17 ms·

Google OnHub Review

157 points by BlackJack 11y ago

andrewstuart2 11y ago
I think the main reason I probably won't be getting an OnHub (for myself at least -- it might be perfect for my parents) is my love of tinkering and learning networking. I like that firmware like DD-WRT lets me poke around at the internals, and actually calls features by their standardized names instead of some made-up copyrighted marketing name.
- kllrnohj 11y ago
  > calls features by their standardized names instead of some made-up copyrighted marketing name What standardized names did Google replace with made-up copyrighted marketing names?
  - andrewstuart2 11y ago
    I'm not talking about Google, just different manufacturers in general. I think the specific router I had helped configure before was a TP-LINK small business router, which may have contributed to the feature naming. I wanted to set up a server in a DMZ, but that feature was called something unexpected like "Virtual Server."
- noja 11y ago
  I'm no DD-WRT fan: I find the interface is inconsistent and ugly. And the support forum is full of aggressive bofhs.
  - andrewstuart2 11y ago
    The interface is definitely not going to win any Awwwards. The feature set, though, is one you'd usually have to pay a considerable amount more to get directly from a router manufacturer.
    - noja 11y ago
      The feature set, yes, but definitely not the interface.
- briandear 11y ago
  As opposed to made up non copyrighted names? What kind of silliness is that statement?
- kemitche 11y ago
  > it might be perfect for my parents If it works as well as advertised, with as little fuss - this is absolutely the go-to Christmas gift for techies to get their parents/grandparents/uncles/etc. It's worth the price tag for me to get my family on a device that I don't have to fiddle with every time I visit.
jader201 11y ago
> But I’ve had zero issues with the OnHub: coverage has been shockingly good, I haven’t needed to use the wireless repeater at all, and the interference I saw with the baby monitor has disappeared. In areas that were formerly dead zones, the OnHub has given me enough bandwidth and throughput to stream 4K video, even in my basement, a full two stories below my office. This is despite putting the router in a less-than-ideal location: upstairs, in my office, far from our general living areas. This is what I was hoping for. It seems every router I've tried -- and I even have the ASUS RT-N66U, which is supposed to have great coverage -- never fails to have multiple bad spots in our home (and it's not that large). If OnHub has the advertised coverage, it may set a bar that hopefully other manufactures will be forced to follow.
- eloisant 11y ago
  Since I bought a Ubiquiti Unifi AP, I have no bad spot at all. I actually have my ISP wifi downstairs, I put the Unifi upstairs thinking I would switch from one to the other, but even closer to my ISP router I still get a better signal with my Unifi.
  - xn 11y ago
    I've had a similar experience with my Unifi. I had planned to ceiling mount it upstairs in the middle of the house. But coverage is so good throughout the entire house with it sitting on a bookshelf in my office in the corner of the house, I haven't gotten around to moving it.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      Which UAP are you using?
- Someone1234 11y ago
  Have you considered either doing actual ethernet or failing that powerline ethernet? A lot of these dead spots are caused by the physical materials or distance of the property, which often cannot be overcome WELL unless you used directional antennas, or exceeded the legal power of your WiFi equipment (which can sometimes cause overheating or signal issues). Instead of trying to break through the dead spots with better and better WiFi, maybe you should just cut your losses, get wired internet onto the other side, and then set up an inexpensive AP there to complete the coverage picture. If your budget is $200, then you could easily do powerline ethernet and a cheap AP. Just a thought...
asyncwords 11y ago
What I'm most concerned about, as somebody switching back to a Windows Phone soon, is the apparent lack of a web interface for the OnHub. According to this page [1] the OnHub requires an Android or iOS device, with the app installed, to setup and configure the router. I don't blame Google for not supporting Windows Phone, the market share is still very low, but I'm not convinced that requiring an app instead of using a web interface like every other router is what I want from this. [1]: https://on.google.com/hub/support/#get-started https://on.google.com/hub/support/#get-started
- mrbill 11y ago
  I forget which one, but a review I've read in the past 24 hours said that they plan to eventually have a web equivalent to the phone app for basic setup.
  - boo_radley 11y ago
    Then that'll be interesting, eventually.
- BlackJack 11y ago
  "Google told me that it will eventually offer a simple web interface for setting up the OnHub, but at launch, a smartphone or tablet is required." Source: http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/31/google-onhub-review/ http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/31/google-onhub-review/
- oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  This would also be an easy win for a company such as Google that is finally 'getting' design since every router web interface I have ever seen has been beyond appalling. It wouldn't take much to be the industry leader in this regard by a country mile.
  - redwards510 11y ago
    Have you seen OpenWRT, or Tomato? If so, what don't you like about those?
publicfig 11y ago
I've seen a lot of complaints about this router only having one ethernet LAN port. This really could just be an issue of different use cases, but are there a large amount of modems out there that don't have plenty of ethernet ports on them? I have never needed to plug in anything to my router that I can't just plug into my modem, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't connect too much to either to begin with.
- fndrplayer13 11y ago
  It does kind of suck, you could grab a little ethernet hub for pretty cheap, though. Would be nice if it just came with it.
- aroch 11y ago
  Most at home modems (think Surfboard) have one, maybe 2, ethernet ports, unless you're using a modem/switch or modem/router hybrid device. Also, I'd much rather plug things into my router, which has ingress filters, than my modem.
- tolien 11y ago
  If your modem (which isn't really a modem if it has >1 LAN port) is plugged into the WAN port on the OnHub (or any other router), anything plugged into the ports on the modem will have trouble seeing things on the LAN because of NAT and firewall rules.
  - dcherman 11y ago
    Has nothing at all to do with either NAT or the Firewall rules; it has to do with routing. Assuming your modem/router has this capability, all you should need to do is set up a static route pointing to the network/subnet that the devices behind the other router. You should not need a corresponding route on the other router because since it's on both networks, it already has a route to the other network. Even if it didn't, the default gateway on the router is the modem which can take care of routing the packets correctly. This is all assuming that the modem/router combo is assigning an IP on a private network/subnet to the additional router.
- deleted 11y ago
fndrplayer13 11y ago
I have an Apple Extreme which is good, but getting a bit up there in age. Might hand it off to my parents and upgrade to this. My experience has been that investing in good routing hardware makes my life much more pleasant. Internet when I need it, and none of the nonsense. When I've had cheap hardware in the past (growing up, in college), I feel like I was constantly battling it to get it working -- ddwrt or not. I actually inherited a nice Apple Extreme when my startup graduated to pro-grade networking hardware, and I've loved using it.
hyperliner 11y ago
hmmm, just bought the Nighthawk X6 AC3200 and it is still unopened. I think I will keep it and wait for another rev on this. Anybody has any opinions on the X6 AC3200? Bought it for $399 based on "I don't want to have Wi-Fi problems at home" (tons of devices, works from home, etc. etc.)
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  No specific knowledge of the AC3200, but I bought an AirPort Extreme as a fairly pricey "I'm sick of having network problems" fix. Couldn't tell you when the last time I had to reboot it was, and I consider it money well spent. I'm glad DD-WRT/Tomato existed for my string of Linksys/Asus/Belkin type consumer routers in college, and I'm even more glad to not be tinkering with it anymore. You might read through the AC3200 reviews on Newegg so you at least know what you're getting in to. Reception is mixed (28% 1-star reviews), with complaints mainly about dropped connections. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833320218 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833320...
- dangrossman 11y ago
  There are 237 critical reviews of the Nighthawk on Amazon, with problems like needing daily reboots and the 2.4GHz network maxing out at under 15mbps repeated across reviews, where the cheaper router it's replacing had no such problems. All of the consumer AC3200 products have similar high percentages of negative reviews, probably because they largely share the same chipset. I wouldn't spend $300 on something that'll create more problems than my current $20 N router, and it appears there's a high probability of that being the case with that product.
tolien 11y ago
Worth noting that Ars also reviewed the OnHub [0] and weren't all that complimentary about it. Particular negatives were the price tag, single LAN port, poor wifi performance (particularly important if you're not supposed to use wired Ethernet...) and no web interface. [0]: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-googles-smart-home-trojan-horse-is-a-200-leap-of-faith/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-g...
