9 ms·

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 : >

• TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I'm very interested. The whole idea of home automation (and most of IoT) over cloud is absurd. The devices in your home should not communicate by sending packets around the entire globe. The data should never leave your internal network unless explicitly meant to (web interfaces are cool and all, and you want to have remote access). I'm actually somewhat surprised people don't seem how wrong the current model is, but I suspect it's a mix of cloud being The Hot Sexy Thing and being paid not to understand this (via business models that rely on monetizing users through cloud solution; as some of my hardware startup friends told me once after talking with the investors, hardware won't be making money, the cloud platform will). So yes, I would be very willing to help reverse this and make local network communication the default for home automation and relevant technologies.
  • x5n1 11y ago
    Google's model of how it wants computing to work is fundamentally flawed and now it's infected Microsoft. Really the only shelter is Linux, when will the ignorant masses wake up and realize this?
    • placeybordeaux 11y ago
      Honestly why should someone that is tech illterate really care? Its a pretty big hassle
• RexRollman 11y ago
  I totally agree with you. I am as likely to buy this as I am to buy a router made by Facebook.
• ljk 11y ago
  agree with everything you said, but > Whose interested? shouldn't that be "who's"?
  • tormeh 11y ago
    Could be an attempt at making a funny combination of "whose interests" and "who's interested"
• benevol 11y ago
  Absolutely, it's a bad joke. Endless data collection, personal profiling, total mass surveillance, NSA... Need we say more?
• rohamg 11y ago
  I agree with you, but is this specific to only home automation? Shouldn't the same paranoia / concern (depending on who you're talking to) apply to critical company data (documents, source code, etc.) as well as personal health information (biometrics, etc.)?
  • astrocyte 11y ago
    It isn't just specific to home automation. The same paranoia should apply to all data and will once people understand the gaping holes in existing cloud centric/data funneling architectures. In the meantime, a new approach to the problem is worth looking into. As the speed of technological innovation increases more and more, so will the disruptive paradigm shifts.. and this cloud model is long overdue for one.
    • dzhiurgis 11y ago
      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. I don't think we will suddenly abandon the cloud. If anything, we will centralize even more information. My biggest philosophical debate is what will happen to people who deliberately protect their information. Surely they are meatier targets by various adversaries, but the thing that bugs me most is the fact that you will become irrelevant. Lack of data will impede even some most basic services and probably you won't be trusted because Big Cloud doesn't have your profile.
      • BufordTJustice 11y ago
        > 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, outside of the obvious answer to serve up better targeted ads (which I'd rather make go away by any means necessary)?
• ultimape 11y ago
  I personally think the real answer is not to have a central device, but to spread it out into a peer2peer 'fog'. There's been some movement in industrial applications via stuff like https://twitter.com/FilamentHQ https://twitter.com/FilamentHQ which leverages hardware accelerated ECC and telehash, using blockchain based DNS systems and other decentralized methods of command and control. I think a similar direction needs to be taken for consumer hardware and data. The cloud needs to become just another peer. I've been working with a bunch of interesting ideas on trying to get a distributed IoT network setup using programmable blockchains and Eris industries stack as part of an internship with them.
  • jsilence 11y ago
    I very much like the term "fog computing" for P2P anti-cloud software. Hope it catches on.
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    • stephengillie 11y ago
      Just watch out for Namespace collisions with groups like AppFog in the Container space.
    • notfunk 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_computing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_computing
  • jefurii 11y ago
    "fog computing" is an awesome term!
    • 1SockChuck 11y ago
      It's been actively used by Cisco for several years. http://blogs.cisco.com/perspectives/iot-from-cloud-to-fog-computing http://blogs.cisco.com/perspectives/iot-from-cloud-to-fog-co...
• keehun 11y ago
  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!
  • dragonwriter 11y ago
    > 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? Why? Most consumers aren't in the ultra-suspicious-because-it-says-Google camp, and most of those who are in that camp are likely to take using a different branding for a project from the same ultimate corporate parent as evidence that not only is the project trying to violate privacy, its also trying to be extra sneaky about it.
  • dysoco 11y ago
    I'm going to make a guess and say that this is going to sell just because it's Google branded.
    • georgemcbay 11y ago
      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 regular basis and when the whole thing is all "cloud-this-cloud-that" dropping support basically means you've got a conversation-starting paperweight.
