Google WiFi (Two-Unit System) - €90 [Currys]

Basq

Mileage may vary here as it's a clearance item but looks to be good value this..

It's the two unit system, which isn't on the website, but it's €30 cheaper than buying one: https://www.currys.ie/ieen/computing-accessories/networking/whole-home-wi-fi-systems/google-wifi-whole-home-system-single-unit-10161574-pdt.html



Seem to be well reviewed too: https://www.techradar.com/reviews/google-wifi (bear in mind, this review is only 7 days old so potentially older model).

jamesozzie

Is that in a particular store? It's not that price online

Basq

Just clearance so store specific I'd say.

sweetie

They don't even have the twin pack in their system according to lady I spoke with.

long_b

Basq wrote: »

Just clearance so store specific I'd say.

Where was this Basq?

dhaughton99

sweetie wrote: »

They don't even have the twin pack in their system according to lady I spoke with.

In the UK, Google Wifi comes with a two unit set costing £229.

A single Google Wifi unit can be had for $129 (£129, AU$199). Google promises that three Wifi Points can cover up to 4,500 square feet (418 square meters) in a home.

ablelocks

Have one in my hand - was planning on a mesh system, but this is AC 1200 - is that fairly basic? Others are 2200 or 3000?

The high horse brigade

ablelocks wrote: »

Have one in my hand - was planning on a mesh system, but this is AC 1200 - is that fairly basic? Others on shelf are 2200 or 3000?

What brand? Google WiFi uses very decent Qualcomm radios and a quad core Arm CPU.

matzen

Bought a couple of these last year, made a huge improvement to network signal in the house. Used to be no wifi signal as soon as I stepped into back garden, but now there's a strong signal all the way at the end of garden.

ablelocks

The high horse brigade wrote: »

What brand? Google WiFi uses very decent Qualcomm radios and a quad core Arm CPU.

This Google WiFi in my hand -

I've seen Tp link and linksys with ac2200 and 3000

Just want to know if this is worth it at 90 really - I'll be getting fibre soon

ablelocks

The high horse brigade wrote: »

What brand? Google WiFi uses very decent Qualcomm radios and a quad core Arm CPU.

This Google WiFi in my hand -

I've seen Tp link and linksys with ac2200 and 3000

Just want to know if this is worth it at 90 really - I'll be getting fibre soon

clevtrev

ablelocks wrote: »

This Google WiFi in my hand -

I've seen Tp link and linksys with ac2200 and 3000

Just want to know if this is worth it at 90 really - I'll be getting fibre soon

in which shop?

ablelocks

Naas, only the one though, and I just bought it.

The high horse brigade

ablelocks wrote: »

This Google WiFi in my hand -

I've seen Tp link and linksys with ac2200 and 3000

Just want to know if this is worth it at 90 really - I'll be getting fibre soon

Both TP Link and Linksys (Belkin) use crappy cheap as chips Realtek wireless. Google WiFi has decent hardware comparable to the enterprise gear from Ubiquiti and Mikrotik

sweetie

None in jervis

Basq

long_b wrote: »

Where was this Basq?

Twas Sligo.. only one remaining when I left at 1pm today

uck51js9zml2yt

Basq wrote: »

Twas Sligo.. only one remaining when I left at 1pm today

You didn't buy it! I'm shocked

Basq

Yahir Fast Chauffeur wrote: »

You didn't buy it! I'm shocked

There was two when I arrived!

Basq

Very impressed with these..

.. WiFi download speed has increased by 35% and that's next to the to router.

long_b

Basq wrote: »

Very impressed with these..

.. WiFi download speed has increased by 35% and that's next to the to router.

Anyone else, I'd be mad jealous. You, in the other hand, have earned 'em.

Well wear

The high horse brigade

Basq wrote: »

Very impressed with these..

.. WiFi download speed has increased by 35% and that's next to the to router.

Get cables to them if you can. Wired backhaul will be much faster and dependable than wireless no matter the signal.

Basq

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Get cables to them if you can. Wired backhaul will be much faster and dependable than wireless no matter the signal.

