Posted by: @judith

↑

This is the web page, similar announcement https://givenergy.com/paid-givenergy-tier-announced/  

They haven’t said how much they want to charge!

Rather, they have asked US what WE are prepared to pay!

Of course.

Compare:

When you lease a car, you don't own it. The leaser foots the capital expense (the car) and according to the contract, is responsible for many things like repairing the car and maintaining it. You are responsible for paying a monthly fee and taking good care of the car. You don't own the car, but it's fine, since you pay for a service of having a working car at your disposal.

Now we experience Version 2.0 of this, with "smart devices" tied to the cloud... You foot the capital expense by buying the product. Once warranty expires, you pay for maintenance. In fact, you pay for everything, yet you "own" the device but you don't.

It kinda looks like the previous "car leasing" service business model, but in this case, the company collects your monthly fee with no investment in capital, since you were the one to pay for that. So it is in fact completely different.

"Smart devices" tied to the cloud would make sense in a contractual agreement similar to leasing a car. You pay for a service, the company installs (at their own expense) the hardware to provide the service and it remains their property. The company operates the hardware remotely to provide the service. If the service is not provided, then you exit the contract, and the company recovers the hardware. This provides all the correct incentives to the company to provide good service. The cloud subscription does the opposite, provides all the wrong incentives, since if the service sucks and you exit the contract, you paid for all the hardware anyway...

@bobflux Yep.  Same is happening in the ASHP world where, in my own case, I 'own' my heat pump but rely entirely on Octopus for the means of managing it, ie an app.  

And if Octopus go under, which I doubt but you never know, I am well and truly screwed as they also installed my GE kit.  

Posted by: @kevh

↑

@bobflux Yep.  Same is happening in the ASHP world where, in my own case, I 'own' my heat pump but rely entirely on Octopus for the means of managing it, ie an app.  

And if Octopus go under, which I doubt but you never know, I am well and truly screwed as they also installed my GE kit.  

I bought a Sonos soundbar some years ago.  I returned it after I read the licence conditions (which was only practical after opening the box).  I dont mind if non-essential features are nuked when the company goes bankrupt (or any time at their whim) but I definitely do mind if core functionality is in this situation.  For now, at least, we still have a choice with most products, although Im not sure how much longer that choice will survive.  Hopefully the EU will eventually get onto this and regulate against it.

This for me raises the question of how economically sustainable a lot of renewable suppliers are. I’ve held off making a big investment in batteries because I haven’t been comfortable with long term support. Givenergy are the current example, but I really wonder about Sigenergy - great kit but they’re still and expensive start up whose product relies on cloud services.

Im looking at Victron because they’re a solid, properly profitable company with a track record. But “unbundled” solutions are a lot less convenient than integrated systems… 

Posted by: @pressure

↑

This for me raises the question of how economically sustainable a lot of renewable suppliers are. I’ve held off making a big investment in batteries because I haven’t been comfortable with long term support. Givenergy are the current example, but I really wonder about Sigenergy - great kit but they’re still and expensive start up whose product relies on cloud services.

Im looking at Victron because they’re a solid, properly profitable company with a track record. But “unbundled” solutions are a lot less convenient than integrated systems… 

Its a reasonable question to ask of any new technology, any technology that is being subsidised, and any technology that is being superceeded (who would have imagined that Kodak would go bust - fossil car makers, maybe even Ford, to follow I imagine)

There are definitely a class of installers, I call them grant harvesters, who will go bust when the grants evaporate.  It has been alleged that some ECO4 installers did that when the announcement was made that this would be discontinued, even though the announcement was 4 months in advance of the deadline which was then extended by 9 months.  If the allegations are true then going bust was part of their (covert) business plan all along, which I personally suspect applies to quite a few grant harvesters.  Withhold taxes, take out loans, pay yourself a load of dosh, go bust at the expense of the taxpayer and the banks (ie, in the end at our expense) walk away with lots of cash.  Simples!  

Victron have been in the inverter business for a very long time, most visibly, at least to me, for boats.  I dont understand why they aren't more visible in the domestic sphere.

There's a huge amount of discussion on the GivEnergy forum about this topic, as you might imagine.  See

https://community.givenergy.cloud/d/6772-givenergy-moving-to-monthly-subscription-for-cloud-access

I have GE kit worth about £12k installed in 2023, which has worked well in conjunction with solar panels.  My take on the situation is as follows:

1  We are all gradually becoming hooked on remote "cloud based" support which offers great convenience when coupled with personal devices that let us control devices in clever ways.

2  These cloud services are usually part of the sales pitch and it's easy to overlook the fact that they depend on the continuing financial prosperity of the manufacturer.  A good many suppliers have already closed or modified their support, including such giants as Google when they took over Nest?  So size and profitability is no gtee of good behaviour.

3  Other examples: my Mitsi ASHP uses MELcloud, and my Smart#1 also gets OTA support and updates from Germany / China.

What to do about the GE email?

1  I think this is a genuine way to try to maintain support for the GE kit, rather than a money-grab to boost profits.  So I believe that they need to make it self financing.

2  In fact it is in everyone's interest that the cloud services be somewhat independent of the company for protection in exactly this kind of situation.  

3  GE could just have imposed a charge without consultation - at least they are trying to prepare the ground somewhat which I think is a sensible approach.

