Enel X Way's JuiceBox EV Chargers About To Lose All Connectivity Features (electrek.co) 77
New submitter ae4ax writes: North American buyers of JuiceBox EVSEs (chargers) received an email today declaring the imminent closure of Enel X Way USA, LLC, the maintainers of the software infrastructure behind their EVSEs. Customer support has already shut down, and apps will be deactivated and removed by October 11, 2024. The company claims economic headwinds from lackluster EV sales and high interest rates as the motivation for the closure. Enel X Way properties outside North America are not affected, they say. "An experienced third-party firm will be appointed to manage the company's affairs and ensure that the closure is handled with the utmost care and professionalism," the company said in a statement. "The appointed firm will be responsible for managing the remaining obligations and communicating directly with customers and partners regarding the closure."
Customers will still be able to charge vehicles but all their connectivity features -- the Enel X Way app and all other Enel e-mobility apps in North America -- will stop working. Commercial charging stations will also lose functionality. "So If you own a JuiceBox, you just got nine days' warning that your home charger can no longer be configured," reports Electrek.
Electrek's Michael Bower, who uses a JuiceBox to charge his Chevy Bolt, said: "I'm disappointed that Enel X Way is removing their apps -- and thus the ability to change the amperage -- for their EVSEs. I live in a condo with a 100A panel, so the ability to lower the amperage from 40 to 32 or 16 was beneficial when charging my EV while drawing power for laundry or the central A/C in the summer. It just shows how 'smart' EVSEs are too reliant on their respective apps."
Customers will still be able to charge vehicles but all their connectivity features -- the Enel X Way app and all other Enel e-mobility apps in North America -- will stop working. Commercial charging stations will also lose functionality. "So If you own a JuiceBox, you just got nine days' warning that your home charger can no longer be configured," reports Electrek.
Electrek's Michael Bower, who uses a JuiceBox to charge his Chevy Bolt, said: "I'm disappointed that Enel X Way is removing their apps -- and thus the ability to change the amperage -- for their EVSEs. I live in a condo with a 100A panel, so the ability to lower the amperage from 40 to 32 or 16 was beneficial when charging my EV while drawing power for laundry or the central A/C in the summer. It just shows how 'smart' EVSEs are too reliant on their respective apps."
Dumb chargers are the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
I have two dumb, L2 chargers in the garage, a Bosch and a GE. No support? No problem. They just work.\
Online peeps with JuiceBox? SOL!
Friend with a ChargePoint? Issues!
Let your car manage the complicated stuff. Let the charger simply respond to the car. No app, no problem.
Re:Dumb chargers are the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
There are reasons for the charger to be smart, as well, but what's reported in the story is not a smart charger. Well, it is "their" (seller's) type of smart, not "our" (customer's) type of smart.
The "smart" smart stuff can work locally through, say, Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, not to mention other protocols which are not as well known to the general population (Z-Wave, Matter, etc). It should be easily integrated with your favorite home automation software, if you have one, or just your mobile device if that's how you roll.
Cloud connectivity, central management and all that crap should be optional and not mandatory when setting the device up.
Therefore, I have no problem with smart devices, but I do have a problem with "seller has full control, customer, not so much" smart device approach.
Re:Dumb chargers are the way to go (Score:4, Informative)
Also a good reason for "smart" EVSEs, in my opinion? Grid interactivity.
In my case, since I have a Chargepoint that can be configured to upload usage data, I took an extra step to register my unit with the electric company. If I restrict charging to an 11PM-6AM window I get that electricity 30% cheaper.
The utility also gets data that helps them plan for the future as EVs become more common.
And yes, the unit works just fine without any of that. If it loses all connectivity it just behaves like a dumb EVSE.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Let's put control panels on them with knobs/buttons where we can control them ourselves without a fscking "app"?
I don't mind having an app as an option, but specifically to prevent crap like this and essentially bricking your device...let's have a built in way to continue to control what we purchase....
Re: (Score:2)
Barbarian! Visigoth! Vandal!