Unfortunately for devices like Fire TV, this is a no-go without yet another pricey adapter.

Also one of the hotspots (the base) is plugged into the actual source router.. so the other is essentially the booster.

To be honest, I've a mixture of wired (switch at back of telly to Vodafone TV, Xbox One, Shield) and wireless (Fire TV, Hue, Echo) devices in my house.. and I've been lucky enough with them.

I got this to improve signal upstairs in the house where the FireTV / home-office is.. but I didn't expect it to improve so much next to the actual router itself (those VF routers are sh*te).

Lots of nice little features on the Google Wifi though like a) finding the best wireless channel b) guest-wi-fi network c) family wi-fi (switch off wifi during times for kids - homework, bed time - and block adult sites etc).

[Off-topic]
The biggest waste of money ever are homeplugs.. I've owned probably 3 - 4 and they all suffer the same flaw.. fantastic until they're plugged in for any longer than 5 days continually and they just heat up and start to stall / stutter on video etc. Then they're fine after being switched off until they cool down. Pain in the arse!
[/Off-topic]

Sorry for the ramble.

The high horse brigade

I meant get a cable to your second Google WiFi so it's not using mesh and has the full duplex speed of a cable

Basq

The high horse brigade wrote: »

I meant get a cable to your second Google WiFi so it's not using mesh and has the full duplex speed of a cable

Yeah, it's upstairs at the top of my hall landing so it's not particularly easy to get a cable up there.. we'll see how this goes.

The second unit will be primarily to boost a poor signal so if it's good enough for casual internet usage, streaming video and occasional video calls, I'd be happy enough.

ED E

ablelocks wrote: »

This Google WiFi in my hand -

I've seen Tp link and linksys with ac2200 and 3000

Just want to know if this is worth it at 90 really - I'll be getting fibre soon

Doesn't support vlan on wan, makes it kinda crap in Ireland.

JDxtra

Most won't need VLAN - these are great devices for the vast majority of users and they work really well.

dingding

It looks like the second one is gone in Sligo now.

Basq

dingding wrote: »

It looks like the second one is gone in Sligo now.

Yeah, was actually in there earlier and no sign of it alright.

The two units were scattered though - one was in a basket as you go in the front door with copies of Fifa 18 for the Xbox (etc) and the other was on the display I indicated there in the original post.

Still, girlfriend picked up a handy little Kindle case for 98c... not all bad!

The high horse brigade

JDxtra wrote: »

Most won't need VLAN - these are great devices for the vast majority of users and they work really well.

It's wasted in access point mode and double NAT just creates problems. What way would you suggest setting them up?

ED E

JDxtra wrote: »

Most won't need VLAN - these are great devices for the vast majority of users and they work really well.

Sky and VM are losing market share to eirvision and Vodafone tv. Both require it. + All ftth connections (another 500k possible subs). Most users keep routers several years.

JDxtra

The high horse brigade wrote: »

It's wasted in access point mode and double NAT just creates problems. What way would you suggest setting them up?

Switch providers router into bridge mode, plug one of these into a LAN port on that router and go from there. It handles everything on the LAN, and all external bound traffic is router through to the providers router. Nothing more to it than that, works a treat.

JDxtra

ED E wrote: »

Sky and VM are losing market share to eirvision and Vodafone tv. Both require it. + All ftth connections (another 500k possible subs). Most users keep routers several years.

Confused by what you are talking about here. Why would Eir/Vodafone FTTH require a router that supports VLANs?

500k "possible" subs. I can't see it getting anywhere near that level of penetration.

The high horse brigade

JDxtra wrote: »

Switch providers router into bridge mode, plug one of these into a LAN port on that router and go from there. It handles everything on the LAN, and all external bound traffic is router through to the providers router. Nothing more to it than that, works a treat.

JDxtra wrote: »

Confused by what you are talking about here. Why would Eir/Vodafone FTTH require a router that supports VLANs?

500k "possible" subs. I can't see it getting anywhere near that level of penetration.

FTTH uses a router, there is no modem to bridge. The router for FTTH must be able to tag vlan 10 on the Wan port.

bk

JDxtra wrote: »

Most won't need VLAN - these are great devices for the vast majority of users and they work really well.