      • K6YtXAfA 11y ago
        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 one thing -- you're saying they have bad taste, or bad product sense, or an inverted sense of quality vs. crap. I wouldn't agree with that assessment, though I admit it's an valid, internally consistent opinion. But it's more likely you never owned a Nexus Q and are just using it as an example of how projects at Google get killed. Sure, Google kills projects. Just as startups fail. That's no more astute an observation than saying that sometimes it's sunny and sometimes it rains. You wouldn't expect Google to keep funding a stalled or not-quite-thriving project any more than you'd expect investors to keep plowing money into a startup that can't find product-market fit. Sure, the opposite outcome sometimes happens. But generally it doesn't, and that's OK. Some think Google is valuable because it takes more risks than companies its size. The implication of your opinion is the opposite -- that Google should be more risk-averse (not starting this router project because a router is a crazy thing to build), or innovate more slowly (launching it later than today because it's not ready), or ignore market feedback longer than a startup would (damn the torpedoes, it sucks and nobody wants it, but let's keep its team on a death march). Is that how you'd run Google if you were its CEO?
• Itaxpica 11y ago
  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 https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6279845
  • yc1010 11y ago
    "Please note that some features may not function with certain privacy settings turned off, and some information (such as the association of your Google Account to your OnHub) is stored by Google even if all privacy controls are turned off" I am sticking with my Asus AC66U which has more features and is also cheaper than this Google device http://amzn.com/B008ABOJKS http://amzn.com/B008ABOJKS
    • mr_luc 11y ago
      In case HN is wondering about the reception: it's great by default, but I had some hardware mounted in inaccessible places, which could still have issues with reception. So I replaced the middle antenna with a WL-ANT-157 from Asus, and wow. It's the best home wifi experience I've ever had in this price range.
    • kalleboo 11y ago
      I'd trust the Google device more simply because Google is better at software. With hardware companies like Asus you get routers full of terrible, insecure software. http://www.securityweek.com/asus-routers-plagued-command-execution-vulnerability http://www.securityweek.com/asus-routers-plagued-command-exe... Although I'm sure you're using DD-WRT or something...
      • wbillingsley 11y ago
        Unfortunately when it comes to data and cloud companies these days, that's a little like saying you'd trust Blofeld more than Dr No because he's a more competent villain.
      • Johnny555 11y ago
• astrocyte 11y ago
  I'm glad that people found this to be a point of significance. I've worked in the commercial networking hardware industry for some years and shelved several consumer ideas due to a lack of interest in security/privacy. I have watched over many years as this 'cloud' software bonanza has eclipsed the tech industry. It went away from its original intent a long time ago and now is used as the holy-grail method of : > ensuring (rent) is always paid for service(s) people should OWN > vacuuming up and selling people's data. I have several projects on my plate. However, I have a solid one for securing people's data when it comes to the IoT movement (in hardware)... It revolves around the same hardware/technology that the industry uses to scrape and funnel your data except the home user will now have it at their disposal as well. Users should have 100% control of their data. If someone wants to 'monetize' it or use it to 'improve' their platform, the user should be rightfully paid for the opportunity to do so. Disruption? Yeah, I think it's time. The foolishness has gotten far too long in the tooth. .. And the backwards thing about it is: there are simple and straight forward ways to secure data (in hardware). It's only because everyone in the industry wants to ship your data all over the place and data-mine the snot out of it that things are as insecure as they are. The very (loop-hole) or (door) that is used to funnel/mine/monetize/cloudify data is the very one used as an attack vector. Complicating the crap out of things at that point defeats the whole purpose.... Get rid of the door all together and the home is the least of all places where you should be exposing yourself.
  • lifeisstillgood 11y ago
    I agree with the idea that the best protecting n for privacy is to make it expensive to snoop - it's worked for thousands of years so far. My concern is how to make the benefits of this huge amount of data (medical information, travel etc) possible while charging the other use. It's just - how - does one attach the metadata and enforce the lolicensing?
    • Natanael_L 11y ago
      Multiparty Computation, homomorphic encryption, Private Information Retrieval, etc... Unfortunately they're not very efficient, and have limited security guarantees. But that's part of an approach to do it securely.
• BufordTJustice 11y ago
  I would be very interested in helping write some code or contributing money towards making improvements to lock down phone home and other unwanted behavior. I think an excellent starting point is to see if you couldn't take a Mikrotik or OpenWRT/Tomato router and bake a lot of this extra filtering and functionality in. For some of the things that Google advertises like speed checks or choosing an optimal channel or whatever, should be do-able in open source firmware, so I think it would be hugely beneficial, at least for me (and probably many others).