Also, "anti-capitalist" since you propose removing a way for businesses to gouge money from their customers for-ever after they buy a product. Next thing you know, you'll be proposing that owning a WORM copy of some media should allow you to play it without paying today's licensing fee to today's copyright holder (regardless of if you paid a previous copyright fee to
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind having an app as an option, but specifically to prevent crap like this and essentially bricking your device...let's have a built in way to continue to control what we purchase....
That's why I specifically mentioned "Cloud connectivity, central management and all that crap should be optional and not mandatory when setting the device up".
It's how Shelly smart appliances work. You don't even need the app, you can integrate them using, say, Home Assistant directly within LAN.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dumb chargers are the way to go (Score:2)
They can't find embedded developers anymore. But mobile devs are plentiful.
Re: (Score:2)
What, put a SWITCH on the device to select amperage?
And make the device NOT SMOOTH?
Great Steve Jobs' Ghost!
Re: (Score:2)
the "protocol" used is just a PWM signal that sets the amperage in integer units. It can't really be smooth, albeit you could just use a rotary encoder with a screen showing the setting.
Re: (Score:2)
does it have to be dumb? Or can it just have local control? I have an OpenEVSE. it has a local web portal. I don't need an app, I can just load the web page.
But it also has integrations available for many home automation platforms and it has control available via MQTT.
BS (Score:5, Informative)
> "It just shows how 'smart' EVSEs are too reliant on their respective apps."
No, it shows how they are too reliant on their hard-coded servers. With proper standards and local APIs, this would not be an issue.
Re:BS (Score:5, Interesting)
It shows how poor consumer protection laws are in the US.
If this happened in the UK you would be due at least a partial refund. The percentage you get back depends on how long you have owned it and how long you would expect it to reasonably last. So say a reasonable lifespan would be 15 years, and you have owned it for 5 years, and the substantial loss of functionality means you will have to replace it as it is no longer fit for purpose, you would expect a 66.6% refund.
The refund comes from the place you bought it from. Also if you paid with credit card and it cost over £100, the credit card issuer is jointly liable so even if the retailer is gone you can claim from them.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
>If this happened in the UK you would be due at least a partial refund. The percentage you get back depends on how long you have owned it and how long you would expect it to reasonably last. So say a reasonable lifespan would be 15 years, and you have owned it for 5 years, and the substantial loss of functionality means you will have to replace it as it is no longer fit for purpose, you would expect a 66.6% refund.
This sounded exceptionally delusional by any reasonable metric compared to what's going on,
Re: (Score:1)
And I should've taken my own advice and read with greater care, because apparently it's actually, it's WORSE in UK compared to US. Mea culpa, I assumed some Common Law commonalities that aren't there, instead of reading to the end. In my defense, I wasn't willing to spend any more time debunking something already debunked even harder.
So in US you can sue to establish yourself as debtor and recoup at least some funds from ones administering the closure of the company. In UK, that option actually doesn't even
Re: (Score:1)
In UK, that option actually doesn't even exist!
That is nonsense.
You do not have to sue.
You just put up your claim to the court responsible of resolving the dissolving.
So: googling for "sue" if there is no reason to sue, obviously gives you no result.
Re: (Score:3)
You are mistaken, as ever.
The specific rule you cite only applies to things like movies where you have the movie on disc and a digital copy, and the digital copy stops working. The disc version is unaffected.
If you bought the smart charger in order to use the smart features, perhaps because charging at specific times saves you significant amounts of money, then it is no longer "fit for purpose". It's not just a nice extra function, it's core to the utility of the device. You likely already had a dumb charge
Re: (Score:1)
Your interpretation of your own laws is as delusional as your initial take. I also see you haven't noticed the continuation of the post, where I fucked up by assuming UK offered similar protections in this post.
It doesn't. It actually offers less protections than US, because this is about company going out of business. You can still sue to be a debtor of the adminstrative structure managing going out of business in US. No such option exists in UK. Your only recourse is to ask the administration of business
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK you become a debtor like any other, although consumers tend to be quite far down the list of people to get paid so you rarely get anything.