In fairness, most people in Ireland don't need Wifi Mesh either.

This wifi mesh stuff is massively oversold and over marketed IMO. Sure it is great if you have an absolutely massive home, but for a typical Irish home, 3 or 4 bed, it is way overkill and can cause more issues then it solves.

A good high quality third party router, placed in a good location, high up should easily cover the vast majority of Irish homes in very strong wifi.

If you want to improve your wifi, try a new high quality router first. If you still have dead spots, only then try mesh, but use ethernet to each mesh point if you can for the best performance.

In reality, most people won't need to go beyond the high quality router, they will be blown away by it's performance. I get 500mb/s from my R7800 in most of my home!

Having said all that, this is an amazing price for these units, well done OP, just try and run ethernet to them if you can, it makes a big difference.

OldMrBrennan83

Would have bought these had I seen the thread. Very shocked they sold out so quick.

matzen

bk wrote: »

In fairness, most people in Ireland don't need Wifi Mesh either.

This wifi mesh stuff is massively oversold and over marketed IMO. Sure it is great if you have an absolutely massive home, but for a typical Irish home, 3 or 4 bed, it is way overkill and can cause more issues then it solves.

What issues? I have a 3 bed house and the Sky Q router didn't cover half of it (newly built house, thick walls). Set up a 2 unit google wifi set, one unit upstairs and the other downstairs, and wifi is working without probs and is superfast. This was over a year ago and no issues.

beauf

Basq wrote: »

....
[Off-topic]
The biggest waste of money ever are homeplugs.. I've owned probably 3 - 4 and they all suffer the same flaw.. fantastic until they're plugged in for any longer than 5 days continually and they just heat up and start to stall / stutter on video etc. Then they're fine after being switched off until they cool down. Pain in the arse!
[/Off-topic]

Sorry for the ramble.

Never had that problem with mine. Far more reliable than wifi for me.

My Wifi has always been patchy it will go 200+ beside the router to >10 two rooms away.

bk

matzen wrote: »

What issues? I have a 3 bed house and the Sky Q router didn't cover half of it (newly built house, thick walls). Set up a 2 unit google wifi set, one unit upstairs and the other downstairs, and wifi is working without probs and is superfast. This was over a year ago and no issues.

Hand off between devices as you move between rooms with a mobile device. Your laptop for instance can end up getting stuck to the access point that is further away and thus getting worse performance.

If you are using them in mesh mode (as opposed to connecting each one with ethernet), then you are cutting your wifi bandwidth in half. It works by first transmitting the packet from your laptop to the closest mesh device, then the mesh device needs to retransmit the packet to the other mesh device over wifi.

The more wifi devices you have broadcasting, the more noise and interference they cause with one another, reducing performance.

With a 3 bedroom home you really shouldn't have needed these. I agree that the Sky Q and other ISP supplied routers are rubbish, but you skipped a step. If you had simply upgraded to a good quality router and placed it better, you would most likely have covered your whole home and gotten much faster wifi speeds with no dead spots.

A high quality router would have cost you less, while giving you better performance.

It isn't that these don't work, it is that they aren't needed in most normal houses and that they have trade offs that are best avoided unless you have tried everything else first and that didn't work. These are the last thing you should try to fix your wifi, not the first.

Steps to fixing wifi:
1) Try moving your router/modem, move it to the top of a shelf near the ceiling rather near the ground where most people have it, gives much better performance. Also if you can move it to the center of your home, do.
2) If above doesn't help, upgrade to a high quality router, positioned as above.
3) If above still leaves you with dead spots, invest in ethernet connected wireless access points like Ubiquiti or TP-Links ones.
4) If you can't run ethernet to each access point, then and only then use wifi mesh. A tri-band mesh system like Netgear Orbi are better then only a dual band mesh system like Google Wifi.

Router companies love these new mesh systems, rather then selling you just one device, they are now selling you 2 or 3 at 2 or 3 times the cost. That is a lot of extra €€€ for them, so they are pushing them hard and marketing heavily, even though most people don't need them and just need a cheaper, high quality router.

matzen

bk wrote: »

Hand off between devices as you move between rooms with a mobile device. Your laptop for instance can end up getting stuck to the access point that is further away and thus getting worse performance.

