[asyncwords]

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.

[1]: https://on.google.com/hub/support/#get-started

[BlackJack]

"Google told me that it will eventually offer a simple web interface for setting up the OnHub, but at launch, a smartphone or tablet is required."

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/31/google-onhub-review/

[greggman]

Apple Airports all require apps. There's no web interface. They have Windows, OSX, and Linux apps.

I agree with you I prefer a web interface. Just pointing out that there is a pair of very popular routers that don't have one.

Fortunately they also don't need internet which it sounds like the OnHub currently does? In other words if I'm doing some kind of installation that users a router without internet I can still configure an Airport but if understand correctly I could not configure an OnHub ... yet?

[wickes]

>They have Windows, OSX, and Linux apps.

That's sort of a crucial distinction. You have to run the application, but pretty much everybody has something that can run it. That's very different than requiring an application that only runs on mobile devices, and even then only some mobile devices.

I'm actually not seeing a Linux version of the Airport utility anywhere, although apparently the Windows version pretty well with WINE.

[anowell]

I spent an hour fighting with the Airport utility in WINE a couple months ago. It launched, but I had issues discoving the Airport. Eventually I caved and had a non-technical friend with a Macbook configure my router for me. </shame>

[dublinben]

Apple routers aren't really that popular. All the top selling routers on Amazon use traditional web interfaces for configuration.

[chucknelson]

Not really sure that is sufficient evidence to say Apple routers "aren't popular".

[Someone1234]

That's fair.

But even fans of them have to admit that they do attract a certain demographic. Namely people who want Apple-only products throughout their home, Macs, iPads, iPhones, Airports, Time Capsule, Apple TV, etc. I can count on my hands how many people I know who have an Airport, and they're all Apple fanatics.

Most people either seem to utilise whatever their ISP gives them (the vast majority), or buy whatever is popular on Amazon and has the features they want. Even then power users are a small subset of consumers.

Airports requiring an app isn't a good justification for why Google can do the same. I'd argue that Airports are in the wrong here, and that the market has shown that routers which provide a web interface do better.

[tomtang0514]

I don't think people don't buy Airport because it doesn't have web interface. I guess the real reason is the price. If you looks at all routers at $200 price range, Airport probably has the worst looking spec.

[jmgtan]

I do agree that the specs do not look enticing on paper, compared to say the Asus ones, but in my experience they last longer.

Whenever I visit my parents I usually bring replacement hardware for whatever is broken. When I first got them their Airport Extreme, I replaced it after 5 years. I got them an Asus router with a really impressive wifi range, but it broke after just 1 year. Now they're back with the latest Airport Extreme.

It's a bit pricey for the specs but it's very reliable. I use 2 at home, that are bridged via gigabit ethernet, and they're pretty good. My only complain is that they don't have VLAN support (IPTV) and their wifi range is really bad.

[briandear]

But have you used one? Spec and usability are not the same thing. I have one of the high end Asus routers and several Airport Extremes. I think you know where this is going.. I'm using the AirPort Extreme right now. Dead simple to set up bridges, everything works, no need to do any overclocking to get enough power to penetrate my 17th century stone walls. If the iPhone taught us anything it's that specs matter far less than user experience. Of course there are probably still guys hacking away on Windows XP that would disagree of course.

[kitsunesoba]

My opinion probably won’t be popular, but for me the Airport configuration app is a selling point. It’s a simple, sane, nicely designed native app that works wonderfully for configuring either a single router or whole network of routers from a central point, as opposed to having to hop around between each router’s config page. I find it much nicer than most router web interfaces, which are often badly designed and look like they’re stuck in 2005.

What’s more is that the same app works for both my Airport Extreme from 2004 as well as the one I bought two months ago. The consistency is awesome.

[Shebanator]

I agree. I have two Airports - one in my house, and one in my detached garage/office. Being able to bridge the two together into a single seamless network was easy and reliable. Doing it with my previous wireless routers was a total pain.

[ChildOfChaos]

I don't think the lack of a web interface has anything to do with Apple's option selling less, most people buying these simply will not know the difference.

Also Apple's Market is not really anyone that would need a web interface as it would generally be marketed to existing Apple customers.

I am surprised Google don't have a web interface, If they are able to make all those other fancy features but no web interface, what other corners did they cut? To say that it is coming soon just seems to me they released this product before it was quite ready, like why is the usb port not active yet?

[robin_reala]

I don’t think there’s an (official) Airport app for Linux, or if there is they don’t publicise it.

[conradev]

There is not. Linux users have to use Wine or a Windows VM.

[wickes]

>They have Windows, OSX, and Linux apps.

That's sort of a crucial distinction. You have to run the application, but pretty much everybody has something that can run it. That's very different than requiring an application that only runs on mobile devices, and even then only some mobile devices.

I'm actually not seeing a Linux version of the Airport utility anywhere, although apparently it works pretty well with WINE.

[wehadfun]

Off topic but I am quite tired of "apps" replacing websites. I have 2 friends that used wedding apps as opposed to websites and it really made it difficult for many to know what was going on.

[oneeyedpigeon]

This would also be an easy win for a company such as Google that is finally 'getting' design since every router web interface I have ever seen has been beyond appalling. It wouldn't take much to be the industry leader in this regard by a country mile.

[redwards510]

Have you seen OpenWRT, or Tomato? If so, what don't you like about those?

[noelsusman]

They're functional and usually better looking than the default interface, but that's a pretty low bar. I still wouldn't classify them as looking "good".

[_ea1k]

I haven't tried Tomato but I do use OpenWRT. I don't have anything particularly good to say about its web interface.

[briandear]

Ugly. Not intuitive unless you are an expert. I wouldn't expect someone's grandmother to be success using it; constraining that with the airport setup that is super simple.

[tw04]

No worries, Windows Phone can now run android apps :)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/18/android_apps_flood_o...

[Avalaxy]

It's not so easy, the dev will have to compile the Android app for WP and publish it himself.

[tw04]

No, no the dev most definitely will not have to. You didn't bother clicking the link I posted.

>Windows will run Android binaries unmodified.

[mrbill]

I forget which one, but a review I've read in the past 24 hours said that they plan to eventually have a web equivalent to the phone app for basic setup.

[boo_radley]

Then that'll be interesting, eventually.

[thrownaway2424]

My Asus N66U has a web interface that uses HTTP basic authentication and does not offer HTTPS. Good riddance to that as soon as my OnHub arrives.

[zaroth]

HTTPS using what for authentication exactly?

[briandear]

Have you not tried the AirPort Extreme? Why suffer through something you don't like when there is already a better option.

[kps]

  > a web interface like every other router

Real routers use SNMP… or telnet.

[dgibbons0]

No; real routers use ssh and snmp.

[OJFord]

No - real routers use mechanical switches configured by steady hand.

[niceguiman]

They also emit a constant, loud fan whine because they're meant to live in a rack. They also take multiple minutes to reboot. Automatic updates are delivered by trained humans via archaic incantations of "tftp get".