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

521–530 of 641 posts

Re: OnHub

#521

Post by georgemcbay »

K6YtXAfA wrote: post #510
georgemcbay wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not buying it precisely because it is Google branded. Unlike most of the comments here it isn't a privacy issue for me, I totally respect the privacy argument but personally just don't care enough to make decisions based on it... for me, the issue is that when I think of Google and hardware I think of the Nexus Q, Google TV, etc. Google suddenly (and relatively quickly) drops projects like this on a fairly regula…

It's unlikely Google drops projects any more frequently than startups fail. I have (or have had) a lot of paperweights manufactured by failed startups, so I know it happens. I'm sad when startups fail, but they usually failed for the right reasons. It doesn't taint my overall perception of the startup concept. If you think the Nexus Q was a fantastic product and that Google made the wrong decision to kill it, that's…

"It's unlikely Google drops projects any more frequently than startups fail."

I don't disagree, which is why I also don't spend money on startup consumer goods that have any sort of requirement on "the cloud" (if the company dying makes the product virtually worthless, count me out) and also why I virtually never back tech kickstarter-style projects.

My opinion on google is that they are extremely bipolar (or at least give the external impression of being so) when it comes to experimental projects, they seem to go through periods where they are open to trying new things and then (very quickly) to periods of retraction where things that aren't ad focused are left to wither and die or just killed outright. I don't want my money caught up in their mood swings unless the value proposition is amazing, and in this case it really isn't.

Re: OnHub

#522

Post by [deleted] »

endtime wrote: post #443
curun1r wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it's actually just a branding thing I've heard it's mostly a liability thing. When projects like the self-driving car were directly under Google, Google's assets were fair game in any lawsuit over that technology. With the current setup, liability is siloed in each legal entity which gives the cash cow, Google, more protection. More here: http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/13/9149431/alphabet-google-co...

I wasn't commenting on why the Alphabet thing happened (I've heard all sorts of explanations but nothing official except what's been said publicly, and I don't personally have any insight). I was talking about why things in Access & Energy are still getting the "Google" label, e.g. "Google Fiber" or "OnHub by Google".

[deleted]

Re: OnHub

#523

Post by jfoster »

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.

It doesn't seem very plausible that Google made OnHub just to sell lots of them at the $200 price point. I think the official stance on this will be that they want to make the internet work better and be easier to setup. I do think that's plausible.

Plus, unless Google can snoop into HTTPS connections, how would this help them with ad targeting? (since HTTP will be phased out within the next few years)

Re: OnHub

#524

Post by nadams »

raldi wrote: post #416
nadams wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would require committing a crime (in the US at least). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_piggybacking#Unite... This is too funny - why would you admit, to a cop, what you are doing??? You just say you are sitting in your car enjoying a nice day - and it wouldn't be a lie because technically you are. It just so happens you are doing other things as well. > He had been accessing the Internet through a nonp…

I think you meant to attach this reply to some other comment.

No - you said drop off a file somewhere. Connecting to their open AP is a crime in itself. I was trying to point out that the legal system has no idea how to deal with the legalities of accessing APs. Of course, they would have prove I had a malicious intent (assuming they could track me down).

Re: OnHub

#525

Post by fr0styMatt2 »

K6YtXAfA wrote: post #510
georgemcbay wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not buying it precisely because it is Google branded. Unlike most of the comments here it isn't a privacy issue for me, I totally respect the privacy argument but personally just don't care enough to make decisions based on it... for me, the issue is that when I think of Google and hardware I think of the Nexus Q, Google TV, etc. Google suddenly (and relatively quickly) drops projects like this on a fairly regula…

It's unlikely Google drops projects any more frequently than startups fail. I have (or have had) a lot of paperweights manufactured by failed startups, so I know it happens. I'm sad when startups fail, but they usually failed for the right reasons. It doesn't taint my overall perception of the startup concept. If you think the Nexus Q was a fantastic product and that Google made the wrong decision to kill it, that's…

The difference is that a non-cloud-reliant device can be sold to me and then abandoned by the company that made it some time in the future -- yet it still remains a usable device. Now whether the OnHub falls into that space or not I can't really say for sure; in this instance I actually doubt it does (my guess is it would remain a useful router even if the cloud-connected features were dropped for some reason).

It's also the frustrating potential that the product will be 98% awesome but with niggling problems that don't seem to get fixed as it's abandoned quickly; ie- my recent Ask HN submission about Android TV.

Re: OnHub

#526

Post by daemin »

wbillingsley wrote: post #500
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

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…

Proposed data retention laws? They are in fact actual laws, but they just haven't agreed on how much money the telco's and ISP's are going to get for implementing it.

Re: OnHub

#527

Post by druska »

therealmarv wrote: post #233
rthomas6 wrote: post #229

So can I use it to do all the nerdy things I use my DD-WRT flashed router for? Like QoS, adblocking at the router, a separate guest WiFi, VPN support, MAC address filtering, etc?

you are not the target audience!

Router enthusiasts are definitely a target audience. Average demographics won't pay $200 for a router.

Re: OnHub

#528

Post by [deleted] »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #465
BufordTJustice wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, but by giving more data you let software to personalize better. So by reducing your data exposure you are acting as techno-Luddite stiffing progress. Is this sarcasm? I guess I fail to understand how Google now knowing all the details of my life impedes "progress". It shouldn't stop them from developing new technology; why does the "cloud" need to figure out how to "personalize" things more for me anyways, ou…

> Is this sarcasm? More of irony, I guess. Google's core is still about serving you information and possibly some knowledge. To get better insights they need more information. It is as simple as that. MS entered the same field with Windows 10. They need more data to give better Cortana experience. If it's not all the data, Siri, Now & Cortana would suck. Now we are witnessing them going mainstream.

[deleted]

Re: OnHub

#529

Post by GutenYe »

Which Operating System(OS) does it use? Will it be open sourced? Can you use it without a Google Account?
Post reply on HN