[ms7m]

> You won’t be able to update things like Wi-Fi network settings, add additional Wifi devices, or run speed tests.

Wow, I'm not familiar if users are forced to use the Google Home app, but that seems a bit drastic to stop users from even changing the most basic settings?

[matt_heimer]

The dedicated apps are being discontinued across the board. I have Google mesh Wifi system and get told that "Your network was migrated to the Home app" when launching the Google Wifi app. You can continue and it still works so far. You can also use the Google Home app now if you want to manage your wifi settings with a worse UX.

Edit: Being forced to use an app is not new. If you visit your routers ip address you get a single page that links to the app for the app stores. Funny enough it still links to the Google Wifi app and not the Google Home app.

[teekert]

Same for the nest thermostats, the best app still works as well, and it’s nicer and feels faster (although both are slow).

[ClumsyPilot]

"You won’t be able to update things like Wi-Fi network settings, add additional Wifi devices, or run speed tests."

Aren't they reaching into Your device to remove functionality? Isn't this vandalism, and a crime?

[judge2020]

It’s not a crime, since the advertising includes OTA as a feature and it’s not criminal to remove functionality from a previously-sold device.

[jjav]

> it’s not criminal to remove functionality from a previously-sold device

I'm sure it's not criminal, given today's laws.

Think about that statement though. It absolutely should, morally, be criminal to take away something that was sold as functioning.

Imagine in the 80s that VCR manufacturers sent people to your home at night to open your VCR and cut some traces so it could play but no longer record. Would be an outrage. Also, fortunately, was in practice impossible.

Just because today devices are built to enable damaging functionality from afar doesn't means it is suddenly ok.

[judge2020]

I never said it was OK. The parent specifically wondered if some law prohibited this practice (which there isn't, given Google's legal team surely has all their bases covered).

[ClumsyPilot]

"It’s not a crime, since the advertising includes OTA as a feature"

My car includes free service as a feature, that doesn't mean they can take off the wheels while I sleep and call it 'service'.

Similarly I don't think any reasonable person or judge will agree bricking a device is called 'update'.

[reaperducer]

Similarly I don't think any reasonable person or judge will agree bricking a device is called 'update'.

I had a bunch of IoT lightbulbs intentionally bricked by the manufacturer. I can't remember the name of the company now. Something beginning with "F," and ending with "Electric," I think. This was back in the days before HomeKit, when IoT was even more Wild West than it is today.

I had about a dozen of the light bulbs around the house, all controlled by the company's hub, and an app on the phone. One day the company sent an e-mail stating that the system was no longer supported and would no longer function, and it also sent a forced software update to the hub, disabling everything.

I searched around the internet and found lots of people who were mad that the gear they paid for suddenly stopped functioning for no reason. Lots of speculation, but nobody ever seemed to nail down why.

[ClumsyPilot]

That atrocious. Either this is vandalism, or we have no rights to private property any more

[christophilus]

Or, just don’t buy “smart” devices whose software isn’t FOSS? Otherwise, you really never can be sure that you own a smart device.

[christophilus]

Should’ve been suspicious when I read their tagline: “We put the F in F-electric”

[kingcharles]

What about just letting the air out of the tyres?

[akaij]

> I'm not familiar if users are forced to use the Google Home app

Yup.

On a related note: I haven't been able to find a way to root it for OpenWRT. Does anyone know of any resource, other than the OpenWRT website, that could be helpful?

[aagha]

Seems some work is happening on this:

https://openwrt.org/inbox/toh/google/google_wifi

[akaij]

If I'm reading correctly, that page is for the newer "Google WiFi" products, which are different.