- wnevets 11y ago
  theverge is a joke, I wish people would stop linking to it.
  - joelkesler 11y ago
    Sadly, I agree. Over the last year or so, the quality of content produced by The Verge has noticeably decreased. I find it difficult to take their opinions of tech seriously.
  - roldie 11y ago
    I agree. They're quality has gone downhill considerably. Which site(s) do you recommend? I like sites with strong community/lots of comments. Ars is pretty good. But I'm looking for a site that's a little more pop tech than sci/tech.
    - wnevets 11y ago
      HN became my source for tech news. If you find a good site, let me know.
    - puranjay 11y ago
      AnandTech is the only one that has top tier content, but it's a bit too obscure
- jader201 11y ago
  Not sure I would put much weight in an article with a click-bait label like "Google’s smart home Trojan horse". I know there are many that are suspicious of this, but a site like arstechnica putting this in the title when it's, at best, speculation seems a bit sensationalist.
robk 11y ago
This review seems based purely on one anecdote. I'm curious whether the antenna positions on his Asus were partly to blame. The Wirecutter review [1] was a bit more negative on performance. But, even with Wirecutter there's not much consistency in review quality with APs. I usually trust the methodology of Wirecutter but Smallnetbuilder has the most comprehensive coverage I've seen and they rate the Wirecutter top pick (the Archer C7/C8) quite middle-of-the-road for its class. I'm interested in what SNB's test results say once he tests the OnHub. [1] http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-wi-fi-router/# http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-wi-fi-router/#
Eric_WVGG 11y ago
Would be nice if there was an additional model that had a built-in DOCSIS 3.1 cable router. It’s cute that Google is going for “something you’ll want to leave in the middle of the room,” but cable modems make that a non-starter.
- yincrash 11y ago
  What's the difference between routing a coaxial cable to the middle of a room versus an ethernet cable? At least you can get long flat ethernet cables.
  - fixermark 11y ago
    I think there's insufficient difference, and that's the original poster's point. The fact that the device is aesthetically pleasing isn't a misfeature (other than perhaps bumping it in the cost bracket, if it even did so). But as long as it's connected to a bulky, obnoxious Surfboard by a physical cable anyway, it's not something you'll be using as a room centerpiece unless you intend to put an unusual amount of work into cable-routing.
    - yincrash 11y ago
      I think I was being misunderstood. Even if it wasn't connected to a surfboard (assuming the OnHub was also capable of being a modem), you would then need to route a coax cable to the middle of the room. There's 0 reason to keep the surfboard physically close to the AP, and IMO, it's preferable to not keep it close (because that way I can keep my network switch near the modem instead hidden behind all my electronics never to be seen). Either way, you will be routing a cable to the center of the room, you're just deciding whether you're routing a coax cable or an ethernet cable.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        I know from experience that I would rather run Cat5 than coax to the center of a room. :)
AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
Single, non-functioning USB port is disappointing. I'd hope for a $200 router that I could at least get a NAS out of it.
- kijiki 11y ago
  This is a Google product. NAS isn't cloud-dependent, and it keeps data out of their hands. So probably not going to happen.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Yup. Another feature competitors have, that we won’t see here, is integration with VoIP and phone apps – if someone calls your home number, you can respond on your mobile. You have an app where you can see who called when – and listen to the recordings of the answering machine. Essentially competitors have self-hosted Google Voice, Google has... well, US-only Google Voice.
    - pgeorgi 11y ago
      Since you're quite obviously an AVM fan (given that you promote their product all over the thread) and it seems you're referring to them here as well (the "phone app" integration is a historical emphasis/accident of that company, given that they got into the DSL-Modem business by expanding from their telephone systems and ISDN cards, and much more of an issue for them than for any other vendor of dsl/cable/wifi modem/router thingies): Outside the German (speaking) market AVM doesn't matter much. And looking at the tiny selection on the German version of http://store.google.com http://store.google.com, the German market doesn't matter much to Google. That's market segmentation at work, and OnHub likely won't be a threat to your favorite DSL modem brand (and it isn't a DSL modem, btw)
      - kuschku 11y ago
        Well, it’s not my favourite brand or anything, the issue I’m just seeing is that I’d like to see a good deal from Google. And what we’re seeing here is that a lot of people say "this router is awesome", "it does so much and is so cheap", "there’s no other router with that performance", and I’m just here, facepalming. It’s an upper-mid-range device in an oversaturated market, not something worth hundreds of reviews and articles. Tbh, I don’t care about AVM – the Fritz!Box 7490 was just the first router I could find with a similar featureset and similar price. Also, the Google Store is even more empty in many other countries – US, Canada, sometimes UK, NZ and AUS get the nice products. Some european countries still have no Google Books, Google Movies, Google Music, or even the ability to buy Nexus devices.
eddd 11y ago
This device is one these things that are not missing in your life until you realise that they exist.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
st3fan 11y ago
It is a spy device to peek inside your home and your internet usage to 'improve' the quality of ads that you see. The fact that it has sensors scares me. Sure they can adjust the brightness of that ring with the ambient sensor. What I would do if I ran an ad company is use that sensor to find out what time you turn off the lights and go to bed. And what time you wake up. And then send you more relevant ads. Or use the bluetooth in it to find out what devices you have at home, or what car you drive. Or what IoT devices you are using. And I would use the microphone to find out how many people are in your home. Or if you have kids, and how many.
- shock 11y ago
  It is mentioned in the article that the OnHub lacks a microphone.
  - spullara 11y ago
    Every speaker is a microphone, just not a good one. Would be hard to tell if it can listen to it.
    - thrownaway2424 11y ago
      Every ceramic capacitor is also a microphone. Better dust off the tin foil.
- st3fan 11y ago
  Someone should break this sucker open and find out what else is in there. Microphone was a guess actually. But I would place a bet on it that it is there.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    iFixit will inevitably perform a teardown. You are aware of iFixit? > Microphone was a guess actually. But I would place a bet on it that it is there. I'll take you up on that bet. What are your stakes?
mrbill 11y ago
~3 weeks ago I upgraded to an industrial-quality Cisco Aironet 1252AG access point (no -ac but it does -n 300Mbps just fine), that I got off eBay with power supply for a grand total of $60. I'm a big fan of separating the NAT/router functionality from access-point functionality, and my core "router" is a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter (X right now, used to be the Lite). I'm also a big fan of tweakable routers/APs (I formerly wouldn't buy something unless it could run DDWrt or OpenWRT) and have a couple storage tubs full of various wireless gear, including an Asus AC68U and the Ubiquiti Unifi-LR (running OpenWRT) that was formerly my main AP. Despite all of this, I have an OnHub on preorder that should get here tomorrow, and I'm excited. There's tons of promise for this hardware, including home automation features that haven't been implemented yet - and despite what one review said, you can use it just as an AP - that's what "bridge mode" is. However, I'm going to run it in parallel with the Cisco AP for a while before moving all my stuff over. Always have a fallback plan...
- charlietran 11y ago
  Thanks for posting this, the Aironet looks really nice! I was considering the Unifi-LR but the Aironet looks like it accomplishes the same, with the added benefit of supporting 802.11n. Would you please post which Aironet power supply did you got? It's not clear from the manual or eBay listings which one I would need.
  - mrbill 11y ago
    This is the AP I got (there's others available for around the same price, but the deal with the two antennas was too good to pass up: http://www.ebay.com/itm/261985177103 http://www.ebay.com/itm/261985177103 Here's the power injector you need to be able to run both radio modules at the same time: http://www.ebay.com/itm/252032508098 http://www.ebay.com/itm/252032508098 You'll want the c1250-k9w7-tar.152-2.JA1.tar IOS load to run it on "autonomous" mode (not needing a central controller) and have Chrome/Firefox compatibility for the Web UI if you use it.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    It is worth saying, that with those Aironet APs, if it doesn't expressly say it comes with the antennas and power supply, assume that it doesn't. Cisco actually sells them that way, and you're meant to mix and match which antenna configuration you need (but only certain ones are supported). They're a good buy, but aren't designed for consumers at all (or to be deployed as small business/home APs).
