Which Solar inverters don't force use of a cloud internet connected system?

[Dillsue]

32 minutes ago, NailBiter said:

I think my point regarding the bean counters is a lot more pertinent.

If post sales charging becomes a thing, then that's something to consider in the future but for now its seemingly irrelevant now as no-one so far has identified an inverter that needs an internet connection to run, let alone have to pay to run it.

 

Are there any indicators that's going to change, for PV inverters?

[NailBiter]

No, were there any indications Apple were going to push code worldwide to degrade their batteries before they did it? Did I know SolarEdge had some sort of kill switch embedded in my system that needed cloud to fix? Nope.

The best thing is they just don't have access. Then when their programmer is thinking "its fine if this sensitive kill switch triggers as we can just remotely toggle it back" vs thinking "hmm perhaps this threshold is too low, we don't want lots of RMAs".

Forced updates (before allowing any setapp access) and required cloud (it is required for SolarEdge or you can't get at the optimiser data which is a core product feature and shouldn't require a cloud) are a big no in my book.

Edited April 9 by NailBiter

[Dillsue]

23 hours ago, NailBiter said:

No, were there any indications Apple were going to push code worldwide to degrade their batteries before they did it? Did I know SolarEdge had some sort of kill switch embedded in my system that needed cloud to fix? Nope.

When you didn't know about Apples con, did you worry about it. Probably not, so not worth worrying IF inverter manufacturers are going to start charging to run their inverters some time in the future, if ever.

You don't know they have a kill switch as you said they wouldn't tell you anything. Could just as easily been a bug that manifested itself after multiple power cycles and is now reset on your system but remotely fixed for all those with connected inverters. Energy Bank is relatively new, as you've acknowledged, so quite realistic to still have the odd glitch.

 

23 hours ago, NailBiter said:

Forced updates (before allowing any setapp access) and required cloud (it is required for SolarEdge or you can't get at the optimiser data which is a core product feature and shouldn't require a cloud) are a big no in my book.

If your inverter had been sat on a shelf for 6 months and SE had fixed bugs in that 6 months, you'd be nuts not to bring the inverter software up to date. No internet is required for inverter update as the update comes from SetApp which can be updated remote from the inverter. Optimiser data can be read, but not logged, from SetApp diagnostics again without an internet connection. If you want to log it maybe it's accessible via the Modbus interface?

 

[NailBiter]

I like to have control of my own tech, even as nothing more than a personal preference. Any further reasons are superfluous regardless of their relevancy. 

From what I can see the inverter information is not in the Modbus registers as it is not part of the SunSpec protocol the inverter seems to follow. That based on a lot of guess work, someone more informed might be able to find them.

Edited April 10 by NailBiter

[Dillsue]

13 hours ago, NailBiter said:

I like to have control of my own tech, even as nothing more than a personal preference. Any further reasons are superfluous regardless of their relevancy. 

Doing 'your thing' is great but you're in somewhat of a niche and, in my opinion have some fairly extreme views, like suggesting manufacturers techs would maliciously access your inverter. 

 

I've got personal reasons for countering much of what you've said to hopefully add some balance to your post, so hopefully you'll understand my persistence. It's a public forum and people are influenced by stand out statements.

 

Hope you find the optimiser data buried somewhere in the Modbus info.

[NailBiter]

I never suggested a provider would maliciously access my inverter specifically. I suggested they might decide (as Apple and many others have) to put some code that benefits them and doesn't benefit me in a software release. They would not be the first (and sadly won't be the last) if they do go down this route.

Everyone has their own opinion on this stuff, I respect yours but you seem to determined to change mine.

I will not change my mind and I suspect you won't change yours. Are we adding information or noise at this point? I think we have both said what we have to say.

Edited April 11 by NailBiter

[Dillsue]

10 hours ago, NailBiter said:

Everyone has their own opinion on this stuff, I respect yours but you seem to determined to change mine.

Nope. Just adding balance to some of the stuff your saying