Third-Party Apps Shouldn’t Be the Answer to Fundamental Functionality Gaps (ATTN Prospective Monday Customers)

@Kofi [Just discovered that the Make. com hyperlink you put in your post recommending it was specifically your personal referral link. TBH, that’s a little shady.] :eyes:


Last time I used Make was when it was Integromat, so I admit it deserves another look—I’m sure much has improved since then. At that time, it was terrible! Run failure troubleshooting was the absolute worst, UI was uglier and less intuitive than Zapier’s, and when a run had failed, all subsequent runs were queued up but not executed, unnecessarily causing everything to come to a grinding halt until you fixed or cleared the failed one. Hopefully, they’ve addressed at least some of those issues since. I’ll go do a trial and poke around for a bit out of curiosity. (When was the last time you tried to build something substantial in Zapier? Perhaps you should do a refresher trial too. I can at least assure you that your claim that anything Zapier can do Make can do for free is categorically false.)

Aaaanyway. Feel free to DM me if you feel motivated to argue about this more; it’s all irrelevant to the point of this post and we should spare the other users.

5 Likes

I totally agree! There’s plenty of room for both really!

But Alex, honestly, if you do have any questions about make.com happy to jump on a call to help you out.

Hopefully you know where to find me! :smiley:

Ha, thanks, I might just take you up on that during my trial experimentation. Happy to extend the same offer to you with Zapier. :wink:

2 Likes

This post has been a cathartic read. My company has been using Monday for over two years now and there are a number of base features that I keep hoping they will implement to the core functionality. Seeing that I am not the only other person who feels this way is a bit of a sanity check for me.

For instance, I followed the request for OR and NOT statements to be added to automations. It culminated in a monday employee saying that they were added to a different feature (workflows for Pro and Enterprise) and that the team isn’t adding them anywhere else. Oh, and also workflows aren’t available to Pro anymore. Oh, and also we are locking the forum thread because everyone is continuing to complain that this isn’t good enough.

Sorry, needed to vent that one as the bait and switch and washing of hands has irked me for some time.

10 Likes

Different feature as another product that you need to pay separately for as well. It’s not just another feature of monday. This is an entirely different product and not an improvement upon the current product.

Just ran into this again with subtask statuses being reflected in the task level status — c’mon, there should not be either 3 or 4 automation rules (with janky addition of a numeric column) OR ANOTHER fee from Monday.com just to get statuses synced.

2 Likes

The thing is Monday stretches this ‘approach’ to the extreme. Some examples where market competitors deliver as a basic function but monday relies on 3rd party apps to plug their laziness:

  1. Not being able to copy/paste values from a cells in a table, not being able to copy/ paste values to/from a clipboard into multiple cells in a table
  2. Lack of support for all column types in excel import
  3. Lack of support for all column types as automation triggers
    As another example of how lazy monday are - in monday documents a page can be narrow or wide, and when you create a table in wide view it fits the full page width on first edit but then the table snaps back to narrow size when you leave the doc. I asked monday to fix they said that was “as intended” and i should put in a “feature request”!!
2 Likes

I completely agree with your points.

At the heart of the issue is the fact that Monday.com’s revenue model creates a conflict of interest with standard platform innovation and development.

2 Likes

Just chiming in to say this is also something my client has been concerned about. Basic functionality that I would posit should be built in too often requires a paid MarketPlace app. If we actually utilised the apps we technically require, I’m aware my client would be paying more on MarketPlace subscriptions than on Monday itself. It’s nearly a year since the OP started this thread, and I get the impression nothing much has changed.

3 Likes

It’s nearly a year since the OP started this thread, and I get the impression nothing much has changed.

Unfortunately, by my assessment, that’s an accurate impression.
(cc @OmerK)

4 Likes

What does monday.com can do about this? Are they going to buy the third-party app copyrights or shut down all third-party apps? Neither option sounds good.

1 Like

@Quinn.N ,

I’ve expressed my thoughts on that in my original post and more explicitly in several of my previous replies in this thread.

One example is here.
Excerpt:

Another is here.
Excerpt:


I’m not going to rehash it any more. But the hypothetical options you presented are a false binary (those are definitely not the only two options.) And I’m not talking about filling complex, niche use cases—which apps are perfect for—I’m talking about fundamental features that come built into competing products.

2 Likes

I agree that your frustration is very reasonable from a user’s perspective. Feedback like this is crucial for any platform to grow (Just to clarify, I don’t represent Monday.com in any way, nor do I have a marketplace app at the time I’m posting this.)

That being said, I’d like to share a few points from a software developer’s perspective that many users may not realize.

Every software system has limitations, and every piece of software is constantly evolving. The hypothetical end of this evolution would be to address every user request and meet every user’s expectation, which is not practically possible. That’s simply the nature of software.

Building software at scale is extremely difficult. Developers have to allocate their resources to new features based on a priority list, so the evolution process continues toward that hypothetical end. As a developer myself, I can tell you from experience that every user has their own idea of what the “core features” should be.

When a user encounters a limitation in a software tool, they often feel that it should already be a core feature, because their workflows are built around it. But what’s really happening is that they’ve run into one limitation among countless others. If you asked 100 users what “core features” are missing, you’d likely get many different answers.

That’s why it’s the developers’ challenge to collect all this feedback, identify the most common requests, and prioritize them. After all, resources are always limited. Even platforms developed by companies like Microsoft and Google have their own issues.

That said, the Monday.com team is doing a good job of addressing requests. They roll out new features frequently, and they’ve done an excellent job introducing a marketplace. This allows external developers to address requests in their own way, giving users at least some solutions, until they become native features.

Interestingly, even the most popular marketplace apps have relatively small user bases compared to the total number of Monday users. This suggests that those apps were not essential for the majority of users (though, admittedly, some users may avoid them due to pricing or other barriers. Still, even after accounting for that, the numbers would likely remain relatively low. The active user count is actually much lower than the number of downloads indicated for an app, which suggests that the download numbers are a useful metric to gauge how many users were interested in that feature, regardless of whether they actually use it.)

I would argue that the trend of seeing more suggestions to use marketplace apps for feature requests is mainly because more external developers are joining the platform and creating an increasing number of third party apps, which is a really good thing.

The real question should be whether this marketplace growth hinders the Monday team’s plans, which I highly doubt. Why would they deliberately hurt their customer base, knowing it would ultimately hurt their revenue?

5 Likes

I can’t believe no one has brought up the extremely limited comms design ability in Monday.com It’s a CRM - with campaign and other boards; but when we try to send mass emails that look good…well, we can’t. I’ve resorted to designing something and then sending an image of that - but that doesn’t comply with accessability requirements. This should be a core function for a CRM…

Most of this thread seems directed at monday themselves, but it does sound like third-party apps are at least part of the problem

Is there any specific things app developers could do better? Trying to play back what I heard in this thread:

  • They’ll need to pass enterprise security vetting, SOC2 or ISO27001 may be a requirement
  • Solve for more comprehensive use cases (to avoid the nickel-and-diming)
  • Don’t just patch small missing features but really solve the customer’s problem end to end
  • Reduce complexity instead of adding to it (no Rube Golberg machines for simple automations)
  • Be transparent about costs, have better volume pricing

Anything else? App developers also share some responsibility here, so feedback like this is genuinely helpful

i would like to see 3rd party offer non profit price tiers that could be used by folks who have already been vetted for that status thru monday.com

2 Likes

In my case, it would make no difference. As a government user its simply too difficult to jump through all the hoops internally that would allow us to plug in these third party software offerings.