They rate them like "good for basic networking" or "great for streaming HD video and gaming". Is this a way of misleading advertisement (to get someone to think just because they game they need this router instead of a basic one)? I mean yeah it'd be great for those things (streaming HD video and gaming) if it were all LAN. But let's be honest, most households are usually in the 2-10 Mbps range. No one has 100-1,000 Mbps (no typical residential home). So that means no matter how fast your LAN, your Internet connection is going to be the final determinate on how fast your connection is. So wouldn't any router technically do for gaming or hd video (like of the linksys lineup example)? Or like I said earlier, am I missing something?
Update: I also realize there are physical things like better wireless range or gigabit Ethernet that would make buying router A more expensive than router B. I can also understand the web configuration page having more features available as well. But I still think a lot of it's a lie.
When I purchase a router I go first by the physical specs (hard LAN speed, number of ports, wireless antenna number and size, etc.), then I check out the software settings options. I could care less if it is labeled for basic home use, or streaming, or gaming.
Right of course. I was meaning that it's something they leave out. Like when they say "It's great for streaming HD video". You could say "Over what network". LAN of course. In the end, it ultimately depends on your Internet connection speed (well, your computer too). So yeah, excellent marketing indeed.
So then I was right? In the end, there's nothing deeper than what they're advertising. Most routers are quite similar (other than antenna range, type of LAN ports, and firmware features).