Allow adoption by Unifi or build an Amplifi controller with advanced mode.

  • Please offer an 'advanced' mode or allow the Alien Routers (if in bridge mode, at the least) to be adopted as part of the Unifi infrastructure in the controller. I realize they're two different product lines, but offering this flexibility would increase sales on the Amplifi line for sure. Creating a kick-ass looking, high-performance wireless router that looks like it came straight out of the Matrix and not expecting 'prosumers' and network engineering geeks to want to buy it and customize it is objectively the wrong idea. I am about to return my two Alien Routers and get some less-exciting Wifi 6 Unifi APs (if they're ever available again) because I have no way to control create a simple segregated IOT network, no IDS/IPS, or any way to get decent metrics, event logging, etc.

  • While it would be cool, there's no real point. AmpliFi is the consumer end line, and Unifi is the prosumer/professional line. They already have the UDM on the prosumer end of things which has a built in Cloud Key.

    I would love to have some sort of UDM Pro/Unifi device that has the same Alien display output on them, or a wifi device that is strictly a network monitor device. I would love to have something that can sit on my desk and show me all the same stats.

  • I think the Amplifi line is still being bought by majority of people who want advanced options.

  • Amplifi is one of my biggest disappointments of mine just because there's no way to configure it in an advanced way, although there could be.
    Had I known that I cannot even define static routes before I bought it, I would have reconsidered.
    Also, any consumer router has a lot more configuration possibilities than this one.

    I feel that this phrase "oh, but this is a consumer product" is just an excuse for not offering a complete control software package.

  • @William-Petrovics I feel the same way. I had the Alien on my desk for a few days because it looked so cool. But! I couldn't disable the DHCP server or have good control over my network with it as the router. As an AP it has great connectivity , speed, and wifi 6. I'd purchase a Unifi Wifi 6 AP if I could, but they are all out of stock everywhere.

    So options are to keep the Amiplifi as only an AP, or get a dream machine ( the only product in stock ) which will be slower and not Wifi 6.

  • Yeah @UKomrad, I ended up keeping them both. I couldn't get past the 'cool factor' enough to return them...haha. I have them both in bridge mode as access points (no DHCP server other than guest SSID DHCP server) on opposite sides of my house, connected via wired ethernet backhaul, and can see them fine within the USG-Pro console with my other devices. Day-to-day functionality-wise, I will say this works flawlessly. I am even getting ~700mb down and 40up on a wireless client on a 1GB down/50Mbps circuit with IDS/IPS enabled on my USG-Pro. I am not terribly disappointed at those numbers. I am definitely missing having accurate network metrics/analytics and granular control over the wireless clients connected to the Aliens that I would have if they were Unifi APs :/. But, I am happy with my setup now for the most part. I did purchase a Unifi wifi 6 AP (lite) a few months ago, but haven't unboxed it yet.



  • I'm glad they are working out for you. I decided to return mine replace it with a Dream Machine and NanoHD AP. They do look cool and have great Wifi speeds, so I had to decide what was more valuable to me at the moment. Control and statistics won.

  • The lack of configuration control and the lack of ability to integrate within my existing UniFi infrastructure is definitely a disappointment for anyone familiar with the Ubiquity line of products and the UniFi network management software. If this lack of integration was disclaimed somewhere, I missed it. Even the brand names, AmpliFi and UniFi, suggest some kind of integration or relationship but it appears there is none. I won't be investing any further in AmpliFi hardware until or unless this is corrected.

Log in to reply