If you are using them in mesh mode (as opposed to connecting each one with ethernet), then you are cutting your wifi bandwidth in half. It works by first transmitting the packet from your laptop to the closest mesh device, then the mesh device needs to retransmit the packet to the other mesh device over wifi.

The more wifi devices you have broadcasting, the more noise and interference they cause with one another, reducing performance.

With a 3 bedroom home you really shouldn't have needed these. I agree that the Sky Q and other ISP supplied routers are rubbish, but you skipped a step. If you had simply upgraded to a good quality router and placed it better, you would most likely have covered your whole home and gotten much faster wifi speeds with no dead spots.

A high quality router would have cost you less, while giving you better performance.

It isn't that these don't work, it is that they aren't needed in most normal houses and that they have trade offs that are best avoided unless you have tried everything else first and that didn't work. These are the last thing you should try to fix your wifi, not the first.

Steps to fixing wifi:
1) Try moving your router/modem, move it to the top of a shelf near the ceiling rather near the ground where most people have it, gives much better performance. Also if you can move it to the center of your home, do.
2) If above doesn't help, upgrade to a high quality router, positioned as above.
3) If above still leaves you with dead spots, invest in ethernet connected wireless access points like Ubiquiti or TP-Links ones.
4) If you can't run ethernet to each access point, then and only then use wifi mesh. A tri-band mesh system like Netgear Orbi are better then only a dual band mesh system like Google Wifi.

Router companies love these new mesh systems, rather then selling you just one device, they are now selling you 2 or 3 at 2 or 3 times the cost. That is a lot of extra €€€ for them, so they are pushing them hard and marketing heavily, even though most people don't need them and just need a cheaper, high quality router.

Sitting with my laptop upstairs it connects to the wifi unit upstairs. When I move downstairs it connects to the one in the kitchen. So can't really say that I experienced what you outline.


Another router is not an option as I won't be able to use it with the extra Sky Q box. I did try with another router (Asus) but it was then unable to use the sky q box upstairs so that was a no-go. Also tried with TP-Links wireless access points and they were rubbish. Didn't improve the signal at all. Only thing that really worked was google wifi and it actually boosted the speed/performance, it didn't slow it down.

The high horse brigade

matzen wrote: »

Sitting with my laptop upstairs it connects to the wifi unit upstairs. When I move downstairs it connects to the one in the kitchen. So can't really say that I experienced what you outline.


Another router is not an option as I won't be able to use it with the extra Sky Q box. I did try with another router (Asus) but it was then unable to use the sky q box upstairs so that was a no-go. Also tried with TP-Links wireless access points and they were rubbish. Didn't improve the signal at all. Only thing that really worked was google wifi and it actually boosted the speed/performance, it didn't slow it down.

You're quite right. TP Link are rubbish, they use crappy Realtek wireless radios. Google WiFi uses the same Qualcomm wireless chip that's in the enterprise gear made by Ubiquiti and Mikrotik.

He's not saying Google WiFi aren't good, he is saying that you most likely didn't need a mesh system just a decent router or access point located centrally. It's most likely overkill. You went from a Yaris to a Ferrari then are proclaiming the Ferrari is amazing, of course it is.

bk

matzen wrote: »

Sitting with my laptop upstairs it connects to the wifi unit upstairs. When I move downstairs it connects to the one in the kitchen. So can't really say that I experienced what you outline.

Well first of all you wouldn't know which AP your laptop is connected to, unless you go deep into the settings. It isn't something that is transparent to users on a mesh network.

Secondly, the issue is transient and can be device specific. It is a major issue for Mesh networks and enterprise installs and they are working on new wifi standards to help support better roaming and handoff, but it is still pretty imature and troublesome. Best to be avoided if possible. I can link you to a lot of articles on the subject if your interested.

matzen wrote: »

Another router is not an option as I won't be able to use it with the extra Sky Q box. I did try with another router (Asus) but it was then unable to use the sky q box upstairs so that was a no-go. Also tried with TP-Links wireless access points and they were rubbish. Didn't improve the signal at all. Only thing that really worked was google wifi and it actually boosted the speed/performance, it didn't slow it down.

