Gerrit van den Berg: I understand your sentiment. Just to make it clear - the app is free up until certain usage, similarly as Make itself. If your use case is bigger than the free number of operations the developer allows, the app is paid. So it’s free only for small use cases and to allow anyone to try before they buy. For more information check out https://www.makemarket.io/pricing

Akshay Monga: Thank you for your comments. Understand your concerns about needing to learn to operate yet another platform. Have you tried any of the Add-on apps? I am asking because, with some of them you may need to register for an extra service (this is the case with Wise from makemarket.io) but in the end the app gets installed into Make and it works exactly the same as other apps on Make, so you are not really working on a different platform, just acquiring the app from a 3rd party.

Understand your concerns regarding trusting a 3rd party with financial data. I believe this is similar as installing some wallet app on your phone having access to your bank accounts to analyze your spendings. It’s also a 3rd party accessing your banking data. Would you say you would never install such a 3rd party accessing your banking data on your phone or computer or could there be some conditions under which you would do that?

Jan Knettig: Agreed with what you are saying regarding an app on phone - but how do we do this?

Say I come to you just telling you about the app? You will not install it since you do not know about it.

In general, we tend to trust an app once we have heard a lot about it, through TV ads, etc.

In US you have VIMEO or similar, in India - its Paytm. They spent a lot just to get this trust level with their customers. Now I am not saying that I need makemarket.io to spend, but how do I trust them with our financial data when the method of evaluation is something not very defined. I am not be very clear on this, but this is the case with 90% of the companies.

The remaining 10% will prefer to either not use wise or maybe stick with traditional banking, or it all they are a new generation company, may directly prefer logging to wise to do this !!!

Jan, I know it takes a lot of time and efforts etc to bring an integration, but if there is an interest and you still dont find people using the add-on, maybe it is right to bring it completely under make.com

Probably, the high interest vs low user base for the wise via makemarket.io - is a unique case - is this the case with other apps also which are completely under make.com?

Akshay Monga: thank you very much for your insights. I understand there is a trust issue with an unknown 3rd party and we haven’t done much to help them build the trust, especially in case of sensitive data like financial data in Wise.

It happens with some apps which are completely under make.com that the usage is also not matching but the reasons may be different than in case of this Wise add-on app.

Jan Knettig: I've tried the Add-on App (makemarket.io works clumsily) but the App is focused on transfers, while our interest is more in keeping track of automatic payments from balances or cards.

Jan Knettig: Because you have to set it up by going to a third party site. Because you have to pay more money over the monthly fee I already pay Make.

I pay a monthly fee to Make so that I can integrate/sync between multiple platforms. I don't pay Make so I can then pay other companies to provide that service.

Jan Knettig: Because it's a 3rd party app that tracks every single request we make. With financial data like Wise, this is critical.

I would really prefer to have that natively by Make.

Jan Knettig: I can't even install the addon, when I add Wise as a trigger it redirects me to the addon, and shows a login button, while I am already logged in, so I am going around in loops. Just a wild guess is that selected Make region is EU and the addon is on the .com..

And I agree with others that having it as addon is not so nice.

Jan Knettig: The partner website wasn't really working just wasnt a smooth experience overall. Would much rather have this one done by make directly where it just works

Jan Knettig: I agree with the others comments - Feels a little "outside the box" and from a data point of view, I wasn't keen to use. Would prefer natively in Make. Thanks,

Jan Knettig: Same as everyone else:

Dmitrii Ratnikov: This matches my experience too. Login - go back to the market forced to login again, and so on. Would also prefer this to be native to Make due to security and privacy concerns.

Thank you very much for all the answers! Keem them coming, really appreciate it.

Jasper Oorthuys Makes perfect sense. Can you be more specific on what is clumsy when working with makemarket.io? Could you also point out what triggers, actions or searches would you need for your use case?

David Crowther Understand it’s an extra cost. Are you automating your Wise-related use cases in some other way now?

Manuel - Techflow.ai GmbH while it is technically possible that the app tracks every single request, it’s not necessarily the case. I completely understand your concern with a financial app like Wise. What would help you to trust a 3rd party app even with your financials? What would you need to know about it?

Dmitrii Ratnikov I wasn’t able to replicate your issue based on your description. I tried the whole process now again and was able to set up both the makemarket.io account and the wise app on a different zone than eu1. So, it shouldn’t matter what zone/region you are using in Make. Can you be more specific or book a call with me?

Also, you need to use the Wise by Makemarket.io, not the Wise (Add-on) link to actually use the app, see attached screenshot.

Jannis Carstensen I remember you had issues. Were you eventually successful solving them with the makemarket.io team since they offered help?

