AP's geared toward home use?
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
Something that doesn't require a remote controller
Nothing good that you could recommend would come that way. That's a horrible idea.
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
though I suppose a controller setup by the vendor would be OK - basically a solution where the user doesn't have to worry about the controller.
Then you specifically WANT a hosted controller. If the controller isn't hosted by a vendor then the end user HAS to manage it!
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
Thanks.
Odd that it's called an access point - but has a WAN port on it.That is definitely a router / switch / AP combo like any other consumer device.
-
Home use should be just like business. Like a business, home users don't want to be the ones managing everything. They don't want things to fail and have no support. THey don't want to overpay for useless features, and they want things that work well.
That means you should be looking at the same gear you should be recommending for businesses.
Equipment like Unifi, UBNT and MicroTik are good. you can't really get cheaper and maintain reliability and support.
-
-
I run UBNT here at the house - before the newer AP I have now I had two APs (Model UAP).
The controller was - of course easy to setup. But honestly doesn't have to run 24/7 - only when you need to make changes. It will run on Windows 10, right along side your day to day software. And push come to shove - you can still recover a lost controller password from the db just as you can in Linux.
You can run the UBNT controller from a Raspberry Pi - if you could afford one (practically) right now. My controller currently runs on an old Dell 5440 Laptop that also runs the SDR radio server.
Currently - I'm running three SSIDs,.. but looking to decrease and finally add the IoT partition.
May not help,.. but also may. It was nice when one of the UAP failed I ordered a new one and didn't have to do any provisioning - adopt and done.
-
@gjacobse said in AP's geared toward home use?:
I run UBNT here at the house - before the newer AP I have now I had two APs (Model UAP).
The controller was - of course easy to setup. But honestly doesn't have to run 24/7 - only when you need to make changes. It will run on Windows 10, right along side your day to day software. And push come to shove - you can still recover a lost controller password from the db just as you can in Linux.
You can run the UBNT controller from a Raspberry Pi - if you could afford one (practically) right now. My controller currently runs on an old Dell 5440 Laptop that also runs the SDR radio server.
Currently - I'm running three SSIDs,.. but looking to decrease and finally add the IoT partition.
May not help,.. but also may. It was nice when one of the UAP failed I ordered a new one and didn't have to do any provisioning - adopt and done.
The controller based solution is what makes that awesome... but having to run something on your computer or in a cloud service like Vultr, etc - no consumer is going to do that.
We are being nickeled and dimed to death with monthly fees now. Some of which I really actually don't mind - hopefully the continuous revenue stream means the vendor is working to keep things updated/secure and not leaning toward hardware obsolescence as a money making scheme.
That said, I feel we're reaching a breaking point.
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
The controller based solution is what makes that awesome... but having to run something on your computer or in a cloud service like Vultr, etc - no consumer is going to do that.
No consumer should. Have a service do that for you. You want a cloud controller, but on a tiny scale. NTG has consumer customers that get that service for free. Actually ALL our customers get that for free. It costs us nothing to provide, and our benefit is that the customer is more likely to call us for service when we have fast, easy access to their monitoring and changes. So it's totally a value to us to provide it, and totally a value to them to get a cloud controller hosted, for free. Everyone wins, it's a great model.
You are correct, no end user should run a controller ANYWHERE, but especially not in house. But they should probably all have controllers.
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
We are being nickeled and dimed to death with monthly fees now. Some of which I really actually don't mind - hopefully the continuous revenue stream means the vendor is working to keep things updated/secure and not leaning toward hardware obsolescence as a money making scheme.
This is an emotional reaction that is not correct. People say this all the time, like they say that "cloud is just someone else's computer", but we know that that's incorrect. Common sayings are rarely accurate.
Subscription services don't cost more, they change how we pay. Humans have an emotional attachment to objects and see paying for an object differently than they see paying for a service. But a service often has higher value at equal or lower cost. If we let computers decide what's best financially for us, they'd normally pick subscription models - because over the long haul they cost less in most cases (if they don't, that vendor's products stop being competitive.)
