The TP-Link "crap" I've bought has been bottom priced and dependable.

Why by expensive routers, repeaters, etc when you can get a TP-Link for $20 that lasts for years and if it breaks... you spend another $20 to get the newest version... AND you've still spent less than the alternatives?

I do spend the extra where warranted... but TP-Link is top notch "crap" in my book.

I like their 16-port dumb gigabit switches... they work quite well and they don't cost a fortune.

Really? I've found the opposite. TP-Link has managed to match recent Ubiquiti's on performance and beaten them on price, but hasn't tried to ram a bunch of useless cloud crap down my throat when all I want is a simple AP.

TP-Link actually really isn't that crappy for the price point. Which was the gist of my entire statement. For sub-$100 you can get Routers that will keep up with (in most metrics) $200+ routers. Yes, these are generally pretty cheap and they may crap out sooner than some other brands but if you compare them to the same routers in the same price class I would be shocked if they were not considered at the top of their class.

That all being said, my entire home network is Ubiquiti. So we don't disagree on which is better of the two brands.

Ubnt doesn't respond to security reports, violates the GPL, abandons product lines without warning while continuing to sell them, and sells underpowered devices that don't support basic functionality. But they are really cheap!

I believe the reason they continue selling them is so that companies with existing deployments can expand them with the same gear that already works for them. It's the same for most enterprise-oriented hardware.

What would you suggest instead?