Short OnHub rant.

[xmx1024]

Everybody is complaining that the Google OnHub router only has one LAN port and they won't be able to plug in more than one wired device. Well, that's wrong. Get this: TP-LINK, the same company that makes the OnHub router sells a super cheap (albeit 100Mbit) switch (I personally own five) that costs $10 and often goes on sale for less. That allows you to plug in up to four devices. If that's not enough for you, then you can get an 8 port switch or even a 16 port switch, all less than $40. 

 

It may not be an elegant solution but it's better than a spaghetti of wires coming from the back of your router, and you can hide the switch away somewhere in your media center if that is where most of your wired devices need to be connected. 

[Enderman]

100Mbps? why? thats like last decade

1Gbps is the minimum these days

[Leonard]

or you could just get a good router for $120- $180 and be done with it.

[QueenDemetria]

One LAN port on a router is stupid, period(this is ignoring the price of $200, which makes things worse).

[xmx1024]

One LAN port on a router is stupid, period(this is ignoring the price of $200, which makes things worse).

I'd imagine it is hard to get four ports into something they would like to make look nice and prevent it from looking like this:

[QueenDemetria]

I'd imagine it is hard to get four ports into something they would like to make look nice and prevent it from looking like this:

 

Between the power and WAN(and I guess one LAN and USB), there is already 2-4 wires coming out of the back of this thing. Since it doesn't look elegant as it is, might as well make the damn thing useful and add at least 2 more LAN ports.

 

I get it, Google wanted to make this thing look elegant so that you can put it in the living room for "optimal range", but the reality is that any $150+ router has decent range without putting it out in the open, so really they are solving a problem that wasn't a problem. 

[Wombo]

or you could just get a good router for $120- $180 and be done with it.

A good AIO/SoHo*

[Leonard]

A good AIO/SoHo*

A good MIMO* and preferably one that allows the user to flash the stock firmware to DDWRT.

[dzonidev]

Everybody is complaining that the Google OnHub router only has one LAN port and they won't be able to plug in more than one wired device. Well, that's wrong. Get this: TP-LINK, the same company that makes the OnHub router sells a super cheap (albeit 100Mbit) switch (I personally own five) that costs $10 and often goes on sale for less. That allows you to plug in up to four devices. If that's not enough for you, then you can get an 8 port switch or even a 16 port switch, all less than $40. 

 

It may not be an elegant solution but it's better than a spaghetti of wires coming from the back of your router, and you can hide the switch away somewhere in your media center if that is where most of your wired devices need to be connected. 

 

Finally, Thank you!

 

 

-snip-

 

-snip-

 

Funny how people forget, that this router was not designed for tech people. It's designed for people who want internet without having to know how it works and spend hours on forums and web searching for answers. The emphasis of this router is Simple WiFi that just works, not an Ethernet router with 4 ports, because we have thousands of them already. Also on the comment of one port, I'm sure you all know there is a device called a switch.

 

Cisco has a 2 Ethernet port router (1941) that costs 800 USD, is that stupid?

[Leonard]

--gone--

 

 

 

 

Funny how people forget, that this router was not designed for tech people. It's designed for people who want internet without having to know how it works and spend hours on forums and web searching for answers. The emphasis of this router is Simple WiFi that just works, not an Ethernet router with 4 ports, because we have thousands of them already. Also on the comment of one port, I'm sure you all know there is a device called a switch.

 

Cisco has a 2 Ethernet port router (1941) that costs 800 USD, is that stupid?

There has never been a simple wifi nothing since the inception of wifi and it it getting more dastardly as time passes by.

[xmx1024]

There has never been a simple wifi nothing since the inception of wifi and it it getting more dastardly as time passes by.

It doesn't seem like you're familiar with the OnHub much.

[dzonidev]

There has never been a simple wifi nothing since the inception of wifi and it it getting more dastardly as time passes by.

 

I take it you haven't had the opportunity to check out OnHub.

[QueenDemetria]

Funny how people forget, that this router was not designed for tech people. It's designed for people who want internet without having to know how it works and spend hours on forums and web searching for answers. The emphasis of this router is Simple WiFi that just works, not an Ethernet router with 4 ports, because we have thousands of them already. Also on the comment of one port, I'm sure you all know there is a device called a switch.

 

Cisco has a 2 Ethernet port router (1941) that costs 800 USD, is that stupid?

