7 ms·

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

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?
  - jsight 11y ago
    I haven't tried Tomato but I do use OpenWRT. I don't have anything particularly good to say about its web interface.
  - noelsusman 11y ago
    They're functional and usually better looking than the default interface, but that's a pretty low bar. I still wouldn't classify them as looking "good".
  - briandear 11y ago
    Ugly. Not intuitive unless you are an expert. I wouldn't expect someone's grandmother to be success using it; constraining that with the airport setup that is super simple.
greggman 11y ago
Apple Airports all require apps. There's no web interface. They have Windows, OSX, and Linux apps. I agree with you I prefer a web interface. Just pointing out that there is a pair of very popular routers that don't have one. Fortunately they also don't need internet which it sounds like the OnHub currently does? In other words if I'm doing some kind of installation that users a router without internet I can still configure an Airport but if understand correctly I could not configure an OnHub ... yet?
- dublinben 11y ago
  Apple routers aren't really that popular. All the top selling routers on Amazon use traditional web interfaces for configuration.
  - chucknelson 11y ago
    Not really sure that is sufficient evidence to say Apple routers "aren't popular".
    - Someone1234 11y ago
      That's fair. But even fans of them have to admit that they do attract a certain demographic. Namely people who want Apple-only products throughout their home, Macs, iPads, iPhones, Airports, Time Capsule, Apple TV, etc. I can count on my hands how many people I know who have an Airport, and they're all Apple fanatics. Most people either seem to utilise whatever their ISP gives them (the vast majority), or buy whatever is popular on Amazon and has the features they want. Even then power users are a small subset of consumers. Airports requiring an app isn't a good justification for why Google can do the same. I'd argue that Airports are in the wrong here, and that the market has shown that routers which provide a web interface do better.
      - ChildOfChaos 11y ago
        I don't think the lack of a web interface has anything to do with Apple's option selling less, most people buying these simply will not know the difference. Also Apple's Market is not really anyone that would need a web interface as it would generally be marketed to existing Apple customers. I am surprised Google don't have a web interface, If they are able to make all those other fancy features but no web interface, what other corners did they cut? To say that it is coming soon just seems to me they released this product before it was quite ready, like why is the usb port not active yet?
wehadfun 11y ago
Off topic but I am quite tired of "apps" replacing websites. I have 2 friends that used wedding apps as opposed to websites and it really made it difficult for many to know what was going on.
kps 11y ago
> a web interface like every other router Real routers use SNMP… or telnet.
- dgibbons0 11y ago
  No; real routers use ssh and snmp.
  - OJFord 11y ago
    No - real routers use mechanical switches configured by steady hand.
    - niceguiman 11y ago
      They also emit a constant, loud fan whine because they're meant to live in a rack. They also take multiple minutes to reboot. Automatic updates are delivered by trained humans via archaic incantations of "tftp get".
thrownaway2424 11y ago
My Asus N66U has a web interface that uses HTTP basic authentication and does not offer HTTPS. Good riddance to that as soon as my OnHub arrives.
- briandear 11y ago
  Have you not tried the AirPort Extreme? Why suffer through something you don't like when there is already a better option.
- zaroth 11y ago
  HTTPS using what for authentication exactly?
tw04 11y ago
No worries, Windows Phone can now run android apps :) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/18/android_apps_flood_onto_jailbroken_win10_phones/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/18/android_apps_flood_o...
- Avalaxy 11y ago
  It's not so easy, the dev will have to compile the Android app for WP and publish it himself.
  - tw04 11y ago
    No, no the dev most definitely will not have to. You didn't bother clicking the link I posted. >Windows will run Android binaries unmodified.

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?
- jsight 11y ago
  I haven't tried Tomato but I do use OpenWRT. I don't have anything particularly good to say about its web interface.
- noelsusman 11y ago
  They're functional and usually better looking than the default interface, but that's a pretty low bar. I still wouldn't classify them as looking "good".
- briandear 11y ago
  Ugly. Not intuitive unless you are an expert. I wouldn't expect someone's grandmother to be success using it; constraining that with the airport setup that is super simple.

greggman 11y ago

Apple Airports all require apps. There's no web interface. They have Windows, OSX, and Linux apps. I agree with you I prefer a web interface. Just pointing out that there is a pair of very popular routers that don't have one. Fortunately they also don't need internet which it sounds like the OnHub currently does? In other words if I'm doing some kind of installation that users a router without internet I can still configure an Airport but if understand correctly I could not configure an OnHub ... yet?

dublinben 11y ago
Apple routers aren't really that popular. All the top selling routers on Amazon use traditional web interfaces for configuration.
- chucknelson 11y ago
  Not really sure that is sufficient evidence to say Apple routers "aren't popular".
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    That's fair. But even fans of them have to admit that they do attract a certain demographic. Namely people who want Apple-only products throughout their home, Macs, iPads, iPhones, Airports, Time Capsule, Apple TV, etc. I can count on my hands how many people I know who have an Airport, and they're all Apple fanatics. Most people either seem to utilise whatever their ISP gives them (the vast majority), or buy whatever is popular on Amazon and has the features they want. Even then power users are a small subset of consumers. Airports requiring an app isn't a good justification for why Google can do the same. I'd argue that Airports are in the wrong here, and that the market has shown that routers which provide a web interface do better.
    - ChildOfChaos 11y ago
      I don't think the lack of a web interface has anything to do with Apple's option selling less, most people buying these simply will not know the difference. Also Apple's Market is not really anyone that would need a web interface as it would generally be marketed to existing Apple customers. I am surprised Google don't have a web interface, If they are able to make all those other fancy features but no web interface, what other corners did they cut? To say that it is coming soon just seems to me they released this product before it was quite ready, like why is the usb port not active yet?

wehadfun 11y ago

Off topic but I am quite tired of "apps" replacing websites. I have 2 friends that used wedding apps as opposed to websites and it really made it difficult for many to know what was going on.

kps 11y ago

> a web interface like every other router Real routers use SNMP… or telnet.

dgibbons0 11y ago
No; real routers use ssh and snmp.
- OJFord 11y ago
  No - real routers use mechanical switches configured by steady hand.
  - niceguiman 11y ago
    They also emit a constant, loud fan whine because they're meant to live in a rack. They also take multiple minutes to reboot. Automatic updates are delivered by trained humans via archaic incantations of "tftp get".

thrownaway2424 11y ago

My Asus N66U has a web interface that uses HTTP basic authentication and does not offer HTTPS. Good riddance to that as soon as my OnHub arrives.

briandear 11y ago
Have you not tried the AirPort Extreme? Why suffer through something you don't like when there is already a better option.
zaroth 11y ago
HTTPS using what for authentication exactly?

tw04 11y ago

No worries, Windows Phone can now run android apps :) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/18/android_apps_flood_onto_jailbroken_win10_phones/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/18/android_apps_flood_o...

Avalaxy 11y ago
It's not so easy, the dev will have to compile the Android app for WP and publish it himself.
- tw04 11y ago
  No, no the dev most definitely will not have to. You didn't bother clicking the link I posted. >Windows will run Android binaries unmodified.