That's why I said it's a good idea to pay on credit card, so you get Section 75 protection on anything that costs over £100.
But in this case it depends if you bought the charger from the manufacturer directly or from a retailer. If it was a retailer, then the retailer is on the hook for on-going support and refunds.
Re: (Score:2)
>although consumers tend to be quite far down the list of people to get paid so you rarely get anything.
Oh look, after all the bluster... he admits that his nation is in fact WORSE than US on this issue, after all the bragging that it's just SOOOOO MUCH BETTER.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still better. For you to lose your money you would have to have a defective product and the retailer you bought it from went bankrupt, and it cost under £100 or you didn't pay for it (at least in part) on credit card.
In other words you would have to be extremely unlucky. Here there is no luck involved, every US customer is shafted.
Re: (Score:2)
You really believe that credit card company is going to refund you money you paid to a company that went out of business five years ago?
Just like you believe that you'd get a 66% refund from the broke company just two posts up. At least you're consistently stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
And you are an complete idiot.
Yes, he gets 66% back (under the circumstances he noted). The problem is: is the money available? As the remaining money has to be split among all debtors.
Re: (Score:2)
But yes, support for customers with long-lived products (compare houses to ham sandwiches) is one of the liabilities that companies have, and have to declare on their accounts. Which for publicly-traded companies, are public documents
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that AmiMoJo was German (or writing from Germany), and is talking about UK consumer law (which I've dealt with for 50-odd years). Wouldn't German Law be more closely related to Napoleonic Code than Anglo-American "Common Law". Which rather views the EU and EU-law as a descendent of Napoleon's ambitions - which is probably a fruitful ground for historical argument.
Re: (Score:2)
You are watching a Finn (Lucy-0) and a Britt (AmiMoJo) argue over how badly the USA sucks, in their oh-so-relevant opinions...
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, customers are on the creditor's list after the administration company (always #1 ; who would take on the work without being able to extract their fees?) ; then the TaxMan (the order must have been settled in case law ; I can't see the TaxMan voluntarily ceding the #1 spot) ; then "high priority" creditors, in particular any pension fund obligations (so the TaxMan doesn't have to pick up the ta
Re: (Score:2)
But wait, there's more! This isn't a normal situation, but company going out of business.
The company isn't going out of business. Per the link [electrek.co] in the summary, it is is "shutting down its residential and commercial EV charger business in the US and Canada," but the Enel Group itself is not shutting going out of business.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. There is something called the Open Charge Point Protocol [openchargealliance.org]. If the Enel X chargers were making use of that, it would be pretty easy to just move to a different back-end service, or to host your own locally.
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Open source all the failures (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be a law that such failing manufacturers should open source their software platform.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
^^^^ This. A thousand times this.
While good in theory this actually presents a lot of legal challenges. It is probable that in a commercial software product of non-trivial size and complexity that they are using or licensing software or components from other vendors. In other words, it is highly likely that even if they open-sourced the parts of the code that they wrote themselves, it wouldn't do any good without the licenses to whatever libraries, servers or what have you exist as dependencies outside of their stuff.
If they have integrate
Re: (Score:2)
Then fully document the communication protocol/api to interface with their closed source code.
Something technical may be need to be done regarding any certificates/secret values/etc said communication depends on that may expire
Re: Open source all the failures (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You should just avoid buying stuff where the API isn't open from the start.
Whenever buying anything smart, always google "[name] home assistant" to see if there is an integration that doesn't rely on cloud servers. If there isn't, buy something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you recommend an EVSE with an open API, or even better, with open-source software?
And even if you do, how many drivers have the skills required to set up their own server?
Action is needed, but I think it starts with simple standards. The SAE is already on it, but the EVSE is not part of it. The SAE wants to make the vehicle smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Go-e have a local API: https://github.com/goecharger/... [github.com]
There is also the OpenEVSE.