cdnsteve 11y ago
Interesting, even though there's only an app interface your router must be acting as a pure API. The question is what kind of API is it providing? Can you update your routers firmware through your phone app for example?
kbd 11y ago
The main dealbreaker for me here is the lack of ethernet ports. I currently have a Sonos bridge and a NAS device plugged into my router. The lack of a web interface is also a problem, but should be resolved at some point based on other comments in this thread.
- sciurus 11y ago
  You should be able to pick up a 5-port gigabit switch for around $25.
  - dublinben 11y ago
    But you shouldn't have to. This is a $200 router.
    - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
      When the majority of your demographic won't need more than a single port (if that) I would argue that an "accessory" is just fine.
    - kbd 11y ago
      Exactly. It's enough to make me wait for the next version.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      I would rather have my LAN stay up while my router is rebooting than save a slot on a power strip. Perhaps I am in a minority.
      - kbd 11y ago
        What does it mean for your LAN to stay up if your devices connected wirelessly lose connectivity and the other devices on your LAN lose Internet access when your router goes down?
        11y ago
lnanek2 11y ago
Seems pretty lacking. The best dual band routers have MU-MIMO, the ability to talk to multiple clients at once without making them each take a turn, or at least send an extra spatial channel to help reception with more limited SU-MIMO clients. This which would go nicely with the support in the Nexus 6, it's a nice advantage iPhone 6 doesn't have, but I don't see it mentioned or listed for the OnHub. The reviewer points out the disabled USB, so no storage options, and lack of ethernet ports. For routers that don't have MU-MIMO, the best ones right now are tri-band (one 2.4GHz, one low 5GHz, and one high 5GHz channel) and the OnHub is only dual band. There's also no mention of open source firmwares and distros like some routers make sure to mention they support ("open source ready" WRT routers by Linksys). So this product seems like a failure in the $200 router segment according to features power users care about. I guess maybe a rich consumer willing to pay the price tag despite the lack of features might go for it, though. The claim is that the design is unique, but D-Link has had similar design for a long time. Here's a round router of theirs from 2 years ago: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422521,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422521,00.asp
- chambo622 11y ago
  What are some router models that have the features that you mention?
  - andrewstuart2 11y ago
    https://www.asus.com/us/Networking/RTAC87U/ https://www.asus.com/us/Networking/RTAC87U/ for one.
- LukeHoersten 11y ago
  There are many routers out there that fit the bill of what you're looking for. I think Google's aim here is for the generic consumer that has wifi signal problems but doesn't want to fiddle with it. This seems more a competitor to Apple products than tri-band, WRT-ready routers. You're right though, it doesn't (can't?) compete in that space.
- Lewisham 11y ago
serve_yay 11y ago
If ease of setup and attractiveness of the device are the issues, Apple has been making AirPorts a long time (at a similar price point, I'll add).
- Corrado 11y ago
  Agreed. However, Apple has a nasty habit of disabling features (such as power settings) and making the control software less and less friendly. I love my Airport Extreme it's software doesn't do everything that the OnHub software does. Some things I would really like is the ability to quickly see who/what is connected to my network, some history of connections, and even a way to tune QOS for specific devices (i.e. my Roku boxes should have more bandwidth than my phone).
iamleppert 11y ago
After helping people setup Chromecast and running into many issues that were 100% related to the design of the thing, I am skeptical at best. And when the Internet isn't working I don't want to troubleshoot a blackbox cylinder of a device with only a single status light. No web interface, configured using an app? Let's hope they have done better QA than their other products.
- wnevets 11y ago
  >After helping people setup Chromecast and running into many issues that were 100% related to the design of the thing, like what? I've setup two of them in my house and never had a problem.
coverband 11y ago
When I saw this, the first thing that came to my mind was Amazon Echo and whether Google had come up with a smart router that embedded Google Now features.
zouhair 11y ago
I'm gonna be that guy. I can't trust Google with my router.
- niceguiman 11y ago
  Cool. Out of curiosity, who do you trust in this domain?
  - zouhair 11y ago
    A router where I can install DD-WRT.
    - niceguiman 11y ago
      I see. Makes sense to me. I'm glad there are people who love to tinker, test, and modify. FWIW, no steps were taken to prevent installation of DD-WRT or any flavor of Linux. There are no carriers to de-certify the device, just the FCC. There is a developer mode. More details to come. You can install whatever you want, just like with an Android or CrOS device.
benlower 11y ago
All these comments, while interesting, miss the point: how on earth does one trust Google with their router? Google makes some great products but their entire business model requires them to hoover up more & more data from customers. That's not a company whose products I want to use anymore. Not for email. Not for search. Not for a thermostat. Not for a realtime JSON database. And not for listening in to all the data in my house.
- the_watcher 11y ago
  > That's not a company whose products I want to use anymore. Not for email. Not for search. Not for a thermostat. Not for a realtime JSON database. And not for listening in to all the data in my house. While I can't say I disagree with your point on Google's incentives being exactly the opposite of absolute privacy, you're clearly in a tiny, tiny minority. Even assuming that the majority of users simply aren't aware of this (which is a faulty assumption in my opinion), there are many (myself included) who have simply accepted this and go about our lives, preferring to have a simpler, easier to use life than obsess over every single privacy concern.
  - teacup50 11y ago
    I'm guessing you were born after the Berlin Wall came down, and missed all of the palpable Western demonstrations of just how fragile freedom is, and just how dangerous it would be to build a turn-key surveillance state. In my experience, the people who "don't care" (as opposed to simply not understanding the insanely complex topic) are the people who: 1) benefit from it, e.g., SaaS/startups heavy on analytics, and 2) lack the context to understand that the current state of Western civilization is not in any way immune to regression, and 3) don't understand how their own actions can in fact induce that regression by creating a high-value turn-key totalitarian system ready for the taking, and 4) don't understand that their actions are already serving this purpose in more totalitarian states outside of the USA. That's even ignoring the implications of __massive__ information asymmetry when it comes to negotiation between corporations and individuals.
    - 11y ago
benevol 11y ago
Sorry, but this device is idiotic. It gives Google the ability to entirely remotely control your network from outside, is entirely designed to facilitate their own services, and will become a privacy nightmare ... because if they can access it, someone else can, and law enforcement will be able to go to them and say "OK, we need access to that network, you have to give it to us". This is the "bend over and take it" device which puts control of your home network in the hands of Google .. primarily to benefit Google. This is a terrible idea, and it's not something I'd trust even a little. This is all about locking you into Google, and making it easy for them to manage your home remotely. I would put absolutely zero trust in this device.
- RaSoJo 11y ago
  Unfortunately this was the first thought that came to me as well. It looks like a beautifully designed and efficient product. But given Google's pedigree in privacy invasion, any product of theirs comes loaded with doubts. Given the pricing, it feels like Google could generate sufficient profits without having use personal data to augment bottom lines. I wonder if they are bothered to address such fears of a few of their potential consumers or is there a sufficient majority who are willing to ignore the privacy invasion and enjoy the product for it is.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > ...given Google's pedigree in privacy invasion... Do... you have a citation for this that isn't 75% conjecture? Before answering, remember that every web site you use has to collect (but not necessarily store) some of what is potentially PII.
- 7952 11y ago
  I would be reluctant to ever treat my home network as secure. I just don't have time or expertise to validate that. Instead I want my router to be maintained by someone responsible to try and mitigate threats. Google may not be perfect, but they are probably more competent than an ISP or companies like Linksys or Belkin. For Google to be able to update the firmware they need complete access to the system and they could certainly use that to invade my privacy. And the more you trust your home network the more that is a risk to you.
urda 11y ago