I haven't forgotten who this router is for, yeah I can appreciate its simplicity and "beautifulness"(even though I already debunked this), but cutting down functionality does not equal simplicity. If its designed for "simple WiFi" then great they achieved this, but they completely forgot about the common devices that use ethernet. Would it kill them to add more ethernet? No, could people just not use the ports if they don't need them? Absolutely, and that is what you are forgetting.

 

And before you say "there is no simple router with more ethernet ports on the market" I have this to show you:

Even Apple, the stingy moneybags realize that people NEED more than one ethernet port on their router, and guess what, the Airport Extreme I linked also costs $200, so now there is no fair argument for this gimped Onhub. 

 

You know whats even hilarious too, you spend $200 on a router and then have to spend another $10-50 on a hub just to make up for what the router doesn't have, and the fact that OP linked TPLink hubs is even better because you know Google/TPLink did this just to sell more crap.(Adding a hub is not a perfect solution BTW, cudgy and still doesn't tackle the wire problem like OP wanted)

 

Oh and Cisco had a 2 port router in 1941 for $800? That is great, but this is 2015, times have changed sweetie. 

[Wombo]

A good MIMO* and preferably one that allows the user to flash the stock firmware to DDWRT.

A MIMO isn't an AIO router type, it's a radio type, or more appropriately a radio feature.

[dzonidev]

-snip-

 

I sincerely don't know, how does one setup an Apple router?

 

P.S.

Cisco ISR 1941 Release Date: 2014. Check 'yo facts, sweetie.

 

Love,

dzoni

[QueenDemetria]

I was really hoping for someone to bring this up. How does one setup an Apple router?

 

P.S.

Cisco ISR 1941 Release Date: 2014

With a simple app on your phone or computer, and if your computer(or phone) doesn't support the app then you can use the web page(that automatically redirects you there) that is as simple as the app. The process is real simple, even mum can do it.

 

Also I don't care about that one expensive Cisco router, its not even a consumer grade router which either invalidates you point on price or convenience, and its not like that is the only other choice either. That's about as bad as saying you need to buy a $200 Google/TPLink OnHub and another $150 for a switch. Lets be real here.

[Wombo]

I haven't forgotten who this router is for, yeah I can appreciate its simplicity and "beautifulness"(even though I already debunked this), but cutting down functionality does not equal simplicity. If its designed for "simple WiFi" then great they achieved this, but they completely forgot about the common devices that use ethernet. Would it kill them to add more ethernet? No, could people just not use the ports if they don't need them? Absolutely, and that is what you are forgetting.

 

And before you say "there is no simple router with more ethernet ports on the market" I have this to show you:

Even Apple, the stingy moneybags realize that people NEED more than one ethernet port on their router, and guess what, the Airport Extreme I linked also costs $200, so now there is no fair argument for this gimped Onhub. 

 

You know whats even hilarious too, you spend $200 on a router and then have to spend another $10-50 on a hub just to make up for what the router doesn't have, and the fact that OP linked TPLink hubs is even better because you know Google/TPLink did this just to sell more crap.(Adding a hub is not a perfect solution BTW, cudgy and still doesn't tackle the wire problem like OP wanted)

 

Oh and Cisco had a 2 port router in 1941 for $800? That is great, but this is 2015, times have changed sweetie. 

Well your argument here is kind of invalid as that isn't a "Router", that's an AIO/SoHo device. Those LAN ports are from a build in switch. These are regular consumer grade devices, genuine routers sporting a single lan port are pro-sumer grade products, or low-end business gear.

 

You'll appreciate a real router when you use one. Proper ASIC based features are not cheap and are what separate consumer AIO products from quality networking device.

 

Do you need these products for your average home? No, but knowing the distinction between a consumer AIO and a pro-sumer, or higher quality, ROUTER will help ensure people can make adequate decisions about what networking devices they actually need.

[QueenDemetria]

Well your argument here is kind of invalid as that isn't a "Router", that's an AIO/SoHo device. Those LAN ports are from a build in switch. These are regular consumer grade devices, genuine routers sporting a single lan port are pro-sumer grade products, or low-end business gear.

 

You'll appreciate a real router when you use one. Proper ASIC based features are not cheap and are what separate consumer AIO products from quality networking device.

 

Do you need these products for your average home? No, but knowing the distinction between a consumer AIO and a pro-sumer, or higher quality, ROUTER will help ensure people can make adequate decisions about what networking devices they actually need.

Okay? The specific names for these devices wasn't my argument and its not totally relevant, but thanks for the info. My point is that you can get a box that makes WiFi and has 3 ports "for the internets" vs getting something that only makes WiFi and needing to buy "something else" to make ethernet work in your average home.