4  Threatening them won't help - if they go bust paying out claims no-one wins  - except the lawyers.

5  If GE fails it is possible that a 3rd party will step in - but I can't imagine them offering cloud support for free, so owners would be in the same position of needing to pay after a suffering a great deal of disruption.

6  My installer did a great job - I have no intention of chasing them, it's not their fault.

So I plan to respond as follows:

1  I am disappointed that GE former management has allowed the company to get into this situation.

2  I understand that cloud support has a cost and therefore a monthly fee may need to be imposed.

3  I would be prepared to pay a reasonable monthly fee, on the following conditions

3.1  A separate cloud business is established within the company, under a new Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) legal entity

3.2  Funding for the SPV from subscriptions should be ring-fenced and not used for other GE activities

3.3  GE should continue to support the SPV with staff and financial resources for a reasonable period until it is established

3.4  GE should take advice from professional advisers who are briefed to ensure that the charges are fair and adequate to maintain the service.

3.5  In the event that GE ceases to trade the objective should be that the SPV should be capable of continuing as a stand-alone operation or perhaps being sold as a going concern to another company.

There is also discussion about whether it should be possible to manage the equipment locally.  I can see the attractions of this for the technically minded, but the vast majority will not want to do this and I think it's a side issue.  There are rumours that GE has 50,000 installations and probably only 1% will be aware of or have any interest in the forums, where local control is so hotly debated as a solution.

So I think a cloud-based, paid-for solution is the way to go.  Failing that, the kit will stop working and a lot of expensive and useful hardware will be heading for the skip.

@downfield I'm not a givenergy customer but I agree with the principles.  I think this discussion is a stark reminder that free services can never truly be free.  We have become used to 'free' cloud based services that in reality are funded by data harvesting ('if the product is free, you are the product').  The reality is that if a service that costs money to provide doesn't somehow generate revenue, it must eventually either cease, charge or be subsidised by the state or a benevolent benefactor.

@jamespa thanks for your thoughtful response.  i have posted similarly on the GE forum and am expecting a lot of disagreement!

It's all part of the learning process.  We are at the beginning of the information revolution and it's easy to forget that the model is still evolving.  It's the "bleeding edge" and we should expect some discomfort.

I hadn't thought of it before this but I really think that a legally separate cloud service could become a selling point for manufacturers going forward. Of course everyone wants it to be free but as the business failures mount up buyers will start to realise that they need to pay as a form of insurance against unforeseen future events which would otherwise lead to their capital investment becoming worthless.

You could of course envisage the device continuing to work locally without a subscription but without the benefits of remote access.

As you say, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

@downfield I think that for all new business and sales then having the cloud service as a payable extra makes sense as new customers will make the decision to go with GivEnergy or go for a different supplier. However GivEnergy were happy to generate sales by using the promise to provide a free app/portal service as a USP, then they have to honour it to the customers who paid for that service as part of the product which was purchased. They used the term “Free Forever” on their literature.

I personally think that they could reduce the period that they hold for each customer or give the ability to download it prior to it expiring, but to just stop all remote monitoring and data unless you subscribe is not the way to satisfy the majority of their customers. 

As far as I could tell from their email was that yes you can access the app on your own network as a live snapshot but it will not store any data, so to analyse how well the system is running, how much you are earning on SEG and new features will all disappear.

Another concern is they haven’t given any indication on the monthly fees, and once you have subscribed, how often do they plan to increase the fees etc. Without knowing these details we cannot make a choice to go with it or push back. This all seems like a very unplanned plan.

I've been watching on the sidelines as this discussion develops since I am not myself a GivEnergy customer. As a result, there are several points starting to take shape in my mind.

Firstly, the legal aspect is quite distinct from most of the points now being discussed. As far as I am aware, and I'm no legal expert, if something is sold with a service that's advertised as "always free", that forms part of the product sold. If that service were to be made chargeable, that would change what the customer had bought and probably constitute misleading advertising. If I'm right, then for better or worse that is a constraint which GE have to accept. If I'm wrong and they do have a legal route to making the service chargeable then it's simply a constraint customers have to work with our work around. I hasten to add I'm keeping well away from any moral aspects of this point; merely laying out the legal aspect for clarity.

Secondly, I think this is more a stark reminder of the risks involved in relying on a single company without having a plan B. If the only way of controlling a GivEnergy setup was through the cloud (as is the case with some Tesla kit, I believe), your big investment in hardware is entirely reliant on the manufacturer staying in business and continuing to provide that service. The GivEnergy kit, at least, does have an alternative since local connectivity is possible so, whilst it might not suit everyone, the dependence on GivEnergy is not absolute. To my mind this is a good thing even if some of the alternatives are not as seamless as one might like.

Thirdly, there is the question of whether customers should accept the move to a paid service to help keep GivEnergy going (and collectively help others dependent on the cloud service) or let GivEnergy go under. Not being a GE customer myself, it would be inappropriate for me to weigh in with an opinion but I don't see a problem with laying out the obvious - that it hinges on whether any particular person feels saving GE is a realistic outcome or not. If it is, it may be worthwhile doing. If not, it may just be throwing good money after bad. If saving GE is not possible but a takeover by another company is likely, it's anyone's guess what the best course of action is.

@majordennisbloodnok Just for clarity; Tesla app works with iCloud and / or mobile phone direct to the clients wifi. I have checked from time to time that the mobile connection will stand up should the iCloud not be available. Regards, Toodles.