Google WiFi Reviewed

[thiggins]

Google Wifi is a more affordable way to see if mesh Wi-Fi is for you.

Read on SmallNetBuilder

 

[sfx2000]

Starting the general thread, as this is a topic that many may be interested in...

I'll share a good comment from Google on Wave 2 first... Google WiFi, like On-Hub, is not a BHR, it's something very different

Features such as 4x4 data streams, MU-MIMO, 160 MHz channels, and 1024QAM, while costly to produce, aren’t compatible with the majority of today’s devices. Paying for unneeded technologies simply doesn’t make sense.
​

The Google WiFi is a continuation of the On-Hub family, and is based on ChromeOS - see below;

Supposedly there is a lot of WiFi alliance 11ac Wave 2 spec, but not clear if this also includes MU or not... if the chipset supports MU - I'll probably be first in line, not as an AP, but to make this a MU packet capture device...

[edit - no MU here, at least not right now - but there's other interesting stuff under the hood]

Should note that all Google WiFi devices - even the Legacy On-Hubs, play well together.

See the review on the main site for details related to hardware, software, and performance - both standalone as well as mesh.

 

[whsbuss]

I picked up a 3-pack on Saturday and returned it on Sunday.

Pros
- setup via iPhone app was very easy
- all 3 nodes connected without any issue
- full coverage over 2800 sq ft home with primary located in center of house 2nd floor

Cons
- could not set WAN IP as they claim you can
- bridge mode not available when in mesh mode
- poor telephone support

I spend over an our explaining to Google all of their short comings. But their response was "well that's how it works". Really? Its clear to me that their software is just a spinoff of the OnHub product with inclusions for mesh networking.

The biggest fail for me is the bridge mode. Why you would only allow this with just the primary connected and not in mesh mode? In my case, having FiOS w/TV service, I alway run in bridge mode. I did like their appearance when placed in any of the rooms I had.

Just not ready for prime time IMHO

 

[thiggins]

I spend over an our explaining to Google all of their short comings. But their response was "well that's how it works". Really?

What would you expect a tech support person's response to a list of missing features to be? That's not what they are there for.

 

[sfx2000]

My thoughts - Google Wifi - it's no different than On-Hub (it's a continuation of that line after all).

On-Hubs in general are focused towards a specific market segment - and most members on SNBForums, we're probably not in that market segment.

I find them interesting from a systems perspective on how the firmware is built, and how they work - they're like Chromebooks in most ways, as their FW is built on the same code base...

 

[neoterix]

I suppose I'm the target audience for something like the Google Wifi—my curiosity was piqued when I first found out about the mesh-networking (kudos Google marketing team) when watching the Google launch event primarily for the Pixel phones. It's embarrassing to admit, but I completely missed the Wifi-AC generational shift and my five year old Netgear N600-class router was working acceptably for my small apartment. In the launch event, the Google Wifi sounded like a great solution for my parents who live in a two story house where extenders have been an inconvenient and insufficient solution.

I really appreciate the discussions on SNB as I quickly got up to speed with the lay of the land and the current state of mesh networking. Though I now know it won't be the panacea it first sounded to be, thus far it seems like a decent solution given its size and relative cost to the Orbi—an impressive setup, though likely more router than my parents need, given their paltry 25 Mbps DSL broadband.

I bought a three-pack to keep one as an AC upgrade to my old wifi-N Netgear with the intention of setting up the other two in my parent's house.

Though the app obscures most of the power user options, and though I typically like to dig into those options, there is something comforting about the Google Wifi's ease and straightforwardness of use. Though my only point of comparison was the firmware and interface of a 5 year old router (so I'm sure things have improved quite a bit), it's dramatically easier to see all the connected devices, their network speeds, and so on. The other nice thing is being able to manage the wifi remotely and from my own Google account, so I can help my parents with a little home IT if needed.

I'm really enjoying the Google Wifi so far though I understand it's not ideal for the power-user set here. Here's to hoping Google continues to iterate on the software and feature set for this!