Sorry, I'm not trusting Google with my edge device under any conditions. I'm not even trusting Google as an AP hardware option under any conditions. Google has too much to gain from farming data right at the network level, they have no business being on any home network.
- niceguiman 11y ago
  If you see Google as an adversary, then this is a great position to take.
  - urda 11y ago
    It's about being realistic, you are the product for most of Google's services. This will no doubt be any different. If you see Google as your "friend", then your minimal and non-contributing comment could be considered of value. I see that you just made this HN account, and appear to be astroturfing for this new device. Mind explaining to HN why that's the case?
    - niceguiman 11y ago
      In order of your comments: 1. In most cases, Google services are free to the user and leverage ads to cover the R&D and operational expenses of the service, and of course for profit. The difference between that model and a device you purchase for what certainly appears to be a non-subsidised price seems pretty stark to me. As a result, I balk at your blanket, unsupported statement such as "This will no doubt be any different". Are documents such as https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6246642?hl=en https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6246642?hl=en outright lies? If so, please provide some citation or reason. 2. HN is not an entity to whom I need to explain. The accounts are throw-away by design. It exists because HN requires I have an identity in order to operate in its context. Requirement set. Requirement met. Here we are. Freedom. 3. I am sad to hear you found my comment "minimal and non-contributing". This concept has resurfaced in many conversations I've had in regard to this and similar topics. Allow me to expand and hopefully add value. I think of opposition to Google (or other corporate entities) as having two distinct brands: people who consider them as adversaries and people who disagree with or dislike their business models. The difference in my mind is that an adversary is an entity that is expected to be malicious and should only be trusted if bound by strong technical controls. If you believe that Google is an adversary in this sense, then your position makes sense to me. Deliberately avoiding Google's products/services/devices is one of the very few technical controls available to you as a private citizen. I disagree with your assessment, but the course of action you're advocating is consistent with your world view. You can can hardly be blamed for discarding the policy I referred above as patently false. That's the long winded version of what I said. Fair? There is an alternative: you disagree with Google's business model, and don't trust Google to act with your best intentions in mind. It is not evil, but its actions may have effects you do not condone or expect. Yet, from time to time it releases products/services/devices that solve some problem you have. In that case, I'd argue that you can afford to operate in "mixed mode", where you make decisions product by product based on some analysis. This analysis could be something like auditing Google's products where feasible (e.g. AOSP, CrOS, Chromium, etc.). Hurrah for open source. The demands this option places on you are quite high. The return is comparatively low. I claim the return is low because meaningful analysis requires a lot of time and less than common skills, and in return you may get a tool to solve some primitive problem (e.g. browse the web, make a call, send an email, etc). I expect that the the vast majority of people will not go down this path. Certainly nearly no one will review all post-facto software updates for adherence to initial audit criteria/standards. Another flavor of "analysis" is to delegate the decision to trusted parties. For example follow EFF's recommendations to minimize risk. (e.g. HTTPS everywhere, Privacy Badger, and their "Who Has Your Back" reports, etc). This approach scales quite well. It allows the user to do some basic inspection (e.g. reading reviews, articles, maybe skim the source, etc) and make up their mind. They feel informed, but are in fact removed from underlying details and reasoning. The questions I have for you are as follows. Which camp do you belong to? If it's the first, I'd be curious to understand why. Is Google your sole adversary or is Cisco/Juniper, Asus/Netgear, etc in the same boat? They all play a role in mangling, mirroring, and forwarding your packets. The vast majority of network devices are upgraded, patched, reconfigured without your input or knowledge. Is that not a concern? If not, why not? If you're a mixed mode sort, then why advocate a response tied to the more extreme position? Also, unless you've done first hand analysis or can cite some, I don't grasp how you could have arrived at your conclusions already. OnHub code will be open sourced at some stage. It can be audited. You can even wait for someone to audit it and defer to them. Why jump the gun and call to abandon ship?
oneJob 11y ago
soooo, no words spent on privacy? this is akin to paying someone to build a fence and gate for you, and then making sure they have a copy of the key at all times, and never asking them what they do with it... rhetorical question here, is it common practice prefer Internet servers which look cool and cost a ton and are managed by Google, and not discussing privacy issues? the consumer is being transformed into a marionette, and the issue isn't even mentioned in this article. beyond frustrating that it has come to this.
- tdkl 11y ago
  > soooo, no words spent on privacy? It's The Verge. Personally I glance their reviews for nice videos and pictures, but that's it.
  - oneJob 11y ago
    Fair enough, all things in context :)
- Veratyr 11y ago
  Well it does say "Google stridently denies that it’s tracking any of your activity on the internet with this router."
  - oneJob 11y ago
    I think it fair to hold "journalists" to a standard which does not count verbatim repetition of their subjects words without any inspection as "ink spent".
- fuersty 11y ago
  The OnHub Terms of Service: "You agree that Google may collect and use technical and related information, including but not limited to information about your computer and/or mobile device, operating system, peripherals, applications, connected devices, network traffic, and data use to facilitate the provision of the Software and Services, including support and other related services. The OnHub Privacy FAQ describes the categories of data collected and how you can use privacy settings to change what data is collected by the Services. " I'm no lawyer, but from my semi educated reading, that tells me Google reserves the right (which to me means they absolutely will) to collect your network traffic and actual data, send it to the Google databases and use it for whatever purpose they so choose. Does anyone read it in any way more legally limiting than that?
hadeharian 11y ago
Seems like it requires too many dependencies. Give me an independent interface any day.
ericfrederich 11y ago
Good throughput?... This review says otherwise. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-googles-smart-home-trojan-horse-is-a-200-leap-of-faith/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-g...
chrisallick 11y ago
The term "privacy" and "security" are not mentioned. TDangerousDR;
dmritard96 11y ago
My take has been that this is basically a combinatition of a smart hub (like wink and smartthings) and router/access point. The real question I have is whether radio level integrations for IoT really makes sense. The good news I suppose is that a lot of heavy hitters are following google. The bad news is that a lot aren't. As a consumer, there aren't that many use cases where I really need a radio level integration as opposed to something over the web (or even if it stays in my local network) so I would argue this is going to be a bit of a mess. With that said, if I were Wink I would be more afraid of this than if I were Linksys...
tarikjn 11y ago
I am not worried about the lack of extra ethernet ports, or internal storage as most content is moving to the cloud and off-site backup and video security is a best practice. What do I find to be missing is a backup WAN, ideally 3G/LTE cellular modem via USB. This is important if you are setting, say, Dropcams for security while away from home -- in addition of backup power. That's one thing I do like about Peplink/Pepwave routers, such as the Balance One or Pepwave SoHo -- I am curious to hear anyone's opinion on these devices. Granted, Peplink goes a level further with extra WANs to increase bandwidth and allow business continuity. I assume Google may actually add this functionality on the USB port, and I think this would be more important than storage.
discardorama 11y ago
Several people are complaining about the lack of ethernet ports. Back in 2012(?), Apple came out with the MacBook Air, which did not have an optical drive. Everyone was up in arms: NO OPTICAL DRIVE?!? Has Jobs lost his mind??!? I was the same: what the heck? How will I get along without an optical drive?!? Then I thought about the last time I used the optical drive on my MBP. After a bit of thinking, I realized that I had basically never used it in the ~4 years I had that MBP! I had been lugging around an optical drive, which I had used zero times! Then it dawned on me: I've been getting along fine without an optical drive. Something tells me that the story will be similar with ethernet ports. Most of our devices today (laptops, tablets, phones) don't use wired ethernet. Ye cranky old desktop does, but..... what if you could put a $50 ac card in it, and presto, no wires!
- BorisMelnik 11y ago
  I see the point, but can't those people just throw on an extra hub?
sharang 11y ago
I want to know how much of a difference in terms of speed/range was observed by the author when compared against the Asus router.

