RecTeq turning off app remote start up feature?

[Nerdygrrl]

My point was he knew this was coming and could have informed his userbase so they could help influence regulatory action.

I think the was all just grossly mismanaged and they did not expect this kind of pushback. The fact that they didn't have a press release ready to roll shows how caught off guard they were.

 

[Eki]

I'm not saying I like it. I don't.

Go to the bezos site, search for "wifi button pusher"

You're welcome.

Again, I don't like it, it's unfair and we're being stolen from. But some of y'all need to visit a dairy so you can find enough cheese for your whine.

Here is your wifi pusher:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07NQNLDTD?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details

 

[Mannydog]

This was part my chat with Ray yesterday when I suggested that not making a formal statement has led to a lot of uncertainty, anger, and well conspiracies.

Thanks for sharing this @Nerdygrrl !

I have pretty much been on the fence about this, personally, and I totally understand RT was forced to do this. And I've been a big RT fan and customer for several years now.

What I don't care for were some of Ray's condescending and ex-car salesman comments from your conversation with him. He suggested explaining this to his valued customers was like talking to a toddler. Gee, thanks Ray. Now I understand. He also complained that the story was"leaked" so he couldn't announce it with a press conference. Well, avoiding this for so long only to blame someone for a "leaked" story that was already out there in fed regs and with other similar companies (Treager, etc), AND in their own app update is pretty slimy in my opinion. Not to mention him whining about it when he clearly admitted he had no intention of addressing it until after the app update made it too late. That, and the out-of-touch initial comments (pg 1 of this thread) where he clearly related to the common folk who all have landscapers and nannys.

Ray & Co have done a lot of good for a lot of folks, and have built a great product. Just would be nice if he didn’t try to schmooze & fool everyone every time he speaks or types. We’re not all toddlers, after all.
Now where’s my nanny? It’s nap time for Mannydog.

 

[Buckeye smoker]

I think the was all just grossly mismanaged and they did not expect this kind of pushback. The fact that they didn't have a press release ready to roll shows how caught off guard they were.

Ray was going to but it was leaked first. I talked to him.its Govt regulation.

 

[Nerdygrrl]

Ray was going to but it was leaked first. I talked to him.its Govt regulation.

Yeah, I has the same convo with him, but it's been four days and still no public statement. So unless you have time to scroll through thousands of FB comments you don't get the full story. It's all in bits and pieces via comments on random threads: Nanny story, it's a regulation, not a patent issue...

There should have been a statement ready to roll. I gave him one he could have used. It's just terrible communication on the part of the company and it's making the situations 10X worse than it needed to be. Even with the leak you can still come out, make a strong and concise statement be done instead of leading people to hypothesize.

Instead you have hundreds of posts about conspiracies, patents, etc. It was just poorly handled and they are showing how amateur they are in some respects of running a company of this size.

 

[Grillmatt]

huge disappointment, was one of the influences when I purchased.

 

[Buckeye smoker]

Yeah, I has the same convo with him, but it's been four days and still no public statement. So unless you have time to scroll through thousands of FB comments you don't get the full story. It's all in bits and pieces via comments on random threads: Nanny story, it's a regulation, not a patent issue...

There should have bee a statement ready to roll. I gave him one he could have used. It's just terrible communication on the part of the company and it's making the situations 10X worse than it needed to be. Even with the leak you can still come out, make a strong and concise statement be done instead of leading people to hypothesize.

Instead you have hundreds of posts about conspiracies, patents, etc. It was just poorly handled and they are showing how amateur they are in some respects of running a company of this size.

Did he send you his official statement?....I have it, but I do also get what you've saying. I agree its a shame it all exploded instead of what shouldve been. Imo kinda hard for us to also say that in hindsight also. Its a shame either way...the whole situation.

 

[Nerdygrrl]

Did he send you his official statement?....I have it, but I do also get what you've saying. I agree its a shame it all exploded instead of what shouldve been. Imo kinda hard for us to also say that in hindsight also. Its a shame either way...the whole situation.

It's in the last of our exchange here. IMO not a great response. I gave him a pretty solid one where he could at least try to sympathize with the customers, etc.


https://www.recteqforum.com/threads...mote-start-up-feature.7246/page-5#post-101349

 

[Nerdygrrl]

Judicial independence? Wow, that’s rich! I’m not a fan of Trump personally, but the way the DOJ and state judges has been weaponized against him is just insane.

Yes no idea how that ended up in there. My cut and pasting threads ain't so good.

 

[Greg Jones]

Yes no idea how that ended up in there. My cut and pasting threads ain't so good.

Understood. Deleted my post as well.