And some services, like Unifi, have NO monthly costs if you have any existing infrastructure. If anything, they've outright lowered costs compared to traditional solutions.
-
For home use, not being setup like a business, you use the mesh router setups on the market today.
From Ubiquiti, it is the AMPLIFI line
From TP-LINK it is called Deco
Home users should never have business gear setup unless they are a hobbyist or something.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AP's geared toward home use?:
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
We are being nickeled and dimed to death with monthly fees now. Some of which I really actually don't mind - hopefully the continuous revenue stream means the vendor is working to keep things updated/secure and not leaning toward hardware obsolescence as a money making scheme.
This is an emotional reaction that is not correct. People say this all the time, like they say that "cloud is just someone else's computer", but we know that that's incorrect. Common sayings are rarely accurate.
Subscription services don't cost more, they change how we pay. Humans have an emotional attachment to objects and see paying for an object differently than they see paying for a service. But a service often has higher value at equal or lower cost. If we let computers decide what's best financially for us, they'd normally pick subscription models - because over the long haul they cost less in most cases (if they don't, that vendor's products stop being competitive.)
And some services, like Unifi, have NO monthly costs if you have any existing infrastructure. If anything, they've outright lowered costs compared to traditional solutions.
20 years ago my router didn't cost me anything after the inital purpose. But if you're a vendor like Netgear - you're not going to offer cloud controller to home users at no extra fees - you're either going to raise the cost for hardware to offset the cost of the cloud service or your going to charge end users a monthly fee for it.
It's like cameras you can buy - included in the prices is live streaming - but if you want to store that video for later viewing, that's an extra fee - that's the nickel and diming I'm talking about.
Now - I realize that 20 years ago (for many) that wasn't really an option, so this new charge is a whole new feature - aka value - they didn't have before. But it's just one more thing we get to spend money on.
I'm trying to think of a subscription service I pay for where I save money compared to what that service replaced - that it itself wasn't already a subscription service.
Cable is easy for me to look at. My cable bill was around $130+ (internet was another $100 - yah no competition).
My new streaming servers:
Hulu - $13.90
Netflix - $15.49 (my actual cost is $6.50 because subsidized by T-mo)
Disney+ - $4.42 (purchased 36 months upfront for $159)
AmazonPrime - $11.58/m - paid yearly $139Total monthly - $36.40 Savings over over $90/m compared to what I paid for cable. Now that said - I did increase my internet to $150 vs $100, so new actual costs are more like $86.40, savings of $43/m compared to cable days - and a hell of a lot more value, as Scott said because I can use these services anywhere I can get internet (or nearly so).
But again - I'm trying to think of another thing I subscribe to today where I save money compared to the other way.
Well - now that I think about it - my wife has subscribed to food boxes over the past 5 years - we've gone through at least 4 companies, normally keeping them for 4-8 months, then stopping for whatever reason. But I can tell you, the cost of those boxes is way more the cost of the food in them if I just go to the store and buy it - plus the portions don't leave any left overs. sooo cost savings - pretty sure that's a negative.
-
@JaredBusch said in AP's geared toward home use?:
For home use, not being setup like a business, you use the mesh router setups on the market today.
From Ubiquiti, it is the AMPLIFI line
From TP-LINK it is called Deco
Home users should never have business gear setup unless they are a hobbyist or something.
I completely agree - business class stuff is way to challenging for most home users...
In Scott's listed example - those home users are personal of businesses he has relationships with... and from the sounds of it - they are offering to support, at least to a limited degree, the home users for free.
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
I'm looking for recommendations for APs - yes APs not routers for home use.
Something that doesn't require a remote controller - though I suppose a controller setup by the vendor would be OK - basically a solution where the user doesn't have to worry about the controller.
I agree that a controller is not needed for a few APs.
It shouldn't be a problem to configure a couple of APs manually - not as long as the APs support it. If that is what you want.
We've used d-link in the past with good results. I've used tp-link media converters, poe injectors and a few of their other products so I'd look into tp-link for APs as well.
I've only used d-link's and tp-link's business products though, not their consumer products.
