4 ms·

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

by 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
Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not for OnHub and know nothing about it that hasn't been made public. TBH, this comment reads a lot like "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." [1] I'm not sure why you would buy an OnHub if you wanted to put your own distro on it (that's clearly not the target audience), USB is only disabled for now (why have it there if there were no plans to use it?) and The Verge notes that the connectivity is very good, which is what I think the target audience very much does care about. [1] http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ipod http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ip...
- kuschku 11y ago
  This router [1] can do everything yours can, costs the same, integrates with an existing ecosystem of smart home devices, can be used as NAT, VoIP server (with their own app), is moddable, etc. Your connectivity is worse than competitors (especially the LAN-port is an issue), and it has less features. If you don’t change something in either functionality or price point, the OnHub will end up like the Nexus Q – beautiful device, practically useless, economic failure. [1] http://en.avm.de/products/fritzbox/fritzbox-7490/ http://en.avm.de/products/fritzbox/fritzbox-7490/
  - narrowrail 11y ago
    You've written the same comment several times now, so I'd like to point out a few things: 1) The Fritz!Box seems to be much more focused on telephony, rather than home automation. 2) Many of us do not like modem functionality integrated with our router (I have a Docsis 3 cable modem). 3) Fritz!Box doesn't have a Zigbee transceiver, which seems to be the technology ideally suited to home automation(replacing de facto standards that have been around for years, i.e. zwave). Just so we're clear, I have no interest in Onhub, and would never consider letting Google have access to my router firewall.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      Yes, but now you have to see that in some countries, like Germany, the standard router you get from your ISP is the Fritz!Box 7490 – if you already have that, the OnHub is literally a waste of money, because it does everything slightly worse. One thing the Fritz! System does to retrofit existing devices with "smart" capabilities is that it also allows you to use socket adapters [2] to old stuff, so you can automatically turn on / off devices like your sprinkler, etc. In general, it uses DECT (or WiFi) for home automation, which also allows you to connect normal phones, babyphones, wireless cameras, etc to it. [1] http://en.avm.de/products/fritzpowerline/fritzpowerline-546e/ http://en.avm.de/products/fritzpowerline/fritzpowerline-546e...

by lnanek2 11y ago

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

Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not for OnHub and know nothing about it that hasn't been made public. TBH, this comment reads a lot like "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." [1] I'm not sure why you would buy an OnHub if you wanted to put your own distro on it (that's clearly not the target audience), USB is only disabled for now (why have it there if there were no plans to use it?) and The Verge notes that the connectivity is very good, which is what I think the target audience very much does care about. [1] http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ipod http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ip...

kuschku 11y ago
This router [1] can do everything yours can, costs the same, integrates with an existing ecosystem of smart home devices, can be used as NAT, VoIP server (with their own app), is moddable, etc. Your connectivity is worse than competitors (especially the LAN-port is an issue), and it has less features. If you don’t change something in either functionality or price point, the OnHub will end up like the Nexus Q – beautiful device, practically useless, economic failure. [1] http://en.avm.de/products/fritzbox/fritzbox-7490/ http://en.avm.de/products/fritzbox/fritzbox-7490/
- narrowrail 11y ago
  You've written the same comment several times now, so I'd like to point out a few things: 1) The Fritz!Box seems to be much more focused on telephony, rather than home automation. 2) Many of us do not like modem functionality integrated with our router (I have a Docsis 3 cable modem). 3) Fritz!Box doesn't have a Zigbee transceiver, which seems to be the technology ideally suited to home automation(replacing de facto standards that have been around for years, i.e. zwave). Just so we're clear, I have no interest in Onhub, and would never consider letting Google have access to my router firewall.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Yes, but now you have to see that in some countries, like Germany, the standard router you get from your ISP is the Fritz!Box 7490 – if you already have that, the OnHub is literally a waste of money, because it does everything slightly worse. One thing the Fritz! System does to retrofit existing devices with "smart" capabilities is that it also allows you to use socket adapters [2] to old stuff, so you can automatically turn on / off devices like your sprinkler, etc. In general, it uses DECT (or WiFi) for home automation, which also allows you to connect normal phones, babyphones, wireless cameras, etc to it. [1] http://en.avm.de/products/fritzpowerline/fritzpowerline-546e/ http://en.avm.de/products/fritzpowerline/fritzpowerline-546e...