 

[Pizza_Smoker]

I agree- a double effort to start the grill should be in place for safety (so no accidental starts)... But as usual--- those with any common sense are the ones that are punished... I keep no cover on my grill.. I have a camera next to my grill that i keep a eye on while heating up.. I keep my grill away from anything flammable.... I live where it snows and if i can limit the times I have to go out and walk in snow and Ice.. That is the SAFE thing.. Yet here we are... Some Dipshit started his grill without any forethought of safety in place.. Burns his house down and we (the ones with common sense) are the ones that have to amend our behavior.. This is why AMERICA is going down the tubes... Dont think so? Move to San Francisco,Portland,Detroit,Chicago,NY....

So now we have to bow to the LOWEST COMMEN DENOMINATOR...

Ray Carnes-- you suck....

 

[Nerdygrrl]

I agree- a double effort to start the grill should be in place for safety (so no accidental starts)... But as usual--- those with any common sense are the ones that are punished... I keep no cover on my grill.. I have a camera next to my grill that i keep a eye on while heating up.. I keep my grill away from anything flammable.... I live where it snows and if i can limit the times I have to go out and walk in snow and Ice.. That is the SAFE thing.. Yet here we are... Some Dipshit started his grill without any forethought of safety in place.. Burns his house down and we (the ones with common sense) are the ones that have to amend our behavior.. This is why AMERICA is going down the tubes... Dont think so? Move to San Francisco,Portland,Detroit,Chicago,NY....

So now we have to bow to the LOWEST COMMEN DENOMINATOR...

Ray Carnes-- you suck....

I'm probably the biggest RT "hater" on here. This is not on Ray. It would be corporate suicide for him to go out there and make a public claim about a mandated regulation and it not be true.

All other brands that have this option will have to disable it. If they don't, well then....

 

[Pizza_Smoker]

I know... and i also know being this BENT over something this insignificant is bad on me.. But ffs... Why is it always the capable ones that suffer the most...

And Ray--- you still suck...

 

[Nerdygrrl]

I know... and i also know being this BENT over something this insignificant is bad on me.. But ffs... Why is it always the capable ones that suffer the most...

And Ray--- you still suck...

The inmates are running the asylum. It's been this way for a while.

 

[SmokeZilla]

So to be clear, you are saying until we find an actual regulation written, these are only suggestions and Ray is not being truthful that an agency "made them do it" ? It was free choice or he's gone " woke ". Why would he not just say "they decided to do this". If that were the cae ? He was adamant they didnt want to, and were forced to.