Neil Walker Understand. What would make you keen to use it even though it’s 3rd party developed?

Brendon McCarthy Understand. What do you need to know about a 3rd party or its app so it becomes trustworthy to you? What are the cases when an additional cost is justifiable to you?

Jan Knettig: Personally, I wouldn't work with any third-party app unless it was developed by Wise, or at most a known financial entity. Only if we had 100s of transactions to automate would we consider any minimal additional costs, but as a small business it is unreasonable to pay for Make and a third-party. This applies to any third-party apps, this business model, while understandable, is still disagreeable with the premise of paying for Make and then Make turning around and passing you off to pay more to its "partners". If you need to scale, buy the partners and integrate apps natively...Just say no to the SalesForce model :)

Jan Knettig: I'm using Wise's webhook to connect with Make.

Jan Knettig: I completely agree with what many others have mentioned already. This business model is good for Make's profits and for Make's partner's profits but it is bad for us, Make's customers. The costs of developing integrations should be born by Make and whether they do it inhouse or outsouced is up to them. Make needs to take full responsibility for all aspects of cost, security and availability of apps on their platform, simply passing that on to 3rd parties under the banner of "you get it quicker" is passing the buck. Nobody who cares about security (which should be everyone) feels at all comfortable having more eyes/systems processing/accessing data, especially financial or other PII. Nobody who cares about costs (which is all small businesses and at least some larger ones) wants to pay extra for something that should already be included, especially when that extra cost is by comparison very high. Nobody who cares about availability (most people handling financial data, like Wise) wants another system involved that reduces it, especially when current availability isn't perfect. Nobody wants this to escalate to other apps that Make decide to not develop or update or fix because there is a "better" 3rd party app. We end up with even higher costs and even lower security and availability. I am quite surprised that Make doesn't understand this already, we are no different than most customers of most products. We simply want a service that is secure, that works well and at a reasonable and predictable price! I personally want to use a Wise integration to integrate with Wise, what more do you really need to know!

Brendon McCarthy Thank you for your comments. That is a great insights that if the app is developed by Wise itself, you would trust it. Not sure what you refer to as a "known financial entity"?

I understand that as a small business you are cost-aware. I still have on mind that the cost of makemarket.io specifically is $5/month for all their apps (Wise and another roughly 50 apps).

What would you say could be a fair price to pay for a single app for a business like yours if any?

David Crowther thank you very much for that answer. Is there then actually any added value of a Wise app on Make for you even if it was built-in?

Alec Wills thank you for your comments. We understand the need of feeling secure, especially with financial apps like Wise. We launched the marketplace with the vision that the availability may be actually even better with the Add-on apps as their developers only manage a small amount of apps and are also motivated to keep them updated as they are making revenues out of that.

When you say "current availability isn’t perfect", can you be more specific, please?

Jan Knettig: By availability I mean systems being available to operate. https://status.make.com/history lists times where parts of the system were unavailable, is that specific enough? Adding a 3rd party adds another thing to go wrong.

It's not $5/month it's $7 and of their roughly 50 apps I would only be interested in Wise. That's more that a 20% increase on my Make subscription for a single app. In my book that's a lot, especially if it becomes a trend, i.e. Make stop adding or fixing apps because there is a "better" 3rd party one available.

If you want a fair price divide a Make subscription by the number of inhouse apps and then multiple by the available 3rd party apps. I make that $0.92/month combined for all 3rd parties. That makes makemarket 750% more expensive than Make.

You asked for reasons why people want Wise but aren't using the 3rd party addon. It would be nice if you listened, rather than trying to persuade us we are wrong! I can only speak for myself but it seems to me the answer is obvious. Successful businesses tend to listen to what their customers want. And we want Make to develop and support the app. We don't want extra complexity and cost. Even if makemarket were entirely free we would still want to avoid the extra complexity (multiple accounts, multiple support teams and their arguments about who was responsible, etc).

Alec Wills: thank your for explaining your concerns in detail. Maybe it’s good to note that the apps, even if they are externally developed, are still running inside Make, so an "app outage" would be a "Make outage" and would most likely concern all apps, not just the single one. However, it may possibly happen, there will be a bug in the app and then yes, it’s the 3rd party dealing with this problem, not Make - hence the extra support team, as you mention.

Makemarket.io’s subscription is $5/month when paid yearly, sorry I wasn’t precise on that. I understand you may only need this one app so other apps on makemarket.io bring you little to no extra value.

I understand your point of view on the fair price, yet the price you are offering would most likely not be motivating for anyone to create an app if monetization of the app is what motivates them.

Anyway, I think you made it clear - you want to limit added costs and be sure the app is well supported.

