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

471–480 of 641 posts

Re: OnHub

#471

Post by puls »

rtkwe wrote: post #227
blixt wrote: post #190

I wonder if these will be capable of lending spare (encrypted) bandwidth to anonymous mobile devices. I.e., can Google Fi[1] users benefit from Wi-Fi when walking past a house that has an OnHub running? [1] https://fi.google.com/about/

Every time a company has tried to do open wifi sharing there's been a lot of kickback. Mostly because it's opt out instead of opt in but that's put a big damper on anyone doing similar things.

Comcast does this under the "xfinitywifi" network name as a default setup for anybody who uses the standard cable modem/router-in-one box, with thousands and thousands of access points: http://wifi.xfinity.com/

Re: OnHub

#472

Post by mr_luc »

yc1010 wrote: post #381
Itaxpica wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vague? It seems to me like they're pretty clear about exactly what data they're collecting and why, and how to disable that collection: https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6279845

"Please note that some features may not function with certain privacy settings turned off, and some information (such as the association of your Google Account to your OnHub) is stored by Google even if all privacy controls are turned off" I am sticking with my Asus AC66U which has more features and is also cheaper than this Google device http://amzn.com/B008ABOJKS

In case HN is wondering about the reception: it's great by default, but I had some hardware mounted in inaccessible places, which could still have issues with reception.

So I replaced the middle antenna with a WL-ANT-157 from Asus, and wow. It's the best home wifi experience I've ever had in this price range.

Re: OnHub

#473

Post by mnglkhn2 »

Killswitch wrote: post #408
odbol wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are optional. You have the option of just buying a different device.

No way! I deserve the best, and I also deserve the best without giving up anything nothing notta zilch! /s

You're actually giving up $200. Quite a good chunk of change. And no discount for my meta data passing through Google.

Re: OnHub

#474

Post by Blaaguuu »

Itaxpica wrote: post #420
DaveWalk wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good link, thanks for sharing it. I gotta say, though, when I saw that wall of text my first thought was that this is going to be a tough sell for some of us. Thinking about it for half a second, I have to say that I would gladly prefer my router to be as dumb as possible. Maybe I just don't understand, at a gut level, how a cloud-connected router will actually improve my life?

OnHub seems to have a bunch of features which the cloud connection enables that are helpful, but not vital. For some people, having those features isn't worth the potential for additional complexity, and potential vector for privacy or security issues, that having a smarter router entails (or the increased device cost). For some people, it will be totally worth it. I personally think there's value in having options f…

Hopefully it doesn't turn into the TV market, where it is getting increasingly difficult to find a TV that isn't "Smart".

Re: OnHub

#475

Post by Natanael_L »

tomkinstinch wrote: post #129

Interesting that it has a TPM[1]. Any guesses about the uses/implications of that? I wonder if it can be configured to act solely as an access point--I already have a ubnt EdgeRouter Lite, but wouldn't mind replacing my aging access point. EDIT: It does support bridge mode[2]. 1. https://on.google.com/hub/#specs 2. https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6240987?hl=en&ref_to...

Interacting with security hardware? Smart locks, FIDO alliance protocols, etc?

Re: OnHub

#476

Post by tired_man »

Natanael_L wrote: post #475
tomkinstinch wrote: post #129

Interesting that it has a TPM[1]. Any guesses about the uses/implications of that? I wonder if it can be configured to act solely as an access point--I already have a ubnt EdgeRouter Lite, but wouldn't mind replacing my aging access point. EDIT: It does support bridge mode[2]. 1. https://on.google.com/hub/#specs 2. https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6240987?hl=en&ref_to...

Interacting with security hardware? Smart locks, FIDO alliance protocols, etc?

That would not be an option I'd consider. I think controlling your locks without the use of an outside entity is the safest way to avoid problems.

Re: OnHub

#477

Post by Natanael_L »

adamrights wrote: post #282

The 13 antennas and form factor is kind of cool, but after that I'd rather install OpenWrt and if going for home automation, my own server. Wonder how rootable Google will leave it.

I hope it will take after Chrome OS, not Chromecast, in that regard...

Re: OnHub

#478

Post by RobLach »

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.

"I highly doubt they added a Google account requirement to improve ad targeting."

I find that a highly optimistic statement given advertising is pretty much Google's only significantly profitable product and is supporting the entire conglomerate.

Re: OnHub

#479

Post by [deleted] »

skarap wrote: post #218
smacktoward wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure you understand what "phallic" means...

I really do - round and tall. This was supposed to be a joke, but I guess I don't know how to interact with HN community yet.

[deleted]

Re: OnHub

#480

Post by x5n1 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #327
astrocyte wrote: post #321

My biggest issue with this is that Google wants to inject a piece of hardware into my home that acts as the gateway to my data. A device through which all : > Incoming data runs through > Internal data runs through > Outgoing data runs through And then wants to be vague about what data they will be pumping to their back-end for analytics/data mining. I have had a long standing proposal for home automation and I'm cur…

I'm very interested. The whole idea of home automation (and most of IoT) over cloud is absurd. The devices in your home should not communicate by sending packets around the entire globe. The data should never leave your internal network unless explicitly meant to (web interfaces are cool and all, and you want to have remote access). I'm actually somewhat surprised people don't seem how wrong the current model is, but…

Google's model of how it wants computing to work is fundamentally flawed and now it's infected Microsoft. Really the only shelter is Linux, when will the ignorant masses wake up and realize this?
Post reply on HN