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

491–500 of 641 posts

Re: OnHub

#491

Post by dcre »

Schwolop wrote: post #485
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.

If you're able to tell, which division is that? Is this really inner-Google product development, or mostly/partial/somewhat outsourced via a prod-dev consultancy?

Pretty sure they mean Nest.

Re: OnHub

#492

Post by pluma »

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…

I've never had problems with my Router. I do however have problems with Google ChromeCast vanishing from other devices -- which according to Google is a problem with the router (although for me the problem mostly occurs when the ChromeCast decides to use the same WiFi channel for its internal WLAN as the WiFi it's registered on).

I also have occasional problems with Linux devices being picky and flaky -- sometimes not connecting at all (repeating the "connecting..." phase ad nauseam) and sometimes just dropping the connection until I restart the device.

I find it dubious that these problems would be fixed by a Google branded router.

Re: OnHub

#493

Post by [deleted] »

RobLach wrote: post #478
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.

"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.

[deleted]

Re: OnHub

#494

Post by hueving »

chrisrhoden wrote: post #58
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.

If you're not spending at least $100 on a wireless router, you're probably giving up significant amounts of the performance you're paying for from your ISP. Routers are computers. The $40 units just can't handle modern usage patterns (multiple phones / tablets / computers with relatively high speed caps) very well. It's my single biggest recommendation when people complain about the speed of the Internet in their hom…

I think you're overestimating the price of hardware required to handle 100 mbps. Broadcom asics in datacenter switches handle on the order of 100gbps and they are on the order of $100.

Re: OnHub

#495

Post by pluma »

smacktoward wrote: post #149
skarap wrote: post #110

Woohoo, another phallic gadget, almost exactly looks like a Mac Pro!

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

Technically any round thing that's considerably taller than it is wide is phallic. I've heard people call obelisks phallic on more than one occasion and they're not even round.

Sure, it's a stretch, but it nearly always is. Sometimes a cigar is just a phallus. ... I mean cigar.

EDIT: I'm having suspicions that HN is trying to prevent me from using the more obvious word for the male dangly bit. If this comment ends up dead, that's probably why.

Re: OnHub

#496

Post by jtemplin »

It's surprising to see this announcement in the wake of the Alphabet restructuring. Because of privacy concerns, I suspect they'd sell many more of these under the Nest brand, than they will under the Google brand.

Re: OnHub

#497

Post by noblethrasher »

ultimape wrote: post #355
derefr wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> home automation' core/aggregation box Deeper than that, even. It seems like this is intended as a local-network cloudlet[1] substrate. Launch an app on your phone that needs a companion frontend server instance to talk to? One gets launched "in the cloud"—specifically, in a virtual cloud owned by the app author. But where is that instance, physically? Usually a provider like AWS... but with a cloudlet peering arran…

I've been toying with terminology to deal with the idea of a decentralized p2p cloud. Calling it a 'virtual cloud' seems off, and 'fog' has been co-opted by other kinds of tech. Any thoughts on what would be a good terminology for this?

“The Shade”

* It’s a play on the word “shard”.

* It suggests privacy and protection.

* It suggests something that is nearby, as opposed to “the cloud” that is far away.

…

Unfortunately, the word is probably too susceptible to negative connotation.

Re: OnHub

#498

Post by revelation »

Man, 500 comments? At the end of the day, this is a 199$ WLAN router. Frankly, normal customers don't care for routers. They certainly don't care paying for them. Most of them are probably oblivious to even owning one.

The entire target market for guys looking at Android app graph visualizations of their home router network is about the size of HN.

Re: OnHub

#499

Post by pluma »

somedudethere wrote: post #468
eliben wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose you should stay far away from Google Fiber then, as well. And anything else done by the evil Google. Much better to keep with the good guys like Comcast. They will never, ever spy on you.

Thats a false dichotomy. There have always been fiber providers, its just that Google Fiber is the "sexy" one that people look to for salvation instead of locally campaigning for fiber (which has been successful in quite a number of cities across the USA).

This reminds me of how (in some parts of Europe at least) a lot of communities are trying to buy back the municipal water and power plants that were originally privatised "because privatisation benefits the economy". Turns out creating a (new) monopoly by selling all the public infrastructure to the same company isn't actually good for anyone (other than that company).

Re: OnHub

#500

Post by wbillingsley »

Itaxpica wrote: post #356
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…

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

Hmm, that "pretty clear about exactly what date they're collecting and why" seems a bit too similar to what the proposed Australian data retention laws ask for, which the community usually refers to it as "vague and overreaching". They make a vague note about not collecting the content of network traffic (but you can infer almost everything important from source, destination, time, protocol, etc anyway) and the table on the page is just described as "examples" of what it collects, and is never stated to be the full list. Given that Google is in the data collection business, and has a licence to update the device (and what it collects) automatically, I would assume that within a short timespan it will be collecting everything it can get away with.

Even what they do mention is enough to start inferring things about your personal life:

With "historical data consumption" they can determine who is in the house and when. With the number and make of connected devices, they can take a pretty good estimate of family size, annual income, how many of your household are working, etc.. (Though they probably first care how many Apple devices there are connecting... maybe we need to send you some more Samsung adverts)

And sure it strips the URLs from the logs -- but between Google DNS and Google Analytics being on much of the web, they can piece back together every site you visit anyway and now your router has a Google account they can tie it right back to the router in your home.

And of course it's a $199 router with a license agreement that says Google can stop it working at any time they like (clause 5c).

Post reply on HN