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

Google rolls out “If This Then That” support for its $200 OnHub router

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 196 posts

Re: Google rolls out “If This Then That” support for its $200 OnHub router

#111

Post by x1798DE »

madeofpalk wrote: post #107
x1798DE wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like being forced to sell Google back my device lest they remotely brick it is not exactly a happy ending.

To be fair, getting a refund from Google like that seems like the best possible outcome (assuming the service will be shut down regardlesS).

My understanding was that they were going to remote-update to brick the device even though it had offline functionality that did not depend on the home servers.

I think the best possible outcome would involve them leaving the existing functionality intact.

Re: Google rolls out “If This Then That” support for its $200 OnHub router

#112

Post by dimino »

Animats wrote: post #53

The remote update "feature" means this has a built-in backdoor into your local network. So you don't want to install this in a law office, anywhere that has to be HIPAA compliant, or any environment requiring security.

Same with Chrome, though.

Re: Google rolls out “If This Then That” support for its $200 OnHub router

#113

Post by copperx »

Animats wrote: post #53

The remote update "feature" means this has a built-in backdoor into your local network. So you don't want to install this in a law office, anywhere that has to be HIPAA compliant, or any environment requiring security.

Which raises a question: WHICH router would you use in such an environment?

Re: Google rolls out “If This Then That” support for its $200 OnHub router

#114

Post by jrockway »

stsp wrote: post #63
some-guy wrote: post #36

I tried OnHub, but unfortunately it didn't have the option to force 5Ghz over 2.4Ghz for devices without going through some hacks. Where I live, 2.4Ghz wireless has 10% packet loss on average, no matter which router I use. I'm happy that routers are finally getting the UX treatment they deserve, and their target market isn't for people who know the difference between the two, but OnHub should keep the nitty-gritty de…

An AP cannot prioritize 5 GHz over 2 GHz. It's up to the client to decide what to connect to.

Not true at all. The AP can reply to 2.4GHz requests with a delay so that the device gets connected to the 5GHz network first. If the AP is really sure, it can also send a force disconnect. That's how most roaming is implemented these days.

We have a version of hostapd that will do this for you: https://gfiber.googlesource.com/vendor/opensource/hostap/

We call it "bandsteering".

Re: Google rolls out “If This Then That” support for its $200 OnHub router

#115

Post by Karunamon »

victorhooi wrote: post #90
exhilaration wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that and the Nest Smart Home hub they decided to kill off a few weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11423411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11435245

That story has already been beaten to death....lol. Nest bought out Revolv - and then immediately ceased all sales. They then kept the servers running for another 18 months, before announcing they were going to shut them down. Revolv was an also-ran in the home automation stakes - speculation on my part, but there was probably a reason they got bought out instead of raking in the big bucks. Let's say they sold a few…

>do you really think it's worth keeping it running indefinitely?

At some point, I think it becomes less about "worth" and more about doing the right thing. Is it fair that everyone who bought that device is left holding a worthless chunk of plastic because of the inscrutable whims of various SV tech giants?

If not for reams of legalese nobody reads and yet has to agree to in order to even hook the thing up, it would probably already be illegal in some way.

Re: Google rolls out “If This Then That” support for its $200 OnHub router

#116

Post by Karunamon »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #99
wmf wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OnHub doesn't have a microphone.

But the other x number of devices connected to it in your home do. Automatic Security Updates is a contradiction in terms.

The average user is a lot more likely to be a victim of a targeted attack by a hacker than a targeted attack by the state.

Re: Google rolls out “If This Then That” support for its $200 OnHub router

#117

Post by gohrt »

deprave wrote: post #23
mankyd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im curious how you think they'll shut your router off? Certainly, they could turn cloud based features such as this off, but the router itself?

Your question rests on the assumption that it's "my" router, since it's a piece of physical hardware that I bought, and that it will continue to function after they shut down the cloud-based features that they used to lure customers in and justify the price tag. Past experience - most recently with Revolv - suggests that your assumption is wrong and Google has no problem bricking the device instead of letting it func…

what computing hardware have you bought and not thrown away at some point?

Re: Google rolls out “If This Then That” support for its $200 OnHub router

#118

Post by [deleted] »

victorhooi wrote: post #90
exhilaration wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that and the Nest Smart Home hub they decided to kill off a few weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11423411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11435245

That story has already been beaten to death....lol. Nest bought out Revolv - and then immediately ceased all sales. They then kept the servers running for another 18 months, before announcing they were going to shut them down. Revolv was an also-ran in the home automation stakes - speculation on my part, but there was probably a reason they got bought out instead of raking in the big bucks. Let's say they sold a few…

[deleted]

Re: Google rolls out “If This Then That” support for its $200 OnHub router

#119

Post by [deleted] »

Karunamon wrote: post #115
victorhooi wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That story has already been beaten to death....lol. Nest bought out Revolv - and then immediately ceased all sales. They then kept the servers running for another 18 months, before announcing they were going to shut them down. Revolv was an also-ran in the home automation stakes - speculation on my part, but there was probably a reason they got bought out instead of raking in the big bucks. Let's say they sold a few…

> do you really think it's worth keeping it running indefinitely? At some point, I think it becomes less about "worth" and more about doing the right thing. Is it fair that everyone who bought that device is left holding a worthless chunk of plastic because of the inscrutable whims of various SV tech giants? If not for reams of legalese nobody reads and yet has to agree to in order to even hook the thing up, it would…

[deleted]

Re: Google rolls out “If This Then That” support for its $200 OnHub router

#120

Post by victorhooi »

Karunamon wrote: post #115
victorhooi wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That story has already been beaten to death....lol. Nest bought out Revolv - and then immediately ceased all sales. They then kept the servers running for another 18 months, before announcing they were going to shut them down. Revolv was an also-ran in the home automation stakes - speculation on my part, but there was probably a reason they got bought out instead of raking in the big bucks. Let's say they sold a few…

> do you really think it's worth keeping it running indefinitely? At some point, I think it becomes less about "worth" and more about doing the right thing. Is it fair that everyone who bought that device is left holding a worthless chunk of plastic because of the inscrutable whims of various SV tech giants? If not for reams of legalese nobody reads and yet has to agree to in order to even hook the thing up, it would…

Your point about "doing the right thing" is a complete logical fallacy. Are you implying that group A is somehow more deserving that group B?

Don't forget - the "tech giants" you refer to are comprised of people, most of whom have jobs and families

This isn't about whims of tech giants - more about whims of the market.

If the pitchfork-waving masses on HN screaming about Revolv had all actually, well, bought a Revolv, I suspect the company wouldn't have gone bust. The fact of the matter is - the market (or we) spoke - we didn't like Revolv, and that was the reason they failed in the marketplace.

I don't think Nest made any secret of it - as soon as they bought out Revolv, they announced it quite publicly on their blog - we are stopping all sales of this product, immediately - but we will continue to support it for some time.

This was no deep conspiracy - it was, well, the product's a wash, we're buying out the company, and keeping the team.

Think about it - they probably still had stock of the product lying around at the time - they would rather just destroy those than sell them - what does that tell you about the product?

http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/24/7061557/nest-acquires-rev.... http://www.cepro.com/article/theories_on_home_automation_hub....

There were heaps of pundits at the time who speculated on why Revolv failed.

I think that's a far more worthy topic of discussion (i.e lessons learned on why it didn't gain traction), than going on about why we're not supporting a failed product from 2 years ago.

Post reply on HN