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.
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.
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.
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.
No, I think it's quite a bit more subtle than that. Trying to inject advertising into your internet stream would be a ham-handed approach the idiots at Lenovo would try. Google is more clever than to slit their own device's throat with something so stupid as that.
Google has a vested interest in improving people's online experience. That's why they invest in all sorts of network/internet technology, including a web browser they give out for free, fiber access to homes, and under-the-hood improvements to internet communication standards that make things more efficient and more secure. They want people to be safe, secure, and happy to be online. They want people connected to the internet all the time, with fast and stable connections, and they've seen that the current market of wifi routers is pretty much garbage, in terms of features, stability, and security.
ALL OF THIS relates to encouraging people to stay online, which in turn means relying on Google services, which they can then mine for data to sell to advertisers, which is how they earn their money. Yes, it's about advertising in the end, but not like you're thinking.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
True. I can hardly think of a company I'd trust less
chinese router companies laugh at your ignorance
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 agree with the first part: "They want to control your network" but I don't think the intent is to screw with your network. I think the intent is actually defensive and it's to keep other people from screwing with your network. Same with DNS servers. They want to provide fast and reliable DNS servers so that their own service is fast and reliable. I think that's the same reason they initially entered the mobile phone market and the ISP market.. They are scared of walled gardens and the more they control the connection from you to them then the less dependent they are on the whims of some other corporation that would like to interfere with and steal their customers.