Google Router Rumors 267
An anonymous reader writes "There's a new rumor that Google is developing its own router. The company won't comment on the story, but it's been in the hardware business for a while and expanded its presence with Android. If Larry Ellison can go halvsies with HP on a server, then Eric Schmidt should certainly be able to make Cisco nervous."
If they do (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they include sensible and up-to-date standards and protocols. I'm thinking about the possibilities of the interface of the tomato firmware and importantly, inclusion of ipv6 support. If we want this to happen in this generation we need to get software support on at least basic networking devices(thinking of routers and OSes).
Google was just trying to save money (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that Google develops tech internally that is extremely good at solving their problems, but they don't always apply well outside of Google. Protocol Buffers aren't exactly obsoleting XML and from all indications they probably never will. The Google router will probably be super fast and simple, but lack a whole bunch of the more obscure features. The problem is that there's someone out there for each one of those obscure features, and if you don't support it your product won't even make it in the door. This is a problem Juniper runs into a lot, they have good and fast hardware, but the only thing it does is route.
In fact the article points out that Google's router is most likely to compete directly with Juniper instead of Cisco.
Re:one more reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
why procrastinate? the CCNA really isn't that hard of a cert to get.. the NP's are difficult.. and no mater what google does.. if you have an IE you will be able to find a job
Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (Score:5, Insightful)
And all I can say is that it's about time someone put pressure on the home & enterprise networking hardware companies. What a stagnant squabbling market that has become.
The fine article seems to be down, so I can't tell what it claims. But I suppose the "Google Router", if it exists, will put an end to Juniper and Cisco in the same way as Bigtable does for Oracle, PostgreSQL etc.: it doesn't because the technology is so fundamental for Google's success that they simply don't share it.
Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple solution -- quit buying crappy (i.e. Linksys) routers. I've used Netgear routers for 10+ years, and have never had to reboot or replace a broken router.
Re:doing it right (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it's that huge of a hill for Google. Remember the iPod? Came from nowhere. Google has a pretty good brand name. If their product slips out and performs well, there is no reason to believe that it won't be accepted as fast and widely as other Google products.
Re:Google was just trying to save money (Score:2, Insightful)
Android (Score:4, Insightful)
2. it's open source
3. it's open source
and probably some other reasons too [iphone-ipod.org].
Not in "hardware business," won't sell routers (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody seems to be assuming that these new routers will be for sale. That's obviously not going to happen — there just isn't room in the marketplace for a new player, even if that player is Google. Breaking into a new hardware marketplace is hard. You have to develop sales channels, create a hardware support organization, set up an operations organization to manage production, etc. etc.
I know about these things because for the last couple of years my job has been to document some of Sun's hardware products. Before that I mostly documented software, and the shear complexity of designing, building, distributing, selling and supporting actual physical products still boggles my mind. At product team meetings I sometimes feel at sea, even though the technical concepts I have to deal with are actually much simpler than those I faced when I was on software product teams. The logistics are just mind boggling.
Google isn't set up to be "in the hardware business". They make their own servers because there are no manufacturers that are able to meet their specialized needs. Now they seem to have decided that their routers also require specialized in-house designs. They haven't tried to sell these servers to other companies, and they won't try to sell their routers. Even if they could hope to compete, it would mean building up the kind of technical bureaucracy that Google's top echelon has no interest in managing.
Hell, they don't really have a proper bureaucracy for the much simpler job of creating and distributing their software products. If they actually charged money for most of them, they'd be trouble.
And Android? How does Android count as being "in the hardware business"? Is Google selling a cell phone I haven't heard about?
Am I then only one who... (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one who read this and thought, "Hmmm, it must be time for Google to renew their support contracts with Juniper.".
"leak" a rumor about no longer needing Juniper, and watch juniper lower their support rates.
Re:TFA says Juniper is doomed. Not so fast. (Score:5, Insightful)
That really depends. For smart companies, they've sufficiently diversified their client base such that the loss of one will hurt but not cripple. Some clients, however, just become so damn big and a company simply can't get enough other clients or the increase the volume from the other existing clients high enough to balance against that one mega-client. Once one client represents a massive percentage of your revenue and the loss of that client would force you into immediate emergency restructuring in the hopes of survival, then yes, one client a demise can potentially make.
Re:doing it right (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but Apple had an incentive and a business model that consumers could live with. I'm not sure that you can say the same thing for a Google router. There's no particular business model other than spying on the owner and I doubt that many people would go along with that without something in it for them.
Re:TFA says Juniper is doomed. Not so fast. (Score:3, Insightful)
The questions really are: how many different types of ASICs and boards are in those routers plus how many of the ASICs cannot be replaced with FPGAs and how many of the different board types cannot be rationalized to a smaller number of types? Remember that Google probably doesn't need the level of flexibility offered across Juniper's product range. It is clear that Google already has expertise in chip design -- it's not hard to find board design expertise (either in-house or outsourced).
You mean Juniper should be worried (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like with the 10G switches, this has all the earmarks of something for purely internal use rather than something they're planning to sell. That means their current vendor, which is Juniper according to TFA, loses Google as a customer, but that's about it.
If anything, Cisco should be happy that their competitor is losing business.
Re:Google was just trying to save money (Score:4, Insightful)
When you buy thousands of routers you get them customized to your exact needs and you get whatever support arrangement you desire including complete drawings and source code.
Evidence? I've never heard of Cisco/Juniper/etc. offering this.
Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (Score:2, Insightful)
No it won't.
BigTable and relational DBMS are very different - neither will replace the other in the near future.
Custom hardware at Google isn't unheard of. TFA doesn't state if the router is to be sold as a competing product or if it's just going to be used internally. It's just a rumor, don't hold your breath
Re:doing it right (Score:2, Insightful)
You are aware of the idea of selling routers, right?