Slashdot Mirror
Why Google Wants To Sell You a Wi-Fi Router
lpress writes: Last quarter, Google made $16 billion on advertising and $1.7 billion on "other sales." I don't know how "other sales" breaks down, but a chunk of that is hardware devices like the Pixel Chromebook, Chromecast, Next thermostat, Nexus phone and, now, WiFi routers. Does the world need another $200 home router? Why would Google bother? I can think of a couple of strategic reasons — they hope it will become a home-automation hub (competing with the Amazon Echo) and it will enable them to dynamically configure and upgrade your home or small office network for improved performance (hence more ads).
Comparing various Starbucks locations (suburban and next to college campuses) where AT&T wifi networks were replaced with Google wifi, I would not buy a Google wifi router at present. In each case, the Google service is worse than its predecessor. This surprises me, but all I have to do is listen to the complaints of the students around me to know that I am not alone in this feeling.
lpress the submitter, is literally linking to his own blog as an article for us to read.
They want to control your network. They want to inject advertising into everything you do. They want you to have no choice but to use DNS servers they control.
This isn't some benevolent endeavor, its purpose is to make money by selling you again.
I don't buy a router unless I can put openwrt on it. Too many router companies have been caught putting deliberate backdoors on their routers. Free software is the only way to prevent this.
Speculation hey?
1: Release Google Branded Router with a user friendly way of updating firmware.
2: Deploy routers to as many locations across the US/World as possible.
3: Introduce a patch allowing users to use some of their bandwidth as part of Google's 'Project Fi' (messaging & voice over WiFi).
4: Introduce a patch allowing users to share a small portion of their bandwidth with other users as part of Project Fi - extending googles network coverage.
Admittedly home users might not be so interested in sharing their bandwidth for text/voice but small business and community ventures in areas with poor cell coverage? I think this could definitely be something that would interest them :)
That's more likely what they're doing. Seeing how far they can expand the Fi network.
I know a couple of people who were involved in the development of OnHub and, FWIW, they say that the motivation was that there's a need for a Wifi router that performs better and is more secure. Not a strategic bet, just a perceived market opportunity which they thought Google was well-equipped to fill.
With regard to performance, the antenna design of the OnHub is supposed to be dramatically better than anything else on the market, and the device incorporates ideas from the Software Defined Networking stacks Google developed internally for its data centers, to optimize data flow. I wouldn't have thought there was much you could do to make Wifi work better, since the ISP connection is generally the bottleneck, but apparently there is. With respect to security, it adopts a number of ideas from ChromeOS, plus fully-automated updates. Probably the biggest security benefit compared to the competition is that security is actually a primary design goal, which isn't the impression I get from makers of home routers.
We'll see if OnHub actually is enough better than the competition to justify its premium price. Based on what I know of the people working on it I expect that it will. I ordered one.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Yeah, I was thinking much the same, except slightly more cynically:
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Unfortunately the trend for the past 10-years has been ever worse consumer router hardware, a lack of security updates, decreasing performance and increasing prices. Further, a number of manufacturers have been going down the 'cloud' rathole. The industry is as bad as the telcos & cable, I for one welcome our new Google overlords.
While I'd rather run a pfsense box, these may still turn out to be much better than standard routers and be the one to recommend to your friends & family.
I don't think this is what Google had in mind, but I hope this will become part of their plan:
The real problem with Comcast isn't the connections to the home or to Comcast's servers, it's the routers which move traffic to other networks. Not just their peering relationships, but the hardware they overload along the way.
These devices have a network test function. They provide Google with a whole bunch of edge devices in the consumer Internet space which openly say they're going to communicate with Google. I'm hoping that Google will use these to map out ISP network and use the information to A. spoof DNS results to avoid overloaded equipment, B. Tattle on problems to partners to adjust BGP (or whatever ISPs are using now for routing tables), C. Use the information to bludgeon the ISPs (OK, really that just means Comcast) in the press and in Congress to force change to facilitate faster, cheaper connections.
So they can push more ads.
Could you explain why? Since the ISP supplied the modem and your packets all travel through their tubes anyways, what additional vulnerabilities do you have by using their router?
All packets don't travel through their tubes. If I access a shared disk, or a wifi camera, the packets go through the router, but not the modem. If the two devices are combined, the ISP has potential access to everything.