Edit: The one thing I'm still getting used to (and am a little bit uncomfortable with still) is having the same SSID for both 2.4 and 5 GHz bands—the Google Wifi mandates the same SSID. This goes against all my prior indoctrination and well, general preference to manually choose things for myself. And even though I'm seeing now that the general consensus is that modern clients are far better about choosing the right band, I'm not entirely sure I'm observing that, with a bunch of my devices unncessarily hanging out on the 2.4 GHz band...

 

[whsbuss]

My thoughts - Google Wifi - it's no different than On-Hub (it's a continuation of that line after all).

On-Hubs in general are focused towards a specific market segment - and most members on SNBForums, we're probably not in that market segment.

I find them interesting from a systems perspective on how the firmware is built, and how they work - they're like Chromebooks in most ways, as their FW is built on the same code base...

Yes I agree with your assessment. For the 2 issues I had, only the bridge mode was a deal breaker. Both eero and amplifi permit the mix of bridge & mesh. My 3 year old Asus 68U needs replacing soon and I may just grab another one when they go on sale again.

 

[thiggins]

GWifi is very different than OnHub (mesh vs. single point). But it is aimed at the same market segment: people who just want Wi-Fi and don't want to futz with router settings.

 

[sfx2000]

GWifi is very different than OnHub (mesh vs. single point). But it is aimed at the same market segment: people who just want Wi-Fi and don't want to futz with router settings.

I see it more an an evolution of the same platform - the OnHubs and GoogleWiFi are built off the same code base when reviewing the docs over on the ChromiumOS developer site.

The big change is on the radio side to support the mesh...

Just wish Google was a little bit more focused on building out that platform - I can imagine the meetings "ok, here's the status meeting agenda, hey, there's a squirrel, let's go ride a bike!"

 

[thiggins]

Just wish Google was a little bit more focused on building out that platform - I can imagine the meetings "ok, here's the status meeting agenda, hey, there's a squirrel, let's go ride a bike!"

Your points contradict each other. The WiFi is built on the OnHub platform. The fact that OnHubs can become mesh points shows how the platform is evolving.

 

[sfx2000]

Your points contradict each other. The WiFi is built on the OnHub platform. The fact that OnHubs can become mesh points shows how the platform is evolving.

My comment is more about Google in general - throw a lot of stuff at the wall, some sticks, some doesn't - and even with the stuff that sticks, they have a tendency to lose interest after a while...

 

[sfx2000]

Interesting platform - still going thru the review - but the board itself is interesting enough at the moment - saw the Daughterboard there, which I am assuming is the WiFi chipsets being in cans... curious what the item in the middle is...

 

[sfx2000]

But given Google's deep pockets and probable volume advantage, it's questionable whether price matching is a viable long term strategy for Luma.

eero appears to have the edge on Google Wifi for performance, either with or without eero's new V2.0 firmware. Backhaul performance, as measured by the wireless bridge tests, did improve, but didn't consistently provide the 2X performance boost eero claimed in its briefing call.

Luma and eero should be concerned right now - they have first to market advantage in this segment of the WiFi market - but with Netgear's successful Orbi launch and Google jumping into the pool...

Not sure where this leaves Plume...

(note that Luma, eero, and Plume do have good backing - and these are good platforms)

Some things in Mesh are going to scale, and some probably won't - not just from a technology perspective, but also the business side.

Who would have guessed that Q4-2016 would have been this interesting in the Consumer Router/AP WiFi market...

 

[sfx2000]

The WiFi is built on the OnHub platform. The fact that OnHubs can become mesh points shows how the platform is evolving.

I pointed out earlier that GoogleWiFI was an onhub variant (which onhub is a chromeOS variant) - a little bit surprised that legacy onhubs from TP-Link/Asus could mesh in as well, but not completely... thought it was kinda cool actually...

Little tidbit - Chromebooks - when in dev mode and can get under the hood - do an ifconfig sometime - one will see the wlan0 interface, along with lo - and you'll find a br0 interface as well on current (as of 121316) - since I'm lazy and run on the 192.168.1.0/24 block myself inside my LAN, the br0 interface on the Chromebook was 192.168.254.0/24 subnet...

I'll have to do some pcaps to see what's going on there, but it's certainly possible that a chromebook could be a member of a onhub mesh as an opportunist member..

