Matthias SpeicherIn short
Almost every charging provider has an app. I call it Appflation. Most of these apps exist because the company believes it needs one, not because the customer asked for it. Nobody ever asked for more apps, what they asked for was less friction. And the industry confuses lock-in with loyalty. The real question is what an app is still worth once the customer no longer needs it to charge.
Almost every charging provider has an app. I call it Appflation. And most of these apps exist because the companies believe they need one, not because the customer ever asked for it.
The simple question
I ask a plain question. Who voluntarily downloads an app that covers a fraction of the charging network, offers no price advantage and demands yet another account?
And on the other side, who uses a roaming app with access to hundreds of thousands of charging points, but prices that only make sense if someone else pays the bill?
From years of systematically listening to tens of thousands of EV drivers I can say: nobody ever asked for more apps. What they asked for was less friction. And still the industry keeps burying simple charging behind app downloads and subscription funnels.
My personal highlight was an ad on a fast charger’s display showing a lower price and a QR code. The code didn’t start a charging session, it led to an app download with subscription registration. That’s an obstacle course disguised as a customer journey, and in truth the opposite of one.
Lock-in isn’t loyalty
Many in the charging industry confuse lock-in with loyalty. This binding comes in stages. It starts with downloading the app and registering, and already it gets a little cheaper. It’s extended by multi-tier subscription models, and the deeper you climb into that rabbit hole, the more you supposedly benefit.
To be fair, most of these subscriptions can be cancelled monthly. So there’s no hard lock-in, but a very soft one. Yet it is one. And that’s what I call binding through punishment, stick instead of carrot. Because the real effect appears the moment you’re confronted again with the hard reality of the ad-hoc prices. When you see what the same charging costs without the subscription. That’s a punishment, because the higher prices come from the same provider who sold you the subscription.
The difference is fundamental. Loyalty arises because the customer wants to stay. Lock-in arises because leaving hurts. Both hold the customer, but only one creates value for them. A customer who stays because switching hurts isn’t a loyal customer. They’re a waiting customer who leaves at the first better offer.
It can be done differently
There are apps that do it better. Some let you reserve a charging point in advance. That’s real value, because it removes uncertainty before you arrive. Others reward you for unplugging on time, instead of charging blocking fees for staying too long. That’s the difference between an app that guides the customer and one that locks them in.
One of the best examples comes from the Nordic market. There a provider became the most popular charging app in an entire country within two years, with a fundamentally different approach. No mandatory subscription, no RFID chip, broad coverage across nearly all important charging points. There’s a discount model that grows with usage and applies automatically, with no commitment. If you want more, you can add optional packages, but you don’t have to.
The decisive point is the pricing logic. The charging price is always the same, with or without a package. The discount is pure maths, not a different pricing reality. That’s exactly the difference from the subscription-based model, which changes prices in a way you can’t rely on. This provider doesn’t sell electricity at a premium, it sells overview and reliability across the many operators, with a built-in discount that isn’t based on a subscription. It earns the customer’s usage through service, not through pricing pressure or lock-in. That’s a service worth paying for.
The measure is simple. Does the app solve a problem the customer actually has, or does it solve a problem of the provider, the wish for an own channel and own data? The first creates value. The second creates friction.
Where this is heading
The future of charging apps is consolidation anyway. Providers with millions of users are integrating charging into platforms you already use. More and more cars offer Plug and Charge, where you simply plug in and the rest runs on its own.
Only, in practice most cars lock you into their own charging provider. The car decides who bills you, not the driver. That’s the same lock-in problem, one level up. The compulsion to use an app becomes the compulsion to use the factory provider.
The real question
So for every provider running an app today, the decisive question is what does my app offer that survives in the future? What value remains when the customer no longer needs the app to start a session?
If the answer is nothing beyond access and a discounted price, you’re building for a world that’s already disappearing. Apps aren’t the problem. Apps that solve nothing are the problem. And the industry has too many of those.