157 points by BlackJack 11y ago

I think the main reason I probably won't be getting an OnHub (for myself at least -- it might be perfect for my parents) is my love of tinkering and learning networking. I like that firmware like DD-WRT lets me poke around at the internals, and actually calls features by their standardized names instead of some made-up copyrighted marketing name.

kllrnohj 11y ago
> calls features by their standardized names instead of some made-up copyrighted marketing name What standardized names did Google replace with made-up copyrighted marketing names?
- andrewstuart2 11y ago
  I'm not talking about Google, just different manufacturers in general. I think the specific router I had helped configure before was a TP-LINK small business router, which may have contributed to the feature naming. I wanted to set up a server in a DMZ, but that feature was called something unexpected like "Virtual Server."
noja 11y ago
I'm no DD-WRT fan: I find the interface is inconsistent and ugly. And the support forum is full of aggressive bofhs.
- andrewstuart2 11y ago
  The interface is definitely not going to win any Awwwards. The feature set, though, is one you'd usually have to pay a considerable amount more to get directly from a router manufacturer.
  - noja 11y ago
    The feature set, yes, but definitely not the interface.
briandear 11y ago
As opposed to made up non copyrighted names? What kind of silliness is that statement?
kemitche 11y ago
> it might be perfect for my parents If it works as well as advertised, with as little fuss - this is absolutely the go-to Christmas gift for techies to get their parents/grandparents/uncles/etc. It's worth the price tag for me to get my family on a device that I don't have to fiddle with every time I visit.

jader201 11y ago

> But I’ve had zero issues with the OnHub: coverage has been shockingly good, I haven’t needed to use the wireless repeater at all, and the interference I saw with the baby monitor has disappeared. In areas that were formerly dead zones, the OnHub has given me enough bandwidth and throughput to stream 4K video, even in my basement, a full two stories below my office. This is despite putting the router in a less-than-ideal location: upstairs, in my office, far from our general living areas. This is what I was hoping for. It seems every router I've tried -- and I even have the ASUS RT-N66U, which is supposed to have great coverage -- never fails to have multiple bad spots in our home (and it's not that large). If OnHub has the advertised coverage, it may set a bar that hopefully other manufactures will be forced to follow.

eloisant 11y ago
Since I bought a Ubiquiti Unifi AP, I have no bad spot at all. I actually have my ISP wifi downstairs, I put the Unifi upstairs thinking I would switch from one to the other, but even closer to my ISP router I still get a better signal with my Unifi.
- xn 11y ago
  I've had a similar experience with my Unifi. I had planned to ceiling mount it upstairs in the middle of the house. But coverage is so good throughout the entire house with it sitting on a bookshelf in my office in the corner of the house, I haven't gotten around to moving it.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    Which UAP are you using?
Someone1234 11y ago
Have you considered either doing actual ethernet or failing that powerline ethernet? A lot of these dead spots are caused by the physical materials or distance of the property, which often cannot be overcome WELL unless you used directional antennas, or exceeded the legal power of your WiFi equipment (which can sometimes cause overheating or signal issues). Instead of trying to break through the dead spots with better and better WiFi, maybe you should just cut your losses, get wired internet onto the other side, and then set up an inexpensive AP there to complete the coverage picture. If your budget is $200, then you could easily do powerline ethernet and a cheap AP. Just a thought...

asyncwords 11y ago

What I'm most concerned about, as somebody switching back to a Windows Phone soon, is the apparent lack of a web interface for the OnHub. According to this page [1] the OnHub requires an Android or iOS device, with the app installed, to setup and configure the router. I don't blame Google for not supporting Windows Phone, the market share is still very low, but I'm not convinced that requiring an app instead of using a web interface like every other router is what I want from this. [1]: https://on.google.com/hub/support/#get-started https://on.google.com/hub/support/#get-started

mrbill 11y ago
I forget which one, but a review I've read in the past 24 hours said that they plan to eventually have a web equivalent to the phone app for basic setup.
- boo_radley 11y ago
  Then that'll be interesting, eventually.
BlackJack 11y ago
"Google told me that it will eventually offer a simple web interface for setting up the OnHub, but at launch, a smartphone or tablet is required." Source: http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/31/google-onhub-review/ http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/31/google-onhub-review/
oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
This would also be an easy win for a company such as Google that is finally 'getting' design since every router web interface I have ever seen has been beyond appalling. It wouldn't take much to be the industry leader in this regard by a country mile.
- redwards510 11y ago
  Have you seen OpenWRT, or Tomato? If so, what don't you like about those?

publicfig 11y ago

I've seen a lot of complaints about this router only having one ethernet LAN port. This really could just be an issue of different use cases, but are there a large amount of modems out there that don't have plenty of ethernet ports on them? I have never needed to plug in anything to my router that I can't just plug into my modem, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't connect too much to either to begin with.

fndrplayer13 11y ago
It does kind of suck, you could grab a little ethernet hub for pretty cheap, though. Would be nice if it just came with it.
aroch 11y ago
Most at home modems (think Surfboard) have one, maybe 2, ethernet ports, unless you're using a modem/switch or modem/router hybrid device. Also, I'd much rather plug things into my router, which has ingress filters, than my modem.
tolien 11y ago
If your modem (which isn't really a modem if it has >1 LAN port) is plugged into the WAN port on the OnHub (or any other router), anything plugged into the ports on the modem will have trouble seeing things on the LAN because of NAT and firewall rules.
- dcherman 11y ago
  Has nothing at all to do with either NAT or the Firewall rules; it has to do with routing. Assuming your modem/router has this capability, all you should need to do is set up a static route pointing to the network/subnet that the devices behind the other router. You should not need a corresponding route on the other router because since it's on both networks, it already has a route to the other network. Even if it didn't, the default gateway on the router is the modem which can take care of routing the packets correctly. This is all assuming that the modem/router combo is assigning an IP on a private network/subnet to the additional router.
deleted 11y ago

fndrplayer13 11y ago

I have an Apple Extreme which is good, but getting a bit up there in age. Might hand it off to my parents and upgrade to this. My experience has been that investing in good routing hardware makes my life much more pleasant. Internet when I need it, and none of the nonsense. When I've had cheap hardware in the past (growing up, in college), I feel like I was constantly battling it to get it working -- ddwrt or not. I actually inherited a nice Apple Extreme when my startup graduated to pro-grade networking hardware, and I've loved using it.

hyperliner 11y ago

hmmm, just bought the Nighthawk X6 AC3200 and it is still unopened. I think I will keep it and wait for another rev on this. Anybody has any opinions on the X6 AC3200? Bought it for $399 based on "I don't want to have Wi-Fi problems at home" (tons of devices, works from home, etc. etc.)

wlesieutre 11y ago
No specific knowledge of the AC3200, but I bought an AirPort Extreme as a fairly pricey "I'm sick of having network problems" fix. Couldn't tell you when the last time I had to reboot it was, and I consider it money well spent. I'm glad DD-WRT/Tomato existed for my string of Linksys/Asus/Belkin type consumer routers in college, and I'm even more glad to not be tinkering with it anymore. You might read through the AC3200 reviews on Newegg so you at least know what you're getting in to. Reception is mixed (28% 1-star reviews), with complaints mainly about dropped connections. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833320218 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833320...
dangrossman 11y ago
There are 237 critical reviews of the Nighthawk on Amazon, with problems like needing daily reboots and the 2.4GHz network maxing out at under 15mbps repeated across reviews, where the cheaper router it's replacing had no such problems. All of the consumer AC3200 products have similar high percentages of negative reviews, probably because they largely share the same chipset. I wouldn't spend $300 on something that'll create more problems than my current $20 N router, and it appears there's a high probability of that being the case with that product.

