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

161–170 of 641 posts

Re: OnHub

#161

Post by cptskippy »

legacy2013 wrote: post #109
mihok wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specs are you talking about specifically? It doesn't look like a server at all.

https://on.google.com/hub/#specs The detailed specs page shows a 1.4 GHz Dual Core processor and a 1GB of DDR3 RAM. Thats a little ridiculous for a router

The CPU is inline with top of the line routers these days (e.g. Asus RT-AC87U is a 1Ghz dual core). 1+Ghz dual core CPUs are really cheap these days.

The RAM is about 4x what other routers are packing but the cost difference between a 1Gbit chip and 4Gbit chip is a few dollars. Prices have been plummeting this year and 8Gbit chips replaced 4Gbit as the new hotness. Not to mention DDR4 rolling out so there might just be dumping going on that makes adding 1GB of RAM a non issue.

Re: OnHub

#162

Post by melvinram »

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 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 slow down to 10-50mb/s. I called TP-Link and they said this was likely the best it'll do and the advertised speeds are in an interference free lab environment.

If OnHub fixes that second problem as they claim to, that would be more than enough reason for me to spend the $200. If they can get higher than 250mb/s speed by optimizing around the congestion, $200 will be well worth the spend.

Re: OnHub

#163

Post by vanadium »

snaky wrote: post #95
driverdan wrote: post #87

Why would anyone want this over the latest Asus AC1900 router? Asus' web interface is easy to use and their QoS is surprisingly good out of the box. Also, Asus isn't going to spy on everything you do.

Why would anyone want the router not supported by OpenWRT? > Asus isn't going to spy on everything you do How do you know that?

I have the AC2400 and just use the Merlin distribution, which is based on OpenWRT. I rarely have the problems some report about the Asus line, but then again I'm just one data point.

Re: OnHub

#164

Post by heywire »

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.

That's about what I paid for my ASUS RT-AC68P. I went through a couple different sub-$100 routers (Belkin and Linksys) before settling on this one. I've not yet had to reboot it for any reason other than configuration changes, something I definitely couldn't say about the others. Previously I was using a Buffalo Wireless G router with DD-WRT, but it finally gave up the ghost after about 7 or 8 years of service. Having built in samba / FTP / DLNA support of USB drives makes it worth the added expense, as does QoS and SSH access. I'd highly recommend it.

Re: OnHub

#165

Post by wging »

dragonwriter wrote: post #126
RobotCaleb wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even know what this means. Are you saying that your ISP doesn't allow you to plug standard ethernet devices into their lines? I own my own modem and router and do what I want with them. I don't follow you.

> Are you saying that your ISP doesn't allow you to plug standard ethernet devices into their lines? Using your own router rather than the ISPs preconfigured router requires more than just plugging a personally-purchased router into their line (even in the simple case where you aren't using the ISPs bundled cable/phone/internet service that's all delivered through a common system.) At least in the simple case, someon…

When I've had a cable modem, all I've had to do is connect my router to the modem via Ethernet. When I've had modemless service via Ethernet jack, all I've had to do is connect my router to the wall Ethernet jack.

So what are you talking about? Purchasing your own cable modem? Or something else that I've never had to do?

Re: OnHub

#166

Post by snuxoll »

exelius wrote: post #128
wvenable wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My ISP provides an integrated modem/wifi router and they don't provide a bridge mode. I've long given up trying to fight against that with my own equipment.

It's not even a battle worth fighting; your average consumer router is significantly less powerful than what the cable company gives you. Even if you do get it in bridge mode, you'd need something more than a $200 consumer router to get the max speed out of it.

So not true, the RT-AC68U will walk circles around any eMTA an ISP will give you. The eMTA's cable companies give are expensive because a DOCSIS 3.0 modem is already $80 on average, adding a VoIP gateway and WLAN router plus a sufficient profit margin adds up.

Re: OnHub

#167

Post by tjohns »

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...

Just a guess, but the TPM is probably for secure boot, just like on a Chromebook. Since security is one of the selling points.

https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-docs/...

Re: OnHub

#168

Post by aianus »

impish19 wrote: post #51

So what does this device primarily do that I need right now? Just throttling internet for certain devices and prioritizing others? I'm not even entirely sure what 'uses smart software to find the best WiFi connection' means. What's the value prop here given the device costs $200? It's not like it can better your internet somehow.

When I upgraded from a generic $50 linksys router to a $200 Apple Extreme it vastly increased the range and speed of the wireless. Before it my TV's netflix connection would drop all the time or switch to low-res mode.

So it's conceivable that it would better your Internet.

Re: OnHub

#169

Post by tomkinstinch »

fraXis wrote: post #78

I see no mention of being able to use 2 or 3 of these things in an Wi-Fi extender type of scenario that I can do with my current Airport Extreme routers.

Their FAQ suggests increasing coverage by having one unit act as the router (doing NAT), and having others act as (bridged) access points:

https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6275097?vid=1-635755...

Re: OnHub

#170

Post by Filligree »

mrtalented wrote: post #100

I've been dogfooding the device for about 4 months now. Before, I was using the previous generation Airport Extreme. It is far better - the app makes it super simple to set up, the signal seems to be stronger throughout my apartment, and I love having a convenient way to monitor / admin it remotely (via the app). Well worth the price imo. >inb4 shill :)

How well will it work in a complex network configuration?

E.g. my network looks like this:

  Modem - L3 switch - Server 1 - Desktop
                    \          \
                     \          - Wifi AP
                      - Server 2
If I replace the AP with one of these, is it going to work? Server 1 does NAT for the wifi network.
Post reply on HN