Posted by: @drei

↑

Oops, saw the reply from Josephiah

I am unable to delete my post, but will leave it here for the photos. The question still remains, if it is an attempt at staying alive, or actually shutting down.

Once administrators are called in the Directors of the company lose control, so it matters not what their intent was, its the administrator that is in control.

As I understand it the first duty of an administrator to the creditors, which the administrator is expected to discharge but first attempting to find a way that the organisation continues as a going concern, in order that its debts can eventually be paid.  Often this actually happens because the creditors agree to take a 'haircut' to save the company, along with restructuring/partial/full take over etc.

If the administrator concludes that this is not possible to save the company or that to do so would leave the creditors worse off, then it must liquidate the assets in the way which maximises the dividend (ie the % in the pound paid on debts).

Having both worked for a company that went into administration, and on two occasions been in a contractual relationship with a company that went into administration (they were doing construction work) I can tell you that its a brutal process!

Perplexity AI says this

In the UK, administration is an insolvency process for a company that cannot pay its debts, designed to give it protection from creditors while an insolvency practitioner takes control and tries to achieve the best outcome. The main goals are to rescue the business if possible, or else get a better result for creditors than liquidation would.

Posted by: @bobflux

↑

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...

Just catching up on the thread.

I think GivEnergy is testing the boundaries here to see how far it can go, and what customers will tolerate.

I work in IT, and one of the questions I have always raised when implementing cloud-based solutions is this: what happens if a customer ever wants to retrieve their data, regain full control, or move away from the provider? In practice, that is often far more difficult than people expect. At best, you may find third-party tools or specialist support, usually at significant cost.

That is exactly why I have always been cautious about anything that depends entirely on cloud access. With streaming services, content comes and goes. With software platforms, you often do not truly own what you paid for in the traditional sense. The same applies across games, media, and software generally, which is why I have always preferred products I can store, use, and retain independently wherever possible.

If GivEnergy wanted a subscription-based model similar to leasing, then it should have been structured more like hardware-as-a-service from the outset. That model already exists widely in the SME world, where equipment is leased and the ongoing fee reflects the fact that the provider retains ownership and responsibility.

What does not sit right is asking customers to pay the full upfront capital cost of the hardware, and then later layering a subscription on top just to retain core functionality, support, updates, warranty dependence, or practical usability. 

We are moving into a world where consumers are increasingly told they “own” products, while in reality access, functionality, and long-term usefulness remain dependent on someone else’s cloud, terms, and business model. That is the real issue here.

The best example of where we are heading, and this is not conspiracy crap, is Black Mirror Season 7 Episode 1 "Common People". This is exactly what our future looks like.

The administration talk all sounds quite bad, so if the GivEnergy situation does end up with the cloud app ceasing to exist and the end of GivEnergy support/updates etc, what are the other options available us whilst continuing to use the same kit? I have looked briefly at Solar Assistant (a raspberry pi based software that connects to the inverter via wifi or ETH cable) however frustratingly that doesn't seem to support GivEnergy inverters.

Others similar products that Google AI suggested for GivEnergy 3rd party monitoring:

• Monitor for GivEnergy (Android App)
• Home Assistant (GivTCP) - raspberry pi

Has anyone had any success using a 3rd party system instead of the cloud based app, and are they difficult to set up? Any recommendations?

@dean-royston I have just downloaded this App, but dont know what it is like, but it maybe worth a look                                         

Android Givenergy Inverter Monitor App

some people are buying cheap tablets just for this app, or is that one of the ones you are talking about...if so, Sorry!

hey @judith, which “open” battery systems might be on a potential future shortlist?

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

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.

 

Unfortunately these have been around for a very long time. They will all try and get away with murder if they could.

I worked for a "decent" company based in Central London, had Tony Blair and other celebrities pop around, but one of their side business generating money was dummy call boxes, the ones that used to do silent calls, so that people would call back and charge them for the privilege. They also used to provide chat based services on Vodafone, and would employ people to initiate chats with customers not using that service.. devious.

Another one that used to claim ESOL grants from the government, by running courses, and forcing people onto the ESOL ones to boost their numbers. They even went as far as to place job vacancies, get candidates in, and put them on the ESOL courses as a way for "assessing". They were also offering commission to their "trainers", based on sign-ups.

I had friends working for both, and they didn't care about the practices, as long as they kept getting paid.

As long as grants are around, so are the scammers. I bet that all of the ECO4 grant companies that dissolved, have owners that have 100 different business, as that's their business, to scam and generate as much money as possible, or short term business maximum gain. What about all the PPE and Covid travel check companies? Millions in revenue.

Sorry, going on a different tangent.

GivEnergy is obviously NOT one of those. They are unfortunately one of the few companies that had/have a really good product, but poor management and poor customer service. Think Bulldog Communications back in the day, pioneering high speed residential internet, they were doing 8 MB and testing 20 MB, when most were still doing 512kbpsto 1MB maximum. Once more, I had friends working in the sales side, which was HUUUGE in comparison with the customer service and NOC side (where I was working), and they used to offer big commission for sign-ups, so sales tactics were very aggressive. Problem was, they were signing up so many customer, that they couldn't take care of, and investing a lot of their revenue into the hardware instead of improving existing infrastructure and investing into customer service, so eventually customer service fell dramatically, and everyone else just cough up to them, especially with cable offering 100 MB. Cable & Wireless (C&W) acquired them but failed to do anything on the residential side, just inheriting a whole bunch of unhappy customers. I hated to see how poorly the company was managed.

GivEnergy and Bulldog Telecommunications are making the same mistake, taking a strong product and then damaging customer trust through poor decisions and poor support.

Posted by: @1066

↑

@dean-royston I have just downloaded this App, but dont know what it is like, but it maybe worth a look                                         

Android Givenergy Inverter Monitor App

some people are buying cheap tablets just for this app, or is that one of the ones you are talking about...if so, Sorry!

 

Interesting, I am unable to get it:

@drei Yes, that is why some people are buying cheap tablets just for this App 😊

@dean-royston Yes, local control is absolutely possible either via the Android app that others have mentioned, or using GivTCP with Home Assistant. The latter is a bit technical, but there are excellent step by step tutorials/videos out there to help. The big benefit of going to HA is using Predbat, open source software which optimises your battery schedule based on solar forecast, your usage habits, and your smart tariff, and can also integrate EV charging if you have it. I've been using it for a couple of years, and it's great.

I understand that this afternoon GivEnergy have given formal notice they have filed a Notice of Intention to Appoint Administrators (Entering administration)

@pressure I read about it a couple of days ago. Victron is one and I can’t remember the others. When I refind the post I’ll reply more fully. I am no expert!