub

#437

Post by ejdyksen »

kuschku wrote: post #401
ejdyksen wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything on the spec sheets for the Fritz!Box 7490 that show it has more than 2 radios, like most dual band APs out there today. Google's spec sheet [1] specifically has 3 radios: http://i.imgur.com/x7CMktb.png The first two radios do MIMO 3x3, and the third radio just has 1 antenna (since it isn't serving client traffic). While this isn't completely new, it's definitely not common, especially for a consu…

The Fritz!Box 7490 has 3 radios, for exactly this purpose. That’s how it supports automated channel search without disconnecting users, and how it is able to provide 1.3Gbps via WiFi.

If it does have 3 radios, that's awesome. They should make that much more explicit. I've looked all over their site, and I can't find anything that confirms this. Everything on their website just references plain old simultaneous dual-band with MIMO antennas.

For me, at least, a 3rd radio will be on the list for my next AP, so I'll take a close look at this one, too.

Re: OnHub

#438

Post by [deleted] »

Someone1234 wrote: post #276
datasage wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was in the same situation as you. Same Router too. I could actually get close to 1 Gbps with the stock firmware. But it was unstable, requiring a reset every other day. I used an open source firmware, but it didn't contain the NAT offload module, so I would not be able to get over 200-250 Mbps. (This was is all wired, not wireless). Since I had a wifi access point, I ended up switching to an Ubiquity Edgemax router…

Here's the thing about TP-Link: They're a "good enough" manufactur. Meaning if you care about something, don't buy a TP-Link, but if you don't care that much and just need it to basically work "good enough" (e.g. WiFi for your mom's house) then they're fine. I got a cheap TP-Link repeater. It works fine, nothing special, no bells or whistles. But for the price it was a good buy.

[deleted]

Re: OnHub

#439

Post by wnevets »

busterarm wrote: post #390
wnevets wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Given the substantial drop-off in build quality that I've seen over the years since the first G routers until maybe _very_ recently, I'm not so sure about this statement. This is just another reason for more competition from a company like google. The only reason most people know their router exist is because they have to turn it off and on when their wifi gets slow or it dies. Its not a status symbol like an iphone…

No, but I can imagine comfortably using a 4S. The 6 is going to have even longer usability.

and you're on hacker news and not the typical consumer. An out of style status symbol isn't a very good one.

No one is buying beats headphones because of the amazing sound quality.

Re: OnHub

#440

Post by mrmondo »

I don't know how I would feel about Google having a device in my house that monitors all my internet traffic, I think they already know enough about me and I'm not sure I'm in a position to I trust them. Made me think of a funny comparison: I wouldn't buy a car or condom from Microsoft.
Post reply on HN