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?:
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.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AP's geared toward home use?:
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.
Absolutely! And this is why from a business POV I think leasing/subscriptions is likely the best way - 1) as you already said subs typically include maintenance/support, but possibly more important 2) the business itself doesn't bauk at the cost of support/maintenance.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AP's geared toward home use?:
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.
There was zero prep other than bagging the exact ingredients - which I understand isn't zero value, but it's pretty low.
If I pay myself the same likely low wage they pay their pickers in the warehouse - go shopping and bring that stuff home - it's likely I'll still save money - including mileage on the car.The biggest value add is - what's for dinner. And the reality is - there is HUGE value in that - it's one less food discussion between my wife and I.. lol
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
@scottalanmiller said in AP's geared toward home use?:
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.
There was zero prep other than bagging the exact ingredients - which I understand isn't zero value, but it's pretty low.
If I pay myself the same likely low wage they pay their pickers in the warehouse - go shopping and bring that stuff home - it's likely I'll still save money - including mileage on the car.The biggest value add is - what's for dinner. And the reality is - there is HUGE value in that - it's one less food discussion between my wife and I.. lol
OMG, what I wouldn't pay for that benefit!
-
@Dashrender said in AP's geared toward home use?:
@scottalanmiller said in AP's geared toward home use?:
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.
Absolutely! And this is why from a business POV I think leasing/subscriptions is likely the best way - 1) as you already said subs typically include maintenance/support, but possibly more important 2) the business itself doesn't bauk at the cost of support/maintenance.
Right, it changes the mindsets in important ways. That's a human problem, again, computers would make a better decision more reliably. But when IT needs to play politics and make upper managers feel better about their costs, subscriptions often help a lot.
-
@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’ve got an amplifi and my mom has a deco. Both work really well and can easily be managed from the app. This is pretty much what I recommend to people now.
