It's a wirless bridge, and it assumes you already have a router with an internet connection(i.e. your cable/dsl/fiber box). Setup instructions are here:
That's bullshit. It should use something like Thread or Bluetooth 4.0 to let you configure it from your mobile device, which already assumes you'll be in the same room with the router in 99% percent of the cases.
There's no reason for this to be sent over the Internet, when you're both in the same room.
I wouldn't phrase it so negatively but I do share the same sentiment. I think this is the craziness that seems to be so widespread that people don't notice how crazy it is - the primary way for two devices sitting few meters from each other to communicate should not be routing packets around half of the planet. I get it's easier, but it's bad engineering, unnecessarily wasteful energy-wise and I bet the only reason this is the default is for companies to lock people down and make money on data.
The general point is "local direct communication is hard and unreliable". Your phone falls back to 3G - connection broken. You're on "HouseWifi" and the other device is on "HouseWifi_5Ghz" - connection broken. You have a router with a guest mode and stops guests accessing the local LAN - guest can't print or chromecast or whatever.
This then assumes that authentication is handled by some combination of device proximity, physically pushing a "grant admin access" button on the device, or falling back to password management (possibly on a sticker on the bottom of the device).
There is something to be said for tying the device into an existing strong authentication infrastructure.
If you can debug the device remotely, you can debug the device remotely without trusting a third party.
There's absolutely no reason your private home router should be a slave to whatever remote configuration, monitoring, or intercept that some third party may be under legal orders to implement.
IMO these devices are nothing but parasites. On the positive side, Google has no track record with selling this kind of device and hopefully they will fail badly at it.
Google Fiber is one of the most wanted things in the tech world. You think having your traffic go through their router is bad? I don't even want to know how you'd feel about every internet thing you do being on their network.
Is guest access on a private SSID? Is my traffic separate from theirs? What about VPN support? I was getting ready to by an Asus router because I'm in the market for one, and it's at a similar price point. The three features I'm most interested in are QOS (which it looks like you have), having guests segregated from my network, and VPN access to my server
Asking for an explanation or complaining or criticizing a product is good and should be encouraged. Companies should expect negative feedback if they release products that consumers do not like. In fact this helps the Companies too in making products that people want.
I don't quite see why you're telling people to "take it or leave it". That applies to every single product in existence, and I would hazard a guess that most people here are aware of it.
I understand the sentiment but I can see a certain logic to using a Google Account.
It gives some protection against an attacker using a default password (as with every other router in the world). Also the hardware could be locked to a particular account in case the firmware is reset and you return to a welcome page.
Also it seems preferable that Google should use it's existing infrastructure instead of creating something new just for this.