Another option is to just have a WiFi switch turning power on and off to a dumb charger. You will need some other way to get your car's SoC, if you need it, but WiFi switches with open source firmware are easy to come by (check Tasmota).
Re: Open source all the failures (Score:2)
Good luck finding a wifi switch good for 60a @ 240v
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty in use by people in the Home Assistant community.
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully...I've never had this problem with the service stations I go to with my "old fashioned" ICE vehicle....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it has "smart" in the name; then you can assume the opposite of the person buying it.
Holy crap how is this real? (Score:5, Interesting)
An electrical system installed in a house which requires you to manually configure a limit to prevent you overloading your main breaker? Why not use ... actual hardware to do that and adjust load dynamically. Shit the water heater under my kitchen sink has that capability.
Also my car has the ability to define the charging limit, is this not normal? If so just use your car app if you bought one of these cheap arse poorly designed chargers and need to limit your charging to 16A because you want to run the AC.
Re:Holy crap how is this real? (Score:5, Informative)
What do you mean by "actual hardware" and "adjust load dynamically" ?
You have an EVSE that is capable of delivering 32 amps, aka a 40 amp breaker.
Maybe, for whatever reason (there are many) you can't manage that. Maybe you only have a 100A main, or maybe you plan to use an existing 240V wall socket that's only on a 30A breaker, or whatever the reason is. Does that mean you can't use the 32A unit?
Of course not. You configure the unit to the breaker size/circuit capacity. Now if or when you are able to, you can configure it to the full amperage without buying a new unit. That's a very sensible approach.
Don't forget the EVSE is a safety device. It itself needs to be compliant with all ratings requirements. You cannot rely on the vehicle to know or be properly configured for whatever unknown conditions it might be plugged into. Which brings us to your second comment;
> Also my car has the ability to define the charging limit, is this not normal?
That is normal, but that's not adequate. The EVSE, as a safety device, must never allow the circuit to be overloaded, and the vehicle getting plugged in can't be trusted to know what the ampacity of the circuit is.
Which finally brings us to how this all actually works: The EVSE tells the vehicle how much power is available, using a 1khz PWM signal on the pilot line. When you set a power limit in the EVSE what you are doing is configuring the unit to signal to any connected vehicle how much it's allowed to draw. It's always been, and can not reasonably be, anything other than pure software whether it's via an app or via dip switches inside the unit or anything else.
So when you say "actual hardware to do that and adjust load dynamically" you are talking absolute nonsense.
=Smidge=
Re:Holy crap how is this real? (Score:4, Informative)
My charger at home accomplishes that with DIP switches [google.com] on the main circuit board, not via an app. It can be configured for as low as 8 A (@ 240V), or as high as 48 A (only when hardwired). I guess I figured that all EVSE equipment worked that way - an app seems like such a risky and fault-prone implementation.
Re: Holy crap how is this real? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having the *vehicle* define the charging limit is not adequate. The vehicle has no way of knowing what the ampacity of the circuit is. It's part of the EVSE's job to tell the vehicle that information.
But it is *normal* to have a setting in the vehicle to limit current, because it's fine to set the current to *less* than the circuit's rating.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1)
The water heater under your kitchen sink has no capabilities at all.
It draws 3kw load, or what ever it is designed for.
And that is it. It switches on if the water is to cold.
It switches of when the water is hot enough.
And from cold to hot: it draws maximum power it can get.
Re: (Score:2)
You just explained why so many fires would happen in the day of using fuses instead of breakers, and why there are actual standards for electrical wiring. Push too much power through wires that aren't designed for it, they heat up, and bingo, there's the reason your house burned down.
Welcome to the future. (Score:2)
The App weakness (Score:2)
Too many new devices depend on an app to be their UI and don’t even have a web interface on them to connect using a browser. This means if the app becomes incompatible with your phone or the company changes direction, including going bankrupt, then you have no way to use your device or its advanced features.
