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.<p>[1]: <a href="https://on.google.com/hub/support/#get-started" rel="nofollow">https://on.google.com/hub/support/#get-started</a>
Worth noting that Ars also reviewed the OnHub [0] and weren't all that complimentary about it.<p>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.<p>[0]: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-googles-smart-home-trojan-horse-is-a-200-leap-of-faith/" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-g...</a>
~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.<p>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).<p>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.<p>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 <i>can</i> use it just as an AP - that's what "bridge mode" is.<p>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...
This review seems based purely on one anecdote. I'm curious whether the antenna positions on his Asus were partly to blame.<p>The Wirecutter review [1] was a bit more negative on performance.<p>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.<p>[1] <a href="http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-wi-fi-router/#" rel="nofollow">http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-wi-fi-router/#</a>
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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:
<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422521,00.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422521,00.asp</a>
<i>> 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.</i><p>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).<p>If OnHub has the advertised coverage, it may set a bar that hopefully other manufactures will be forced to follow.
Several people are complaining about the lack of ethernet ports.<p>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?!?<p>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.<p>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!
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).
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".<p>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.<p>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.<p>I would put absolutely zero trust in this device.
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.
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>I assume Google may actually add this functionality on the USB port, and I think this would be more important than storage.
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...
Would be nice if there was an additional model that had a built-in DOCSIS 3.1 cable router.<p>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.
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.
Good throughput?... This review says otherwise. <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-googles-smart-home-trojan-horse-is-a-200-leap-of-faith/" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/google-onhub-review-g...</a>
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.<p>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.)
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.<p>Google has too much to gain from farming data right at the network level, they have no business being on any home network.
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.<p>The lack of a web interface is also a problem, but should be resolved at some point based on other comments in this thread.
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?<p>Can you update your routers firmware through your phone app for example?
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.
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 <i>requires</i> them to hoover up more & more data from customers.<p>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.
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.<p>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.<p>No web interface, configured using an app? Let's hope they have done better QA than their other products.
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.
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.
It is a spy device to peek inside your home and your internet usage to 'improve' the quality of ads that you see.<p>The fact that it has sensors scares me.<p>Sure they can adjust the brightness of that ring with the ambient sensor.<p>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.<p>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.<p>And I would use the microphone to find out how many people are in your home. Or if you have kids, and how many.