 

I personally have a PFsense box with a Quanmax KEMX-4030 and dual port Intel NIC, but I'm in the minority and consumer grade "things"(regardless of whats inside) like the Airport would be perfectly fine for mum and pap. Its just gimped devices like the OnHub that I just don't understand(from a consumer perspective, totally get it from a marketing perspective).

[QueenDemetria]

Cisco ISR 1941 Release Date: 2014. Check 'yo facts, sweetie.

I'm not going to do research on something that isn't relevant

[dzonidev]

-snip-

 

Whoaa. Hold your horses, did you just say a $150 USD switch? What am I doing here, building an ISP? Please, be reasonable a gigabit 8-Port TP-Link switch costs $20 USD. And now OnHub has more ports than an Apple Express.

 

You're missing the point. Let me ask my uncle who has no clue how internet works if he needs additional ports. Oh, he doesn't, why? Because he uses WiFi like all other clueless people who buy this product. The group of people you talk about is like 10% and you're still not making your argument viable.

 

You're bashing on the product for god knows what reason.

[QueenDemetria]

Whoaa. Hold your horses, did you just say a $150 USD switch? What am I doing here, building an ISP? Please, be reasonable a gigabit 8-Port TP-Link switch costs $20 USD. And now OnHub has more ports than an Apple Express.

My point-------------------------->

___________You____________

That's why I said "That's about as bad as saying". The Airport Express is also a portable device, different category(just like the industrial switch), so don't compare it(it also costs half as much, soo...).

 

 

You're missing the point. Let me ask my uncle who has no clue how internet works if he needs additional ports. Oh, he doesn't, why? Because he uses WiFi like all other clueless people who buy this product. The group of people you talk about is like 10% and you're still not making your argument viable.

 

You're bashing on the product for god knows what reason.

I understand, but to your uncle that only uses WiFi does it hurt him in any way to have a router with 4 ports on it? Leaving them empty and unused? No it doesn't, but to grandpa that still uses a WiFi-less desktop and a ethernet printer(or whatever, there are tons of ethernet devices) it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to buy a router without a proper amount of ports(let alone manufacture one). I'm bashing it because they left out such a simple thing, something that lots of people use. People bash the 2015 MacBook for only having a single USB port, are they wrong for bashing it?

 

I don't really see the harm of putting 2-4 ethernet ports on a router. If you use them, great, if you don't, great, but I would rather have ports I don't need than be wondering "how the hell am I going to plug all these devices into one port". 

[dzonidev]

-snip-

 

Sure, I'll accept that. But hey, if the shortage of eth ports was so they can squeeze in another antenna into the tube, then that justifies the "loss" in my book.

[xmx1024]

I haven't forgotten who this router is for, yeah I can appreciate its simplicity and "beautifulness"(even though I already debunked this), but cutting down functionality does not equal simplicity. If its designed for "simple WiFi" then great they achieved this, but they completely forgot about the common devices that use ethernet. Would it kill them to add more ethernet? No, could people just not use the ports if they don't need them? Absolutely, and that is what you are forgetting.

And before you say "there is no simple router with more ethernet ports on the market" I have this to show you:

Even Apple, the stingy moneybags realize that people NEED more than one ethernet port on their router, and guess what, the Airport Extreme I linked also costs $200, so now there is no fair argument for this gimped Onhub.

You know whats even hilarious too, you spend $200 on a router and then have to spend another $10-50 on a hub just to make up for what the router doesn't have, and the fact that OP linked TPLink hubs is even better because you know Google/TPLink did this just to sell more crap.(Adding a hub is not a perfect solution BTW, cudgy and still doesn't tackle the wire problem like OP wanted)

Oh and Cisco had a 2 port router in 1941 for $800? That is great, but this is 2015, times have changed sweetie.

Is the airport extreme designed to be out in the open and visible by guests? Is a flashy white apple product

[xmx1024]

Oh and Cisco had a 2 port router in 1941 for $800? That is great, but this is 2015, times have changed sweetie.

The internet did not exist in 1941.

[xmx1024]

With a simple app on your phone or computer, and if your computer(or phone) doesn't support the app then you can use the web page(that automatically redirects you there) that is as simple as the app. The process is real simple, even mum can do it.

Also I don't care about that one expensive Cisco router, its not even a consumer grade router which either invalidates you point on price or convenience, and its not like that is the only other choice either. That's about as bad as saying you need to buy a $200 Google/TPLink OnHub and another $150 for a switch. Lets be real here.

Even mum can set up an OnHub as well. It's as simple as downloading an app and putting the phone by it.