I’d like all devices to offer one of: an on-device web page, an actual configuration screen, use of a documented control protocol or put the app source in escrow (to be released if they decla
Dumb is better (Score:3)
Ummm... No (Score:2)
"...It just shows how 'smart' EVSEs are too reliant on their respective apps."
We techies really need to make a concerted effort to make the techno-peasants understand how all this stuff works. I mean that seriously - I think for a lot of people, the "app" is all there is. They don't have any idea of what goes on in the background, in "the cloud". It's just this nebulous god-like presence which they regard with an almost religious combination of subservience, superstition, and avoidance.
What most of these services do for customers could be set up to run on an old disused computer curr
Re: (Score:2)
Not suprising at all (Score:3)
I dumped them 2 years ago. I has a Juicebox. When they changed their app and made it worse, I got rid of the charger and purchased an OpenEvse (https://www.openevse.com/) Also, the charging cable was poorly designed, and the wires broke in the strain relief of the charging connector after only 3 years of service.
"lackluster EV sales" ? (Score:2)
Really? My understanding is the overall auto market has declined while EVs have increased.
Despite Tesla Slide, EV Sales in Q2 Mark New Record [coxautoinc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Really? My understanding is the overall auto market has declined while EVs have increased.
I think they mean lackluster as in comparison to the imaginary world where everyone drives an EV. To be sure EVs are not going away, but with all the hype, and dare I say even legislative coercion, that they are still in the single digits for sales is indeed pretty lackluster.
Sigh. (Score:3)
Dumb charger it is, then.
I've long known that when my existing ICE cars my next car will be all-electric, and I even bought a house two years ago with that expectation (a dedicated driveway, consumer unit inside a porch that's right on that driveway, etc.).
I haven't yet bothered to research individual models of charger, but I can't imagine for a second that I will go with anything "smart-heavy" because of problems like this.
In my previous house, I just installed a 32A commando connector, which would suffice for what we were actually using it for (an electric kiln) and for an electric car, plus any number of other purposes in the future.
Why do I want my charger to be smart? Why would I want my car feeding the grid, for instance? Why would I want someone else to determine the best time to charge my car?
No. I'll plug it in and then - if I want - I'll add a timer or other mechanism to determine when's best to use electricity and at all other times I will just have it charge when I need it to.
Re: (Score:2)
Very good questions. I'll remember them when the "smart meter" dude comes to install an unwanted meter-downgrade. Before getting him to put his bank account details into the direct debit paperwork, because I trust his utility company employer no more than he trust me.
"commando connector" - I don't recognise that term. Oh - just "heavy duty,
Re: (Score:3)
No reason to avoid "smart". Just avoid "cloud". OpenEVSE [or the EU equivalent EmonEVSE] is open source hardware [an ESP32 plus an Arduino, plus other components].
Has a WebUI and can feed MQTT to a broker, and/or read from MQTT to adjust charging rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Please release firmware like the Quest Go VR heads (Score:3)
I'm one of the affected customers. I've been using my Juice Box for over 7 years. I'm fine with the mothership not connecting, but they really ought to release a firmware update that allows us users to change the charge rate locally, and monitor the amount of power used. :) [partly because they won't be there, for those who missed the joke]
This will also have implications for those who adjusted or pause charging based on Utility supply charges.
Needless to say, I won't buy their product again.
I was already looking to add a new charger, and this just gives more impetus to that
For those who need to limit current, look around. There was supposed to be a tap that derated the EV when other loads drew more current.
It's an expensive IoT device (Score:2)
See also, another nice expensive piece of communications hardware travelling rapidly down the Swanny River : "Cisco Is Abandoning the LoRaWAN Space With No Lifeboat For IoT Customers" [slashdot.org]
Will IoT marketing people realise that this harms their long-term sales potential? Probably not.
Will I trust them? Nope.
The least they could do (Score:2)
Gee whiz (Score:2)
Opportunity for hackers? (Score:2)
The device is still there, the hardware still works, maybe there is an opportunity for hackers to figure out what commands the central servers send to the device and find a way to send them locally...