tolien 11y ago

Worth noting that Ars also reviewed the OnHub [0] and weren't all that complimentary about it. Particular negatives were the price tag, single LAN port, poor wifi performance (particularly important if you're not supposed to use wired Ethernet...) and no web interface. [0]: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-googles-smart-home-trojan-horse-is-a-200-leap-of-faith/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-g...

wnevets 11y ago
theverge is a joke, I wish people would stop linking to it.
- joelkesler 11y ago
  Sadly, I agree. Over the last year or so, the quality of content produced by The Verge has noticeably decreased. I find it difficult to take their opinions of tech seriously.
- roldie 11y ago
  I agree. They're quality has gone downhill considerably. Which site(s) do you recommend? I like sites with strong community/lots of comments. Ars is pretty good. But I'm looking for a site that's a little more pop tech than sci/tech.
  - wnevets 11y ago
    HN became my source for tech news. If you find a good site, let me know.
  - puranjay 11y ago
    AnandTech is the only one that has top tier content, but it's a bit too obscure
jader201 11y ago
Not sure I would put much weight in an article with a click-bait label like "Google’s smart home Trojan horse". I know there are many that are suspicious of this, but a site like arstechnica putting this in the title when it's, at best, speculation seems a bit sensationalist.

robk 11y ago

This review seems based purely on one anecdote. I'm curious whether the antenna positions on his Asus were partly to blame. The Wirecutter review [1] was a bit more negative on performance. But, even with Wirecutter there's not much consistency in review quality with APs. I usually trust the methodology of Wirecutter but Smallnetbuilder has the most comprehensive coverage I've seen and they rate the Wirecutter top pick (the Archer C7/C8) quite middle-of-the-road for its class. I'm interested in what SNB's test results say once he tests the OnHub. [1] http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-wi-fi-router/# http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-wi-fi-router/#

Eric_WVGG 11y ago

Would be nice if there was an additional model that had a built-in DOCSIS 3.1 cable router. It’s cute that Google is going for “something you’ll want to leave in the middle of the room,” but cable modems make that a non-starter.

yincrash 11y ago
What's the difference between routing a coaxial cable to the middle of a room versus an ethernet cable? At least you can get long flat ethernet cables.
- fixermark 11y ago
  I think there's insufficient difference, and that's the original poster's point. The fact that the device is aesthetically pleasing isn't a misfeature (other than perhaps bumping it in the cost bracket, if it even did so). But as long as it's connected to a bulky, obnoxious Surfboard by a physical cable anyway, it's not something you'll be using as a room centerpiece unless you intend to put an unusual amount of work into cable-routing.
  - yincrash 11y ago
    I think I was being misunderstood. Even if it wasn't connected to a surfboard (assuming the OnHub was also capable of being a modem), you would then need to route a coax cable to the middle of the room. There's 0 reason to keep the surfboard physically close to the AP, and IMO, it's preferable to not keep it close (because that way I can keep my network switch near the modem instead hidden behind all my electronics never to be seen). Either way, you will be routing a cable to the center of the room, you're just deciding whether you're routing a coax cable or an ethernet cable.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      I know from experience that I would rather run Cat5 than coax to the center of a room. :)

AdmiralAsshat 11y ago

Single, non-functioning USB port is disappointing. I'd hope for a $200 router that I could at least get a NAS out of it.

kijiki 11y ago
This is a Google product. NAS isn't cloud-dependent, and it keeps data out of their hands. So probably not going to happen.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Yup. Another feature competitors have, that we won’t see here, is integration with VoIP and phone apps – if someone calls your home number, you can respond on your mobile. You have an app where you can see who called when – and listen to the recordings of the answering machine. Essentially competitors have self-hosted Google Voice, Google has... well, US-only Google Voice.
  - pgeorgi 11y ago
    Since you're quite obviously an AVM fan (given that you promote their product all over the thread) and it seems you're referring to them here as well (the "phone app" integration is a historical emphasis/accident of that company, given that they got into the DSL-Modem business by expanding from their telephone systems and ISDN cards, and much more of an issue for them than for any other vendor of dsl/cable/wifi modem/router thingies): Outside the German (speaking) market AVM doesn't matter much. And looking at the tiny selection on the German version of http://store.google.com http://store.google.com, the German market doesn't matter much to Google. That's market segmentation at work, and OnHub likely won't be a threat to your favorite DSL modem brand (and it isn't a DSL modem, btw)
    - kuschku 11y ago
      Well, it’s not my favourite brand or anything, the issue I’m just seeing is that I’d like to see a good deal from Google. And what we’re seeing here is that a lot of people say "this router is awesome", "it does so much and is so cheap", "there’s no other router with that performance", and I’m just here, facepalming. It’s an upper-mid-range device in an oversaturated market, not something worth hundreds of reviews and articles. Tbh, I don’t care about AVM – the Fritz!Box 7490 was just the first router I could find with a similar featureset and similar price. Also, the Google Store is even more empty in many other countries – US, Canada, sometimes UK, NZ and AUS get the nice products. Some european countries still have no Google Books, Google Movies, Google Music, or even the ability to buy Nexus devices.

eddd 11y ago

This device is one these things that are not missing in your life until you realise that they exist.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

st3fan 11y ago

It is a spy device to peek inside your home and your internet usage to 'improve' the quality of ads that you see. The fact that it has sensors scares me. Sure they can adjust the brightness of that ring with the ambient sensor. What I would do if I ran an ad company is use that sensor to find out what time you turn off the lights and go to bed. And what time you wake up. And then send you more relevant ads. Or use the bluetooth in it to find out what devices you have at home, or what car you drive. Or what IoT devices you are using. And I would use the microphone to find out how many people are in your home. Or if you have kids, and how many.

shock 11y ago
It is mentioned in the article that the OnHub lacks a microphone.
- spullara 11y ago
  Every speaker is a microphone, just not a good one. Would be hard to tell if it can listen to it.
  - thrownaway2424 11y ago
    Every ceramic capacitor is also a microphone. Better dust off the tin foil.
st3fan 11y ago
Someone should break this sucker open and find out what else is in there. Microphone was a guess actually. But I would place a bet on it that it is there.
- simoncion 11y ago
  iFixit will inevitably perform a teardown. You are aware of iFixit? > Microphone was a guess actually. But I would place a bet on it that it is there. I'll take you up on that bet. What are your stakes?

mrbill 11y ago

~3 weeks ago I upgraded to an industrial-quality Cisco Aironet 1252AG access point (no -ac but it does -n 300Mbps just fine), that I got off eBay with power supply for a grand total of $60. I'm a big fan of separating the NAT/router functionality from access-point functionality, and my core "router" is a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter (X right now, used to be the Lite). I'm also a big fan of tweakable routers/APs (I formerly wouldn't buy something unless it could run DDWrt or OpenWRT) and have a couple storage tubs full of various wireless gear, including an Asus AC68U and the Ubiquiti Unifi-LR (running OpenWRT) that was formerly my main AP. Despite all of this, I have an OnHub on preorder that should get here tomorrow, and I'm excited. There's tons of promise for this hardware, including home automation features that haven't been implemented yet - and despite what one review said, you can use it just as an AP - that's what "bridge mode" is. However, I'm going to run it in parallel with the Cisco AP for a while before moving all my stuff over. Always have a fallback plan...

charlietran 11y ago
Thanks for posting this, the Aironet looks really nice! I was considering the Unifi-LR but the Aironet looks like it accomplishes the same, with the added benefit of supporting 802.11n. Would you please post which Aironet power supply did you got? It's not clear from the manual or eBay listings which one I would need.
- mrbill 11y ago
  This is the AP I got (there's others available for around the same price, but the deal with the two antennas was too good to pass up: http://www.ebay.com/itm/261985177103 http://www.ebay.com/itm/261985177103 Here's the power injector you need to be able to run both radio modules at the same time: http://www.ebay.com/itm/252032508098 http://www.ebay.com/itm/252032508098 You'll want the c1250-k9w7-tar.152-2.JA1.tar IOS load to run it on "autonomous" mode (not needing a central controller) and have Chrome/Firefox compatibility for the Web UI if you use it.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  It is worth saying, that with those Aironet APs, if it doesn't expressly say it comes with the antennas and power supply, assume that it doesn't. Cisco actually sells them that way, and you're meant to mix and match which antenna configuration you need (but only certain ones are supported). They're a good buy, but aren't designed for consumers at all (or to be deployed as small business/home APs).

