OnHub • Hacker News Board

Re: OnHub

#551

Post by sowbug » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 3:30 AM UTC

jkestner wrote: post #545

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…

What _is_ the longest-lived wholly Google hardware out there?

The yellow Google Search Appliance for enterprises is about a decade old. You can still buy them today.

The Nexus One was branded Google. I wouldn't say it's supported by Google anymore because it doesn't receive firmware updates. Google first released it in early 2010.

The Chromebook CR-48 was first released in December 2010, but it wasn't a Google product (unbranded). It still receives software updates today.

BTW the new router isn't a Google product. TP-Link makes it. Google just controls the software, the way Microsoft updates Windows on third-party PCs.

Re: OnHub

#552

Post by jon-wood » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 3:40 AM UTC

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.

Maybe in the US. In the UK its the default on any router from the biggest telco, and the biggest cable provider are turning it on imminently. I've yet to hear anyone complain about it.

Re: OnHub

#553

Post by icecreammatt » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 3:55 AM UTC

spdustin wrote: post #237

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are decent solutions to this already. INSTEON works great. It's got dual-band connectivity (wired and wireless) and you can either use a cloud hub if you want, or control it locally with a computer.

I can't tell you how many Insteon switches I've replaced in anger because they start flashing, stop responding to button presses, start beeping - one didn't even stop when I pulled the air gap switch. I'm well versed in their tech and in electrical systems, and everything was installed correctly, in some cases with fresh neutral wires pulled through direct from the neutral buss bar in the service panel, just to avoid…

I just bought a Zigbee Winkhub because I was looking into something to play around with to remotely control lights. I also wanted something that I could hack and run my own code on. The Winkhub is relatively easy to hack. I've only been using mine for about a week now but am very happy with it. I've only tested mine with lights so far.

Re: OnHub

#554

Post by j42 » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 4:07 AM UTC

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…

From what I can see though, the hardware looks decent... Personally I'm curious for when someone does a teardown, to make sure there are no hardcoded callbacks to Google servers that shouldn't be.

If not, this wouldn't be so bad (for $200) running DDWRT/OpenWRT?

[edit] Also, does anyone know if the base firmware will be open source similar to Chromium? If so, one could theoretically still take advantage of their security updates (which would honestly be leaps and bounds above current consumer-grade hardware) with open source tooling.

Re: OnHub

#555

Post by martinflack » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 4:11 AM UTC

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?

I thought fog was being used to describe this kind of thing. Where else is fog computing used, differently?

Re: OnHub

#556

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 4:30 AM UTC

endtime wrote: post #450

otis_inf wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I highly doubt they added a Google account requirement to improve ad targeting. Ad delivery networks, and google is one of the biggest, have one core business: delivering ads. Everything is setup to make that as big and as solid as possible. Whatever it takes (and we all know how far ad delivery networks will go: almost infinitely far). Now they ship a piece of hardware, require signing up with an account, and it's…

Believe it or not there are a lot of teams at Google that don't think about ads. I worked on Geo for over three years and had plenty of discussions about how various things should work, and ads never came up. (There was one case where we pushed pointless login requirements on the user, gating Zagat reviews behind a G+ login, and I (along with many others) argued against it.) Like I said, I'm not on the OnHub team, bu…

[deleted]

Re: OnHub

#557

Post by prawn » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 4:55 AM UTC

sixdimensional wrote: post #15

Just interesting to note that the form factor is quite similar to Amazon Echo (slim cylindrical tube), although the function is completely different (router vs "personal assistant device").

I presume they're designing something to sit visibly on a shelf, but I quite like having things in a more stackable form factor. e.g., an external 3.5" on top of a Mac Mini sitting on top of a four-bay NAS, etc.

I guess that creates issues with interference with the antenna functioning though?

Re: OnHub

#558

Post by _rlms » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 5:00 AM UTC

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 started developing a self hosted home automation framework for my senior project last year. Been on a bit of a hiatus, partially because I don't have my own place currently, but its here: https://github.com/terramod. Central web application that can run "apps" on your house, with raspi nodes that connect the hardware around the house.

I too am a bit surprised to hear tech minded people get excited about products that basically exist to collect their data.

Re: OnHub

#559

Post by jaysoncena » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 5:02 AM UTC

jcfrei wrote: post #31

Here in CH virtually everyone receives a modem/router combo for free from their provider (ie. they borrow it to you). They are also usually preconfigured - so you just need to plug them in. Is it the same in the US? I guess at a 199$ price point this will be a tough sell.

Here in Singapore, some of the providers offer free but crappy router for their 500mbps and up. While other ISP offers S$50 voucher for the routers they sell.

Re: OnHub

#560

Post by ycosynot » Wed, Aug 19, 2015, 5:02 AM UTC

rebelnz wrote: post #463

keehun wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why I found the Google branding a bit weird. The smart guys over there surely must know that a lot of us would be suspicious of this device. Why didn't they brand it under Nest, or a new Google subsidiary that would take the initial suspicion-edge off? I think it's a good router at a decent price, but no way I'm putting that inside my house!

The ratio of people who think about the implications vs the general public who consume rather than question is weighted in favour of big name companies.

There should simply be more coursework on privacy, classroom discussion on information monopoly, corporatocracy, ect... To level the field, it takes Education. (and I'm not saying the router is evil)