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.
-
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.
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
I completely agree - business class stuff is way to challenging for most home users...
Of course it is. But so is the consumer gear. The one is designed to make it cheap and effective to get support, the other is not.
For this EXACT reason, business gear for consumers.
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
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.
Nope, just customers who want their stuff to work and don't want to pay too much. Just smart consumers is all.
No free support. How did you get any of that wrong info from what I said?
-
@Pete-S said in AP's geared toward home use?:
I agree that a controller is not needed for a few APs.
No, not needed, just makes monitoring, support, and updates easier. I think its extra important for consumers who will never understand or remember updates and if things stop updating, will just never know.
Controllers are extra beneficial for home users.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AP's geared toward home use?:
@Pete-S said in AP's geared toward home use?:
I agree that a controller is not needed for a few APs.
No, not needed, just makes monitoring, support, and updates easier. I think its extra important for consumers who will never understand or remember updates and if things stop updating, will just never know.
Controllers are extra beneficial for home users.
Your typical consumer can't manage any of it, regardless of controller or not.
They're best off having someone else supporting them. Like they do with their car service and repairs and most anything else that requires a technician.
Heck, most people don't even know the distinction between wifi and internet or sending messages over the cellular network versus internet.
-
@Pete-S said in AP's geared toward home use?:
Your typical consumer can't manage any of it, regardless of controller or not.
That's my point exactly. It all comes down to getting them the best, cheapest, outside support.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AP's geared toward home use?:
@Pete-S said in AP's geared toward home use?:
Your typical consumer can't manage any of it, regardless of controller or not.
That's my point exactly. It all comes down to getting them the best, cheapest, outside support.
I agree.
In this case I thought it was for @Dashrender himself though. Hence no controller needed.In all other cases, the best option is what the the ones that are going to support it wants. Cloud controller, on-prem controller whatever.
-
So that's why I like the controller based model for consumers. First, an assumption, we are talking about a consumer that has engaged an IT pro like... well any of us on the thread.
So given that assumption, this isn't a question for "what should a consumer do that's trying to do it fully on their own", that would potentially result in a different answer. One that starts with "don't." lol
But the starting point is a consumer who is asking for advice and support from real IT pro(s). So that means we are talking about a subset of potential consumer customers.
What we want to do here is:
- Keep cost low.
- Keep the customer secure.
- Make it easy (cheap) to provide great support.
- Provide the best experience for the customer.
- Make it effective to provide additional support services.
Having a system that has a free, hosted controller meets all of these really well. No real additional cost if the IT firm is providing a shared controller for clients. Cost is essentially zero and if they, like us, use that internally anyway, it can be actually zero.
Having remote monitoring and update means the customer can rest assured that someone that knows what they are doing is handling updates, even if only automated and just alerting if it fails. That's fine. That's way more than any other home gets.
Anytime that they decide to get support, the IT pro / firm has ready access to their systems at maximum speed, with minimum effort. That means better service at lower cost.
Everything is clean and out of site giving the consumer peace of mind and nothing to maintain themselves.
Everyone wins. Better gear (typically), better design, better support, lower effort for everyone. All other options either make the consumer have to do things, make them have to pay for things, or make support and monitoring difficult or costly.
-
@Pete-S said in AP's geared toward home use?:
@scottalanmiller said in AP's geared toward home use?:
@Pete-S said in AP's geared toward home use?:
Your typical consumer can't manage any of it, regardless of controller or not.
That's my point exactly. It all comes down to getting them the best, cheapest, outside support.
I agree.
In this case I thought it was for @Dashrender himself though. Hence no controller needed.In all other cases, the best option is what the the ones that are going to support it wants. Cloud controller, on-prem controller whatever.
I'd say not on-prem. They'd only want that if their goal was to make access unnecessarily difficult to increase support costs. For the customer, that wouldn't be a good option.