Sky Q is such a pain.

Interestingly Sky Q itself is actually a mesh network itself and each Sky Q mini box acts as a mesh access point!

You could however have used a third party router with Sky Q. You just connect the router to Sky Hub and leave the Sky Q handle the minis, with everything else still connected to the new router. It is pretty much the same setup as you are most likely doing with Google Wifi.

BTW FYI You may experience interference issues between your Google Wifi and Sky Q mini's own mesh network. You basically have a lot of different wifi devices in close proximity. Your wifi bands most be quiet congested with so many devices. Watch out for that if you notice stability issues.

As THHB says, I'm not saying that Google Wifi is bad or that you personally should get rid of it, it does work, but just that it is likely overkill and unnecessary for most people. My comments are more aimed at others who might read this thread and think about getting Google Wifi. Some might need it, but most probably don't. There are other, cheaper things they can try first that are just as effective.

DermoMIO

None in Liffey valley, Blanch or Carrickmines unfortunately

randombar

I'm wondering if this is something I should add to my black Friday list, have a few google minis in the house now, Chromecasts and waiting on the new pixel. I presume having all google will make things a bit easier.

Basq

GaryCocs wrote: »

.. I presume having all google will make things a bit easier.

Not on your bank balance..

randombar

Basq wrote: »

Not on your bank balance..

Well having moved from apple it could be worse. :rolleyes:

The high horse brigade

GaryCocs wrote: »

I'm wondering if this is something I should add to my black Friday list, have a few google minis in the house now, Chromecasts and waiting on the new pixel. I presume having all google will make things a bit easier.

Do you actually need mesh?
Google WiFi are only dual band btw. There are better Tri band available like the new Eero gen 2

randombar

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Do you actually need mesh?
Google WiFi are only dual band btw. There are better Tri band available like the new Eero gen 2

I actually have a linksys at the minute and it's not bad. Decent size gaf out in the country so there are places it doesn't cover. I find issues with the tri-band with casting the the google minis, if phone is on 5 and minis are on 2.4 etc.

The high horse brigade

GaryCocs wrote: »

I actually have a linksys at the minute and it's not bad. Decent size gaf out in the country so there are places it doesn't cover. I find issues with the tri-band with casting the the google minis, if phone is on 5 and minis are on 2.4 etc.

But do you need mesh? Can you get a cable to an access point in a better position to cover these areas?

randombar

The high horse brigade wrote: »

But do you need mesh? Can you get a cable to an access point in a better position to cover these areas?

I actually have, an old router at the min, handy for the blink cameras. But wouldn't a mesh be the same thing just better?

The high horse brigade

GaryCocs wrote: »

I actually have, an old router at the min, handy for the blink cameras. But wouldn't a mesh be the same thing just better?

No. Mesh is the new buzz word, it's all marketing. With mesh the link between them is wireless. Wireless is half duplex, it can either send or receive not both at the same time like a cable. Since you already have a cable you are better to use hard wired access points like a Ubiquiti Unifi
Ubiquiti Networks UAP-AC-LR 175.7 x 43.2 mm 2.4-5 GHz 802.11ac Dual-Radio Long Range Access Point - White https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B016K5A06C/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_H5JZBbTV6ZER1

randombar

The high horse brigade wrote: »

No. Mesh is the new buzz word, it's all marketing. With mesh the link between them is wireless. Wireless is half duplex, it can either send or receive not both at the same time like a cable. Since you already have a cable you are better to use hard wired access points like a Ubiquiti Unifi
Ubiquiti Networks UAP-AC-LR 175.7 x 43.2 mm 2.4-5 GHz 802.11ac Dual-Radio Long Range Access Point - White https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B016K5A06C/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_H5JZBbTV6ZER1

A boards first, I've been talked out of buying something I didn't need anyway (Usually it would be being delivered right now).

Have a ubiquiti at work all right, great pieces of kit.