-
@Pete-S said in AP's geared toward home use?:
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
I'm looking for recommendations for APs - yes APs not routers for home use.
Something that doesn't require a remote controller - though I suppose a controller setup by the vendor would be OK - basically a solution where the user doesn't have to worry about the controller.
I agree that a controller is not needed for a few APs.
When I said - the user shouldn't have to worry about the controller, I meant they shouldn't have to setup the system that makes the controller work - I'm completely for a controller in a more than 1 AP situation, which is common in the home users I support.
It shouldn't be a problem to configure a couple of APs manually - not as long as the APs support it. If that is what you want.
We've used d-link in the past with good results. I've used tp-link media converters, poe injectors and a few of their other products so I'd look into tp-link for APs as well.
I've only used d-link's and tp-link's business products though, not their consumer products.
yeah - TP-Link is on the radar for me to look at.
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
@Pete-S said in AP's geared toward home use?:
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
I'm looking for recommendations for APs - yes APs not routers for home use.
Something that doesn't require a remote controller - though I suppose a controller setup by the vendor would be OK - basically a solution where the user doesn't have to worry about the controller.I agree that a controller is not needed for a few APs.
When I said - the user shouldn't have to worry about the controller, I meant they shouldn't have to setup the system that makes the controller work - I'm completely for a controller in a more than 1 AP situation, which is common in the home users I support.
OK, so it's not for yourself then. Got it.
-
@JaredBusch said in AP's geared toward home use?:
Home users should never have business gear setup unless they are a hobbyist or something.
I say the opposite. Most consumer gear (not IT, in all categories) is designed to take advantage of people not doing their research and not understanding how to evaluate products. "Consumer gear" generally costs more and delivers less.
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
20 years ago my router didn't cost me anything after the inital purpose. But if you're a vendor like Netgear - you're not going to offer cloud controller to home users at no extra fees - you're either going to raise the cost for hardware to offset the cost of the cloud service or your going to charge end users a monthly fee for it.
So use a vendor like unifi from whom it is free. Once again... if you go consumer, you'll get burned. It's a standard mantra. "Consumer" is just code for "doesn't do their due diligence."
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
It's like cameras you can buy - included in the prices is live streaming - but if you want to store that video for later viewing, that's an extra fee - that's the nickel and diming I'm talking about.
That's not nickle and diming. That's providing very expensive additional services that you don't need. You are free to do that on your own, but that would cost more, right? So it's the opposite of nickle and diming. It's incremental savings.
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
But it's just one more thing we get to spend money on.
Right, something that you never, ever refer to as nickle and diming. N&D is when you keep getting people to pay small amounts for the functionality to make something that seems low cost end up high.
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
Well - now that I think about it - my wife has subscribed to food boxes over the past 5 years - we've gone through at least 4 companies, normally keeping them for 4-8 months, then stopping for whatever reason. But I can tell you, the cost of those boxes is way more the cost of the food in them if I just go to the store and buy it - plus the portions don't leave any left overs. sooo cost savings - pretty sure that's a negative.
You are comparing wholly different products there. That's not subscription vs. purchase, at all. That's food boxing and prep vs. do it yourself.
This is the problem most people have, they struggle to identify products vs subscriptions and evaluate other things that are not actually related. You could do food boxes without a subscription and I guarantee it would have a very different price structure than just shopping at the grocery store.
Here is a better example... corporate phones. The problem is that when we purchase things, we generally get them without service or with limited service. When we get things with subscriptions, we generally get them with extreme levels of service.
Bottom line, subscription vs. purchase is never a concern. Ever. Those are pricing models and only matter if you have cash flow concerns or inflation concerns. Period. End of story.
Everything that people actually care about is "what comes with either." Typically subscriptions include support and updates. Typically straight purchases do not. Few people manage to evaluate how much they pay in updates, support, service, etc. and try to compare the cost of buying vs. monthly and never actually compare the same items.
Like your food box... the subscription is mostly for the selection, prep, and delivery. But you compared the cost of buying food... which is not the service being provided. That's why people can't tell that often, there is better value in subscriptions if you need the services that come with it.