 

[sfx2000]

Edit: The one thing I'm still getting used to (and am a little bit uncomfortable with still) is having the same SSID for both 2.4 and 5 GHz bands—the Google Wifi mandates the same SSID. This goes against all my prior indoctrination and well, general preference to manually choose things for myself. And even though I'm seeing now that the general consensus is that modern clients are far better about choosing the right band, I'm not entirely sure I'm observing that, with a bunch of my devices unncessarily hanging out on the 2.4 GHz band...

The Common SSID is a good thing - and many of the Mesh players do depend on this...

Trust the clients these days - there will be some that might get stuck, but those problems are getting resolved fairly quickly...

 

[Loop-de-loop]

...aimed at the same market segment: people who just want Wi-Fi and don't want to futz with router settings.

Exactly. Even coming from the opposite angle: previously my Ubiquiti USG and AP-Pros were continually a buggy/beta-like mess, my NetGear R7800 was undependable and often need-a-reboot-flaky (not to mention all their interfaces/apps look 10-years dated), etc. Picked up a 3-pack of Google Wifi and I'm very happy. Finally. Everything just works and works well - especially when the other two (non-router) puck's use a wired backhaul.

Sure, I've given up a little theoretical performance and the ability to tweak until my heart's content...but what I gain in return is a trade-off I'm now willing to take. Besides, all my wireless devices are from 2015/2016 and none of them take advantage of the advanced features coming out in traditional routers. Even if I were to consider 'future proofing', the gains aren't huge.

I'd rather have blanketed, dependable, and fast WiFi that is also unbelievably easy to manage, small/nice looking, and affordable. So far, I love my Google Wifi. ...it hits all the right notes for someone who has been chasing the 'absolute best' WiFi fairy for far too long.

 

[bernard038]

Hi All,

Tim, thanks again for a great review!

To make sure i didn't misunderstood something (English is not my native language) The phrase "Does not support access point mode for mesh configurations" basically means that when Google Wifi is set in bridge mode (disabling all router functions, because you already have a decent router) the additional wifi points act as range extenders and / or as objets d'art, nice looking but having no specific function (of which we already have quite a collection at home, thanks to the misses).


Cheers! b.

 

[whsbuss]

Review posted.

Very good review. Matches what I saw in my brief experience w/GWifi

 

[whsbuss]

Exactly. Even coming from the opposite angle: previously my Ubiquiti USG and AP-Pros were continually a buggy/beta-like mess, my NetGear R7800 was undependable and often need-a-reboot-flaky (not to mention all their interfaces/apps look 10-years dated), etc. Picked up a 3-pack of Google Wifi and I'm very happy. Finally. Everything just works and works well - especially when the other two (non-router) puck's use a wired backhaul.

Sure, I've given up a little theoretical performance and the ability to tweak until my heart's content...but what I gain in return is a trade-off I'm now willing to take. Besides, all my wireless devices are from 2015/2016 and none of them take advantage of the advanced features coming out in traditional routers. Even if I were to consider 'future proofing', the gains aren't huge.

I'd rather have blanketed, dependable, and fast WiFi that is also unbelievably easy to manage, small/nice looking, and affordable. So far, I love my Google Wifi. ...it hits all the right notes for someone who has been chasing the 'absolute best' WiFi fairy for far too long.

My thoughts exactly. I'm tired of doing all the networking tweaks. Once I get things working I rarely go back and tweak anyway. I liked GWifi but still require bridge mode in mesh configuration. If/when they do it I will reconsider it again.

 

[whsbuss]

Hi All,

Tim, thanks again for a great review!

To make sure i didn't misunderstood something (English is not my native language) The phrase "Does not support access point mode for mesh configurations" basically means that when Google Wifi is set in bridge mode (disabling all router functions, because you already have a decent router) the additional wifi points act as range extenders and / or as objets d'art, nice looking but having no specific function (of which we already have quite a collection at home, thanks to the misses).


Cheers! b.

The only way GWifi will work in bridge mode is to disconnect all mesh-connected nodes to the primary unit in the app. So mesh connectivity is null and void.