cdnsteve 11y ago

Interesting, even though there's only an app interface your router must be acting as a pure API. The question is what kind of API is it providing? Can you update your routers firmware through your phone app for example?

kbd 11y ago

The main dealbreaker for me here is the lack of ethernet ports. I currently have a Sonos bridge and a NAS device plugged into my router. The lack of a web interface is also a problem, but should be resolved at some point based on other comments in this thread.

sciurus 11y ago
You should be able to pick up a 5-port gigabit switch for around $25.
- dublinben 11y ago
  But you shouldn't have to. This is a $200 router.
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    When the majority of your demographic won't need more than a single port (if that) I would argue that an "accessory" is just fine.
  - kbd 11y ago
    Exactly. It's enough to make me wait for the next version.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    I would rather have my LAN stay up while my router is rebooting than save a slot on a power strip. Perhaps I am in a minority.
    - kbd 11y ago
      What does it mean for your LAN to stay up if your devices connected wirelessly lose connectivity and the other devices on your LAN lose Internet access when your router goes down?
      - 11y ago

lnanek2 11y ago

Seems pretty lacking. The best dual band routers have MU-MIMO, the ability to talk to multiple clients at once without making them each take a turn, or at least send an extra spatial channel to help reception with more limited SU-MIMO clients. This which would go nicely with the support in the Nexus 6, it's a nice advantage iPhone 6 doesn't have, but I don't see it mentioned or listed for the OnHub. The reviewer points out the disabled USB, so no storage options, and lack of ethernet ports. For routers that don't have MU-MIMO, the best ones right now are tri-band (one 2.4GHz, one low 5GHz, and one high 5GHz channel) and the OnHub is only dual band. There's also no mention of open source firmwares and distros like some routers make sure to mention they support ("open source ready" WRT routers by Linksys). So this product seems like a failure in the $200 router segment according to features power users care about. I guess maybe a rich consumer willing to pay the price tag despite the lack of features might go for it, though. The claim is that the design is unique, but D-Link has had similar design for a long time. Here's a round router of theirs from 2 years ago: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422521,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422521,00.asp

chambo622 11y ago
What are some router models that have the features that you mention?
- andrewstuart2 11y ago
  https://www.asus.com/us/Networking/RTAC87U/ https://www.asus.com/us/Networking/RTAC87U/ for one.
LukeHoersten 11y ago
There are many routers out there that fit the bill of what you're looking for. I think Google's aim here is for the generic consumer that has wifi signal problems but doesn't want to fiddle with it. This seems more a competitor to Apple products than tri-band, WRT-ready routers. You're right though, it doesn't (can't?) compete in that space.
Lewisham 11y ago

serve_yay 11y ago

If ease of setup and attractiveness of the device are the issues, Apple has been making AirPorts a long time (at a similar price point, I'll add).

Corrado 11y ago
Agreed. However, Apple has a nasty habit of disabling features (such as power settings) and making the control software less and less friendly. I love my Airport Extreme it's software doesn't do everything that the OnHub software does. Some things I would really like is the ability to quickly see who/what is connected to my network, some history of connections, and even a way to tune QOS for specific devices (i.e. my Roku boxes should have more bandwidth than my phone).

iamleppert 11y ago

After helping people setup Chromecast and running into many issues that were 100% related to the design of the thing, I am skeptical at best. And when the Internet isn't working I don't want to troubleshoot a blackbox cylinder of a device with only a single status light. No web interface, configured using an app? Let's hope they have done better QA than their other products.

wnevets 11y ago
>After helping people setup Chromecast and running into many issues that were 100% related to the design of the thing, like what? I've setup two of them in my house and never had a problem.

coverband 11y ago

When I saw this, the first thing that came to my mind was Amazon Echo and whether Google had come up with a smart router that embedded Google Now features.

zouhair 11y ago

I'm gonna be that guy. I can't trust Google with my router.

niceguiman 11y ago
Cool. Out of curiosity, who do you trust in this domain?
- zouhair 11y ago
  A router where I can install DD-WRT.
  - niceguiman 11y ago
    I see. Makes sense to me. I'm glad there are people who love to tinker, test, and modify. FWIW, no steps were taken to prevent installation of DD-WRT or any flavor of Linux. There are no carriers to de-certify the device, just the FCC. There is a developer mode. More details to come. You can install whatever you want, just like with an Android or CrOS device.

benlower 11y ago

All these comments, while interesting, miss the point: how on earth does one trust Google with their router? Google makes some great products but their entire business model requires them to hoover up more & more data from customers. That's not a company whose products I want to use anymore. Not for email. Not for search. Not for a thermostat. Not for a realtime JSON database. And not for listening in to all the data in my house.

the_watcher 11y ago
> That's not a company whose products I want to use anymore. Not for email. Not for search. Not for a thermostat. Not for a realtime JSON database. And not for listening in to all the data in my house. While I can't say I disagree with your point on Google's incentives being exactly the opposite of absolute privacy, you're clearly in a tiny, tiny minority. Even assuming that the majority of users simply aren't aware of this (which is a faulty assumption in my opinion), there are many (myself included) who have simply accepted this and go about our lives, preferring to have a simpler, easier to use life than obsess over every single privacy concern.
- teacup50 11y ago
  I'm guessing you were born after the Berlin Wall came down, and missed all of the palpable Western demonstrations of just how fragile freedom is, and just how dangerous it would be to build a turn-key surveillance state. In my experience, the people who "don't care" (as opposed to simply not understanding the insanely complex topic) are the people who: 1) benefit from it, e.g., SaaS/startups heavy on analytics, and 2) lack the context to understand that the current state of Western civilization is not in any way immune to regression, and 3) don't understand how their own actions can in fact induce that regression by creating a high-value turn-key totalitarian system ready for the taking, and 4) don't understand that their actions are already serving this purpose in more totalitarian states outside of the USA. That's even ignoring the implications of __massive__ information asymmetry when it comes to negotiation between corporations and individuals.
  - 11y ago

benevol 11y ago

Sorry, but this device is idiotic. It gives Google the ability to entirely remotely control your network from outside, is entirely designed to facilitate their own services, and will become a privacy nightmare ... because if they can access it, someone else can, and law enforcement will be able to go to them and say "OK, we need access to that network, you have to give it to us". This is the "bend over and take it" device which puts control of your home network in the hands of Google .. primarily to benefit Google. This is a terrible idea, and it's not something I'd trust even a little. This is all about locking you into Google, and making it easy for them to manage your home remotely. I would put absolutely zero trust in this device.

