Shared Access Use & Requirements

@emil - more evidence of great customer service! Thanks, Emil. I hope I’m ok for maintenance at the moment and won’t need that again until the fall (fingers crossed). The offer is very much appreciated!

Is there any update on the development of shared access and offering the ability to set limitations when sharing access? As it stands now when a user has shared access the recipient will have complete access to the system and all settings?

@dgershon

The @benblackmer product team is still working on our road map for features, I’ll let them speak to this.

:cheers:

Hi @Franz and @emil and @benblackmer:

Any update on reviving the simple landscaper access webpage? It was so easy – my gardener could run the individual zones and check for leaks by clicking a simple URL on his smartphone.

I like the ability to set limitations (only be able to run zones vs modify zone settings etc…) but right now my gardener does not even have access to my system.

Would it be possible to re-activate the simple landscaper access webpage that you had before until you finish the final version of shared/landscaper access?

Thanks for considering.

We were definitely one of the proponents of the current shared access feature, as our company manages 14 different Iros (and counting) on behalf of our Clients, and absolutely need the admin-level permissions that we get from the web and mobile apps.

That said, I agree with the need to limit certain levels of access. From the other end of the conversation, though, we’d even want to limit the access of certain Customers or Employees; I absolutely do not want anyone but myself or our Irrigation Manager making adjustments to Available Water, Nozzle Precip., or Allowable Depletion.

It would be great to see a permissions dashboard that allows us to assign ‘roles’ to different users - different functions would be limited to certain groups of users, or assigned individually. The same shared access function would exist as-is, but with the ability to limit a ‘Landscaper’s’ access to only manually run zones, for example.

So I guess the ‘use case’ exists from both sides of the spectrum, depending on whose job it is to manage the system, homeowner and Irrigation Contractor alike.

2 Likes

@shapps47, thanks for the note.

At the moment, we don’t have a plan to revive the landscaper access page. It’s something a few folks have asked about, and I just asked the question internally, so I’ll let you know here if it changes.

Thanks for the update Ben, I know we were planning on re-enabling this feature, and hope to at some point, but priorities continually shift and this became lower on our list than others.

:cheers:

@franz - i find that answer totally unacceptable. You guys had a feature in the product that you took away and introduced something that was not viable nor addressed any of the use cases I or others have presented. You are selling a DIY product. It is being consumed by both commercial and residential customers who have a need to control access based on who is performing maintenance.

When we discussed this, it didn’t make it into your 2.0 product but you said it would be worked on thereafter. Now you are saying it continues to slip in priority. You’ve taken away a key feature that will now cause me more time and risk a relationship with my maintenance company because I’ll have to be here when I need maintenance and will have to coordinate with them.

I ask that you and your team rethink this as a priority and provide us with an ETA for delivery. We aren’t asking for something new. We are asking that you replace what you took away without forethought.

Thanks
David

The current shared access model just doesn’t work for the residential market. I don’t have a landscaper / maintenance company on retainer. I would imagine this is similar to most of your customers. I just call someone as needed. I definitely won’t give the local guy who charges $20-30 for sprinkler blowouts shared access to my system.

If I were building this functionality, it would be a simple webpage(s) that allows you to start and stop each zone manually. Access would be be granted via a short code url like rach.io/code which can be defined in the app/console. This URL access would be able to be toggled on/off in the app. I would never expect someone to install an app.

Does the current shared access model have a role? Sure, but it is a use case for a small subset of the customer base and landscape professionals.

I apologize for any confusion or disruption we’ve caused. As a team with limited resources, we need to choose where we are focusing our efforts. The team as a whole has worked out our priorities, which can change frequently, and are working off of those. I definitely want to come back to this, but there are other things we are currently building. Anyone that has worked in a small business/startup will hopefully understand making these hard decisions.

:cheers:

I understand that it’s a small team and you must prioritize. But what was wrong with the old version of landscaper access? It’s already built and was working fine. (At least for me). Now it’s just disappeared. How much work would it be to re-enable it? Call it a beta if there are bugs. I don’t see why you can’t have both the old version of landscaper access and the new version of “shared access” working side by side. Thanks.

I have to agree with @shapps47 and the others here. As winter is approaching I’m really hoping for some simple solution for a landscaper access. Please reconsider your position on this - even if it’s just a stop gap measure. – kris

1 Like

I have to say, as an early adopter of this product, I’m very disappointed in the turn of events and the reduction in the prior commitment to restore a service similar to what was taken away without announcement late last year.

I have maintenance scheduled this friday due to a broken turf head and needing to reconfigure a zone. I will absolutely have the service company out in the late fall to winterize my system. Each of these activities are going to cost me more than the service call. It is going to cost me personal time as I will need to be here to turn zones on and off as they conduct the repairs or winterize each zone.

To be very honest, I would NOT have bought this product if I knew it would not have a viable way to have my service company provide maintenance. My Hunter system had a port outside that allowed my service company to attach their wireless controller so they can do what they need to do without me being here. The Rachio removal of a feature and de-prioritization of prior commitments has made this intolerable. My Hunter system may get reinstalled.

Don’t reinstall that Hunter system just yet, we are working on exciting new feature.

:cheers:

1 Like

@franz - what is the timing for this? Will the features requested in this thread be represented in the solution being planned?

I don’t want to put a time frame on this as it won’t be ready by this Friday, but it is being worked on and we will release it as soon as possible. Yes, the features will be represented.

:cheers:

@franz - I wasn’t looking for timing like that. Last we heard, it was severely de prioritized had had no date. If that has changed, some info would be better then none.

Can you put it in terms of seasons? Will it be before the end of this growing season or in time for next year’s growing season?

Target is before the end of this growing season :wink:

:cheers:

Thanks, @Franz! This sounds a lot more promising then the last round of dialog in this thread! I’m sure you’ve just put many of our minds at ease putting this solution back on the near term radar and as we’re collectively requesting it work.

Let me know when / if you want early testers.

Will do.

:cheers:

1 Like