3 ms·

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

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...
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > [I]f you already have [the Fritz!Boz 7490], the OnHub is literally a waste of money, because it does everything slightly worse. Don't take this the wrong way, but this is pretty much equivalent to saying "If you already have a good router that you're happy with, a similarly priced router with similar features and performance will not interest you.", which is a statement that should surprise no-one. :)
      - kuschku 11y ago
        Well, it wasn’t a "this device is shit", more a "well, the OnHub isn’t really filling any niche, nor disrupting the market – it’s a mediocre product in an oversaturated market".
        simoncion 11y ago
        > Well, it wasn’t a "this device is shit"... That's not how I interpreted it. ;) The situation in Germany appears to be very different than the situation in the US. If folks get a router and/or AP from their ISP it's almost always a flaky pile of shit. If this doesn't become yet another abandoned project with in a year (or vaguely-rubber-stamp compliance effort inside of two), the Google folks will likely put a sizeable chunk of R&D effort into ensuring that they push the state of residential wireless APs forward. As it stands now, there are ALL SORTS of really cool things that WiFi APs should do, but just fucking don't for reasons that are beyond my comprehension.
mdasen 11y ago
I think the big difference is a the the iPod offered users a superior UI, a simple syncing experience, was vastly smaller, and weighed a ton less. What does the OnHub offer? It offers a simplified setup - something you do extremely rarely. That's a lot different from a UI that you use every single day, a size and weight that change it from something non-pocketable to something easy to pocket, or a syncing interface that you might use weekly. Google is solving something that is annoying, but done so infrequently that it might not matter. The iPod made music easy and portable which the nomad didn't. The OnHub has a cool setup process that I'll run once every 3 years? It does have great specs, but the question is whether they help me. Seems like they don't help speed. AC1750 routers are more than enough for my 110mbps internet and can be had for less than half the price. Why not put a microphone and chromecast in it and make it a voice capable casting device? It has a dual core 1.4GHz arm processor with 4G of storage and a gig of ram. The thing is that it solves something that is crappy, but that you almost never have to deal with and doesn't seem to offer a lot on other fronts. As someone doing the Boston apartment shuffle today, that's a crappy experience and I've done that more often than I've set up a router over the same period. My hope is that it might push users away from the $40 routers to $100 ones. Google could price anchor people toward more expensive routers and that's good for Google with more reliable, fast connections. Google might also add more OnHub features in the future that might make it a lot more attractive, but I just don't see it solving ongoing pain points in the way that the iPod did. It solves something as rare as moving and just like I hired people to schlep my stuff, people can buy a router and give the neighborhood techie kid $20 to get it going.

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...
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > [I]f you already have [the Fritz!Boz 7490], the OnHub is literally a waste of money, because it does everything slightly worse. Don't take this the wrong way, but this is pretty much equivalent to saying "If you already have a good router that you're happy with, a similarly priced router with similar features and performance will not interest you.", which is a statement that should surprise no-one. :)
    - kuschku 11y ago
      Well, it wasn’t a "this device is shit", more a "well, the OnHub isn’t really filling any niche, nor disrupting the market – it’s a mediocre product in an oversaturated market".
      - simoncion 11y ago
        > Well, it wasn’t a "this device is shit"... That's not how I interpreted it. ;) The situation in Germany appears to be very different than the situation in the US. If folks get a router and/or AP from their ISP it's almost always a flaky pile of shit. If this doesn't become yet another abandoned project with in a year (or vaguely-rubber-stamp compliance effort inside of two), the Google folks will likely put a sizeable chunk of R&D effort into ensuring that they push the state of residential wireless APs forward. As it stands now, there are ALL SORTS of really cool things that WiFi APs should do, but just fucking don't for reasons that are beyond my comprehension.

mdasen 11y ago

I think the big difference is a the the iPod offered users a superior UI, a simple syncing experience, was vastly smaller, and weighed a ton less. What does the OnHub offer? It offers a simplified setup - something you do extremely rarely. That's a lot different from a UI that you use every single day, a size and weight that change it from something non-pocketable to something easy to pocket, or a syncing interface that you might use weekly. Google is solving something that is annoying, but done so infrequently that it might not matter. The iPod made music easy and portable which the nomad didn't. The OnHub has a cool setup process that I'll run once every 3 years? It does have great specs, but the question is whether they help me. Seems like they don't help speed. AC1750 routers are more than enough for my 110mbps internet and can be had for less than half the price. Why not put a microphone and chromecast in it and make it a voice capable casting device? It has a dual core 1.4GHz arm processor with 4G of storage and a gig of ram. The thing is that it solves something that is crappy, but that you almost never have to deal with and doesn't seem to offer a lot on other fronts. As someone doing the Boston apartment shuffle today, that's a crappy experience and I've done that more often than I've set up a router over the same period. My hope is that it might push users away from the $40 routers to $100 ones. Google could price anchor people toward more expensive routers and that's good for Google with more reliable, fast connections. Google might also add more OnHub features in the future that might make it a lot more attractive, but I just don't see it solving ongoing pain points in the way that the iPod did. It solves something as rare as moving and just like I hired people to schlep my stuff, people can buy a router and give the neighborhood techie kid $20 to get it going.