RaSoJo 11y ago
Unfortunately this was the first thought that came to me as well. It looks like a beautifully designed and efficient product. But given Google's pedigree in privacy invasion, any product of theirs comes loaded with doubts. Given the pricing, it feels like Google could generate sufficient profits without having use personal data to augment bottom lines. I wonder if they are bothered to address such fears of a few of their potential consumers or is there a sufficient majority who are willing to ignore the privacy invasion and enjoy the product for it is.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > ...given Google's pedigree in privacy invasion... Do... you have a citation for this that isn't 75% conjecture? Before answering, remember that every web site you use has to collect (but not necessarily store) some of what is potentially PII.
7952 11y ago
I would be reluctant to ever treat my home network as secure. I just don't have time or expertise to validate that. Instead I want my router to be maintained by someone responsible to try and mitigate threats. Google may not be perfect, but they are probably more competent than an ISP or companies like Linksys or Belkin. For Google to be able to update the firmware they need complete access to the system and they could certainly use that to invade my privacy. And the more you trust your home network the more that is a risk to you.

urda 11y ago

Sorry, I'm not trusting Google with my edge device under any conditions. I'm not even trusting Google as an AP hardware option under any conditions. Google has too much to gain from farming data right at the network level, they have no business being on any home network.

niceguiman 11y ago
If you see Google as an adversary, then this is a great position to take.
- urda 11y ago
  It's about being realistic, you are the product for most of Google's services. This will no doubt be any different. If you see Google as your "friend", then your minimal and non-contributing comment could be considered of value. I see that you just made this HN account, and appear to be astroturfing for this new device. Mind explaining to HN why that's the case?
  - niceguiman 11y ago
    In order of your comments: 1. In most cases, Google services are free to the user and leverage ads to cover the R&D and operational expenses of the service, and of course for profit. The difference between that model and a device you purchase for what certainly appears to be a non-subsidised price seems pretty stark to me. As a result, I balk at your blanket, unsupported statement such as "This will no doubt be any different". Are documents such as https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6246642?hl=en https://support.google.com/onhub/answer/6246642?hl=en outright lies? If so, please provide some citation or reason. 2. HN is not an entity to whom I need to explain. The accounts are throw-away by design. It exists because HN requires I have an identity in order to operate in its context. Requirement set. Requirement met. Here we are. Freedom. 3. I am sad to hear you found my comment "minimal and non-contributing". This concept has resurfaced in many conversations I've had in regard to this and similar topics. Allow me to expand and hopefully add value. I think of opposition to Google (or other corporate entities) as having two distinct brands: people who consider them as adversaries and people who disagree with or dislike their business models. The difference in my mind is that an adversary is an entity that is expected to be malicious and should only be trusted if bound by strong technical controls. If you believe that Google is an adversary in this sense, then your position makes sense to me. Deliberately avoiding Google's products/services/devices is one of the very few technical controls available to you as a private citizen. I disagree with your assessment, but the course of action you're advocating is consistent with your world view. You can can hardly be blamed for discarding the policy I referred above as patently false. That's the long winded version of what I said. Fair? There is an alternative: you disagree with Google's business model, and don't trust Google to act with your best intentions in mind. It is not evil, but its actions may have effects you do not condone or expect. Yet, from time to time it releases products/services/devices that solve some problem you have. In that case, I'd argue that you can afford to operate in "mixed mode", where you make decisions product by product based on some analysis. This analysis could be something like auditing Google's products where feasible (e.g. AOSP, CrOS, Chromium, etc.). Hurrah for open source. The demands this option places on you are quite high. The return is comparatively low. I claim the return is low because meaningful analysis requires a lot of time and less than common skills, and in return you may get a tool to solve some primitive problem (e.g. browse the web, make a call, send an email, etc). I expect that the the vast majority of people will not go down this path. Certainly nearly no one will review all post-facto software updates for adherence to initial audit criteria/standards. Another flavor of "analysis" is to delegate the decision to trusted parties. For example follow EFF's recommendations to minimize risk. (e.g. HTTPS everywhere, Privacy Badger, and their "Who Has Your Back" reports, etc). This approach scales quite well. It allows the user to do some basic inspection (e.g. reading reviews, articles, maybe skim the source, etc) and make up their mind. They feel informed, but are in fact removed from underlying details and reasoning. The questions I have for you are as follows. Which camp do you belong to? If it's the first, I'd be curious to understand why. Is Google your sole adversary or is Cisco/Juniper, Asus/Netgear, etc in the same boat? They all play a role in mangling, mirroring, and forwarding your packets. The vast majority of network devices are upgraded, patched, reconfigured without your input or knowledge. Is that not a concern? If not, why not? If you're a mixed mode sort, then why advocate a response tied to the more extreme position? Also, unless you've done first hand analysis or can cite some, I don't grasp how you could have arrived at your conclusions already. OnHub code will be open sourced at some stage. It can be audited. You can even wait for someone to audit it and defer to them. Why jump the gun and call to abandon ship?

oneJob 11y ago

soooo, no words spent on privacy? this is akin to paying someone to build a fence and gate for you, and then making sure they have a copy of the key at all times, and never asking them what they do with it... rhetorical question here, is it common practice prefer Internet servers which look cool and cost a ton and are managed by Google, and not discussing privacy issues? the consumer is being transformed into a marionette, and the issue isn't even mentioned in this article. beyond frustrating that it has come to this.

tdkl 11y ago
> soooo, no words spent on privacy? It's The Verge. Personally I glance their reviews for nice videos and pictures, but that's it.
- oneJob 11y ago
  Fair enough, all things in context :)
Veratyr 11y ago
Well it does say "Google stridently denies that it’s tracking any of your activity on the internet with this router."
- oneJob 11y ago
  I think it fair to hold "journalists" to a standard which does not count verbatim repetition of their subjects words without any inspection as "ink spent".
fuersty 11y ago
The OnHub Terms of Service: "You agree that Google may collect and use technical and related information, including but not limited to information about your computer and/or mobile device, operating system, peripherals, applications, connected devices, network traffic, and data use to facilitate the provision of the Software and Services, including support and other related services. The OnHub Privacy FAQ describes the categories of data collected and how you can use privacy settings to change what data is collected by the Services. " I'm no lawyer, but from my semi educated reading, that tells me Google reserves the right (which to me means they absolutely will) to collect your network traffic and actual data, send it to the Google databases and use it for whatever purpose they so choose. Does anyone read it in any way more legally limiting than that?

hadeharian 11y ago

Seems like it requires too many dependencies. Give me an independent interface any day.

ericfrederich 11y ago

Good throughput?... This review says otherwise. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-googles-smart-home-trojan-horse-is-a-200-leap-of-faith/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-g...

chrisallick 11y ago

The term "privacy" and "security" are not mentioned. TDangerousDR;

dmritard96 11y ago

My take has been that this is basically a combinatition of a smart hub (like wink and smartthings) and router/access point. The real question I have is whether radio level integrations for IoT really makes sense. The good news I suppose is that a lot of heavy hitters are following google. The bad news is that a lot aren't. As a consumer, there aren't that many use cases where I really need a radio level integration as opposed to something over the web (or even if it stays in my local network) so I would argue this is going to be a bit of a mess. With that said, if I were Wink I would be more afraid of this than if I were Linksys...

tarikjn 11y ago

I am not worried about the lack of extra ethernet ports, or internal storage as most content is moving to the cloud and off-site backup and video security is a best practice. What do I find to be missing is a backup WAN, ideally 3G/LTE cellular modem via USB. This is important if you are setting, say, Dropcams for security while away from home -- in addition of backup power. That's one thing I do like about Peplink/Pepwave routers, such as the Balance One or Pepwave SoHo -- I am curious to hear anyone's opinion on these devices. Granted, Peplink goes a level further with extra WANs to increase bandwidth and allow business continuity. I assume Google may actually add this functionality on the USB port, and I think this would be more important than storage.

discardorama 11y ago

Several people are complaining about the lack of ethernet ports. Back in 2012(?), Apple came out with the MacBook Air, which did not have an optical drive. Everyone was up in arms: NO OPTICAL DRIVE?!? Has Jobs lost his mind??!? I was the same: what the heck? How will I get along without an optical drive?!? Then I thought about the last time I used the optical drive on my MBP. After a bit of thinking, I realized that I had basically never used it in the ~4 years I had that MBP! I had been lugging around an optical drive, which I had used zero times! Then it dawned on me: I've been getting along fine without an optical drive. Something tells me that the story will be similar with ethernet ports. Most of our devices today (laptops, tablets, phones) don't use wired ethernet. Ye cranky old desktop does, but..... what if you could put a $50 ac card in it, and presto, no wires!

BorisMelnik 11y ago
I see the point, but can't those people just throw on an extra hub?

sharang 11y ago

I want to know how much of a difference in terms of speed/range was observed by the author when compared against the Asus router.