• jarfil 11y ago
  "a device which ensures your 'home automation' data stays in your home" I have one of those, it's a Linksys router with OpenWRT acting as a firewall. But if you can make it more user friendly and sparkle some hype all over... sure, go for it.
• crabasa 11y ago
  I don't think there will be a significant market for your idea. One of the most rapidly adopted technologies of the 20th century is Color Television [1] and it still commands 36% of our attention [2]. Consumers have made it crystal clear that they are willing to trade their time and data for lower prices and more convenience. Watch the commercial on that landing page. It couldn't be targeted less at technical people. [1]: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/technology%20adoption%20rate%20century.png http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/technol... [2]: http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Mobile-Continues-Steal-Share-of-US-Adults-Daily-Time-Spent-with-Media/1010782 http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Mobile-Continues-Steal-Shar...
  • jkestner 11y ago
    False choice. It's not impossible to make something that tastes good and is also good for you. Some people find that Apple products are desirable, and incidentally, Apple provides a relatively high level of privacy. But you can never expect Google to provide such a product as long as it makes money off your data. Maybe it needs to be under a different letter of the Alphabet.
• Albright 11y ago
  Oh, come on. Just connect your Google router to your Google fiber connection and connect to it with your smartphone or laptop running a Google operating system and Google browser. Visit your Google home page (using Google's DNS servers, of course) to read your Google Mail, or perhaps catch up on the news with Google News, or use Google+ to see what your friends are up to, or get a little work done on Google Docs. Should you do some Google searches and end up on some non-Google sites, don't worry - you're still safe under the watchful eye of Google AdSense and Google Analytics. What have you got to be so paranoid about?
  • ivanca 11y ago
    The NSA should stop the charade and just buy Google and Facebook already. They already have us by the balls, lets at least make it official and make the world embrace the heroic and always rightful eye of the US government.
  • nota_bene 11y ago
    Spot on. I don't get it. It's become so obvious and people still seem to categorically refuse to admit the elephant in the room and to act upon it. It's as if everybody was in some kind of unbreakable state of permanent cognitive paralysis.
    • WA 11y ago
      And still, the HN crowd uses Gmail a lot. Here's the most technical crowd on the planet and people are obsessed with Gmail as if it was impossible to get email to work by any other means. Furthermore, I will never understand why people would use Gmail, if there's IMAP and hundreds of email clients to choose from. Same is true for Google Reader, that apparently caused a lot of buzz when it went away. Never understood this. The only Google product I use is Google Maps, and Google Search occasionally. Replaced the latter with DuckDuckGo mostly and works well most of the time.
      • leni536 11y ago
        I only use Google maps for public transport route planning, otherwise I use openstreetmap. And osmand on Android is freaking awesome.
• j42 11y ago
  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.
• hkparker 11y ago
  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 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.
• ised 11y ago
  "I feel its about time this data monetization cloud bonanza be disrupted." Ironically, having users controlling their own routers could be the best chance to do that. That is, toss out the crappy consumer routers and instead embrace the router as a user-controlled computer that sits between the user's devices (including IoT devices) and the ISP connection (e.g., modem). This router could run an open source source OS and be programmed _by the user_ to do all sorts of useful things, such as block ads, block tracking, perhaps even create private overlay networks among family and friends, protected from spam. In a world where the Internet user can have some respite from radio, TV and other advertising, Google (=slave to advertisers) should not be selling routers. Should they come to dominate the market, the respite will come to an end. Users probably will not even know what happened. No one pays attention to routers as computers. They just want a strong WiFi signal.
• tk120404 11y ago
  Worried about Security then look @ this wolflink routers. They are far better than this onhub and it can be controlled directly from mobile and the highlight of this router is that it comes with parental control https://www.wolflinks.com/ https://www.wolflinks.com/
• aidenn0 11y ago
  I'm interested.
• SZJX 11y ago
  Well I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with Google. So suddenly people have started to become suspicious about what data a router is able to collect, while in fact various routers which are well capable of executing malicious applications have been around forever? This is just a trend and Google is not some inherently evil guy that acts outside of the norm. Ditch Google? Fine. The next alternative you find is equally, if not more, likely to perform some data collection. Of course you can go full Stallman and ensure your data are truly guarded by your own in every possible sense. But the heavy price that comes with it, we all have seen.