Let me start by saying I in no way challenge the integrity of Ray or the company he works for (key term since the acqusition). Up until this hypothetical discussion, I have been elated with their products and service. If that is what he says, YOU can believe him (if in fact his account has not been hacked by a troll). I merely point out the fact that until a law exists, this is a company/industry based decision not a requirement. If they/he want to maintain ANSI, ISO, NIST, UL, or other accreditations, that is also a business decision that should not be blamed on laws, rulings, or similar because it obfuscates the true issue. If auto manufacturers collude to only allow a car to go 50mph as the top speed without a regulation, would you believe a similar statement as true absent any research? I am sure the lawyers at Ferrari, Lamborghini and other super car manufacturers would do their due diligence to understand the source of any such nonsense (which happened in the 80s with US autos that put 100mph “top” speed and governors on their vehicles). That is the general problem we as consumers seem to battle each day. A company says something and we drink the Kool-Aid. Major offenders of this form of “good for the common man” theory include airlines that tell you that you have to take off your headphones during takeoff, have to have your seat back in the upright position and other nuisances. There is not an DOT-FAA regulation that requires that behavior. I have been on many private jets for business and guess what, we leave the tray down. I had an experience to be doing a check-flight when they scrubbed the flight because they claimed they had a weather concern. What they didn’t know was that I had access to the assigned crew’s status and the plane did not have any squawks against it. The scrub was because the crew came in late on another plane and their allocated hours would make them illegal to command the flight I was on. Yes, many people heard the announcement and like lemmings wandered off to find other solutions, but a few of us million milers stood our ground as we knew the crew had not arrived and ultimately, the airline had to confess it was not weather but their fault and paid us for the inconvenience. I have had similar experiences in my almost 8 million flight miles on various aircraft and quite frankly, I have been refunded the cost of many flights when they declare a “mechanical” and I/we did the research and found out they were not accurately portraying the actual conditions to save money or have a convenient out from their responsibilities. Some of my favorites include “we have to divert because of the noise curfew at airport XXX. The FAA doesn’t tell airlines they can’t land after curfew (think emergency landing conditions) they just fine the airlines for a lack of adherence. However, the reason the flight usually get diverted is that they don’t want to pay the ground crew overtime and would rather inconvenience the paying passengers. Yet, how many people accept their version of the truth. Another lie is push back. I have dozen’s of tickets that say my flight departs between 0635-0700hrs at one of the popular US airports and they know they can’t even light the engines and push back until ~0650hrs. My favorite is that they scrub a flight because a toilet is broken when they know there is no regulation for all toilets on the plane to be functioning and definitely no passenger to toilet ratio defined in the regulations, as long as they have one that functions. A general problem I see is that we as humans have become complacent and accepting of mediocrity instead of doing the necessary research to validate a policy versus a law. The jist of my diatribe is that they advertised and sold me something that they are taking away with no consideration for the consumer/purchaser. My cookers are so far away from anything that could cause harm that the initial scenario involving the cover and the gardner is specious at best because I require no cover and most of my friends don’t have gardeners which is a affront to my intelligence when I see a global statement like that. One funny side note is that some of my friends also have their cookers on beach sand near the ocean, so take that as a risk mitigation technique! I also get that they/he are probably looking out for the people that don’t read and follow instructions. As an engineer, if I wanted to address this issue, I/he could have installed optic sensors across the face of the cooker’s combustion chamber that would detect “clear air” conditions and prevent starting the grill as a solution. But the cost to RT would probably preclude that solution which again, is a business decision they probably won’t support since they would rather remove an advertised feature because it is a cost savings for them. Another solution would include explicit instructions to subrogate liability on their order confirmation page that the buyer agrees and certifies that they will hold harmless, the seller, its agents, and affiliates, for the use of any cover, enclosure, appurtenance and accessories that are used to envelop, enshroud, protect, restrict airflow, or alter the “as delivered” configuration of this item. It seems that we as a litigious society are not given credit for understanding the inherent risk associated with our purchases. An analogy for this is: Knives are sharp, knives cut people, knives do not have a standard that says they should be dull because of the risk, nor are they restricted to having a dull tip because someone could be impaled. Heck, if they want to really get jiggy, they could also state that the use of any non-OEM (i.e., RT provided) pellets is/are a direct violation of their warranty and the user indemnifies the manufacturer against any cause of action related to the use of non-OEM pellets as they have not been certified for use in this device and could cause a fire (lol). Let’s see what that would do to sales, lol. To be honest, if they were really an outstanding company, they would send every owner of a device with advertised remote start capability an offer for partial refund of their original purchase price for their decision to remove that capability or a full refund for any retuned units. Then everyone would be praising them for their ethics and decision.

I respectfully look forward to your rebuttal.

 

[Buckeye smoker]

It's in the last of our exchange here. IMO not a great response. I gave him a pretty solid one where he could at least try to sympathize with the customers, etc.


https://www.recteqforum.com/threads...mote-start-up-feature.7246/page-5#post-101349

Agreed...

 

[Buckeye smoker]

Let me start by saying I in no way challenge the integrity of Ray or the company he works for (key term since the acqusition). Up until this hypothetical discussion, I have been elated with their products and service. If that is what he says, YOU can believe him (if in fact his account has not been hacked by a troll). I merely point out the fact that until a law exists, this is a company/industry based decision not a requirement. If they/he want to maintain ANSI, ISO, NIST, UL, or other accreditations, that is also a business decision that should not be blamed on laws, rulings, or similar because it obfuscates the true issue. If auto manufacturers collude to only allow a car to go 50mph as the top speed without a regulation, would you believe a similar statement as true absent any research? I am sure the lawyers at Ferrari, Lamborghini and other super car manufacturers would do their due diligence to understand the source of any such nonsense (which happened in the 80s with US autos that put 100mph “top” speed and governors on their vehicles). That is the general problem we as consumers seem to battle each day. A company says something and we drink the Kool-Aid. Major offenders of this form of “good for the common man” theory include airlines that tell you that you have to take off your headphones during takeoff, have to have your seat back in the upright position and other nuisances. There is not an DOT-FAA regulation that requires that behavior. I have been on many private jets for business and guess what, we leave the tray down. I had an experience to be doing a check-flight when they scrubbed the flight because they claimed they had a weather concern. What they didn’t know was that I had access to the assigned crew’s status and the plane did not have any squawks against it. The scrub was because the crew came in late on another plane and their allocated hours would make them illegal to command the flight I was on. Yes, many people heard the announcement and like lemmings wandered off to find other solutions, but a few of us million milers stood our ground as we knew the crew had not arrived and ultimately, the airline had to confess it was not weather but their fault and paid us for the inconvenience. I have had similar experiences in my almost 8 million flight miles on various aircraft and quite frankly, I have been refunded the cost of many flights when they declare a “mechanical” and I/we did the research and found out they were not accurately portraying the actual conditions to save money or have a convenient out from their responsibilities. Some of my favorites include “we have to divert because of the noise curfew at airport XXX. The FAA doesn’t tell airlines they can’t land after curfew (think emergency landing conditions) they just fine the airlines for a lack of adherence. However, the reason the flight usually get diverted is that they don’t want to pay the ground crew overtime and would rather inconvenience the paying passengers. Yet, how many people accept their version of the truth. Another lie is push back. I have dozen’s of tickets that say my flight departs between 0635-0700hrs at one of the popular US airports and they know they can’t even light the engines and push back until ~0650hrs. My favorite is that they scrub a flight because a toilet is broken when they know there is no regulation for all toilets on the plane to be functioning and definitely no passenger to toilet ratio defined in the regulations, as long as they have one that functions. A general problem I see is that we as humans have become complacent and accepting of mediocrity instead of doing the necessary research to validate a policy versus a law. The jist of my diatribe is that they advertised and sold me something that they are taking away with no consideration for the consumer/purchaser. My cookers are so far away from anything that could cause harm that the initial scenario involving the cover and the gardner is specious at best because I require no cover and most of my friends don’t have gardeners which is a affront to my intelligence when I see a global statement like that. One funny side note is that some of my friends also have their cookers on beach sand near the ocean, so take that as a risk mitigation technique! I also get that they/he are probably looking out for the people that don’t read and follow instructions. As an engineer, if I wanted to address this issue, I/he could have installed optic sensors across the face of the cooker’s combustion chamber that would detect “clear air” conditions and prevent starting the grill as a solution. But the cost to RT would probably preclude that solution which again, is a business decision they probably won’t support since they would rather remove an advertised feature because it is a cost savings for them. Another solution would include explicit instructions to subrogate liability on their order confirmation page that the buyer agrees and certifies that they will hold harmless, the seller, its agents, and affiliates, for the use of any cover, enclosure, appurtenance and accessories that are used to envelop, enshroud, protect, restrict airflow, or alter the “as delivered” configuration of this item. It seems that we as a litigious society are not given credit for understanding the inherent risk associated with our purchases. An analogy for this is: Knives are sharp, knives cut people, knives do not have a standard that says they should be dull because of the risk, nor are they restricted to having a dull tip because someone could be impaled. Heck, if they want to really get jiggy, they could also state that the use of any non-OEM (i.e., RT provided) pellets is/are a direct violation of their warranty and the user indemnifies the manufacturer against any cause of action related to the use of non-OEM pellets as they have not been certified for use in this device and could cause a fire (lol). Let’s see what that would do to sales, lol. To be honest, if they were really an outstanding company, they would send every owner of a device with advertised remote start capability an offer for partial refund of their original purchase price for their decision to remove that capability or a full refund for any retuned units. Then everyone would be praising them for their ethics and decision.

I respectfully look forward to your rebuttal.

WOW that was a long post...but I enjoyed it... I also hear what you're saying . However, you probably wont like my rebuttal. If you haven't seen my other later posts, Im only going to say that I talked directly to Ray (he's not hacked lol) and long story short I believe him that its a industry wide regulation / U.S. Govt ordeal. I also believe it was handled poorly but at the same time, his response was leaked so it left him high and dry imo... Cut left, cut right, it didn't matter...he was already tackled for a loss. His answers to why he wont say the agency etc.. made perfect sense to me in our current America and political climate. Thanks all I can say to you, other than, give him a call yourself so that you can ask the questions and receive the answers you want.

 

[Nerdygrrl]

The plot thickens and I may have made some bets Ray wasn't
lying.

 

[SmokeZilla]

So, I did talk with Ray tonight. He's very professional and I ended up getting honest answers. I suggest others do the same if they choose.
Ill keep it a private conversation, other than , the reason is indeed US Govt regulations. As they have stated online, nothing more ... and sound reasoning imo for not naming names.

You can keep the discussion private but what regulation did he cite so I/we can look it up. I work in the regulatory side of business and have not seen the reg you/he mentioned promulgated. Nor have I seen the Notice of Public Rulemaking that allows the citizens of this country to respond to the pending release of said regulation. Please advise so I can do the needed research to see and understand/corroborate this information. Thanks in advance.

 

[Nerdygrrl]

Now this is pretty interesting...I see only 3 possibilities.

1) Ray lied
2) this is the leaker
3) a jaded employee

Have you asked Ray about this ?

I tagged him and then the forum mods just deleted the post. Bad look all around.