What if the app was developed and supported directly by Wise and was available at no extra cost directly from Make as any other built-in app? Would that cover your needs?

Jan Knettig: thank you for the response but I don't think I made it clear enough. I don't want to limit added costs and be sure the app is well supported. I want it to be simple, I want just a single organisation (Make) to deal with and I want predictable and fair costs. That single organisation means a single account, a single cost, a single support team, a single roadmap, etc.

Here's a thought experiment to illustrate my point; Let's say I use 50 different apps on Make, like Wise. Now let's say more partners copy makemarket and start to develop apps. Now let's say all of my 50 apps now have a 3rd party version that's "better" than Make's inhouse version and Make stop their development of those apps because there is a "better" 3rd party version. Now let's say by some fluke each of my apps happens to be done by a different 3rd party. I now have 51 organisations to deal with for Make apps, 51 support teams, 51 accounts, 51 costs, etc. If each of those 3rd parties charges $7 a month that's $350 a month on top of my Make subscription. Yes I know it's far fetched and an extreme case but I don't want to get even a little way there.

Also on your point about 3rd party apps running on Make and therefore not reducing availability (outages). How does this work exactly? At some point the app has to check the subscription to makemarket is both active and has sufficient operations left. Even if that is all done on Make's platform (which seems unlikely), at the very least it is an extra process for the platform to handle, and that information has to be exchanged at some point. It makes no difference how you look at it, adding 3rd parties adds more points of failure. More complexity, more outages.

To answer your question about a Wise app being developed and supported by Wise. It would only cover my needs if I only had to deal with Make. But really my needs are not limited to Wise.

I hope it is clear now. We don't want to have to deal with 3rd parties. If 3rd parties are needed because Make can't handle development of apps, for whatever reason, we want Make to deal with the 3rd parties, so we don't have to. That is the only solution where Make, 3rd parties and us, your customers, win. At the moment we are losing!

Of course, I could be wrong, but it seems likely to me that no matter the reassurances you provide about 3rd parties or the benefits you claim, customers like me will not want to deal with them because they are a 3rd party.

I also could be wrong but I doubt my words will alter Make's decision to work with 3rd parties in this way and that would be a great shame. I hope the reason you asked your original question was because you genuinely wanted to know the reason why, so you can do something about it! I genuinely believe the only thing you can do to solve the situation is persuade Make to change the arrangement with 3rd parties such that customers don't need to deal with them in any way.

I also hope my clumsily long responses are useful and don't come across as overly hostile. It is a little frustrating when Make take decisions that so obviously benefit them at the expense of customers and then don't understand why customers don't want to happily pay more for a worse solution!

Alec Wills: thank you. I really appreciate the time and effort you put into explaining all your concerns and views. Everything is open regarding the future of how Make brings apps to customers.

One of our values is "Customer Impact First". With that in mind we launched the marketplace to bring the apps customers need faster. Certainly, there are many more ways on how to achieve that goal or even on how to run the marketplace, as outlined in your and others’ comments.

We are certainly aiming at leveraging 3rd parties to bring more apps to Make but how exactly we will do it in the future may significantly change from how we do it today.

On the support piece - let’s say an app is developed (and therefore also supported) by a 3rd party, yet is available at no extra cost to customers the same way as any other app (a built-in part of Make platform). When you need support with this app, you would use standard process to request support through Make. Your request would be automatically redirected to the 3rd party Support to answer your request.

--> in such a case would you expect a Make staff to serve as an intermediary between you and the 3rd party support (who knows how to actually support you with the app as they built it and are maintaining it) or would you be prefer talking directly to the 3rd party support as without an intermediary this shall be faster, provided that you could have done this via usual Make channels?

Also, let’s imagine a different scenario - there is an app built by a community member who did it for himself/his company and decided to share with others. It has no guaranteed support, but it is open source so anyone can check it’s not doing anything bad with their data and also enhance/edit the app if needed. In case you needed that app and there was no more official app for that yet, would you be open to using that app?

Jan Knettig: Good to hear about "Customer Impact First". Good to hear you're open to change. I don't think we are opposed to 3rd parties being involved, especially if it means apps sooner. We are opposed to the idea that Make will cut costs by stopping inhouse development of new apps or updates because there is now a 3rd party app. We are opposed to Make cutting its costs by increasing ours. And we are concerned about increased complexity and decreased security and availability that inevitably comes from more parties being involved.

On the support by 3rd parties I don't think it matters. What I would want to avoid is any kind of to and froing between Make and the 3rd party, e.g. "passing to 3rd party as they developed" -> "passing back to Make as is a platform issue" -> "no it's not, passing back to 3rd party" -> etc. Just good ownership of the issue. Thanks to working in an Australian timezone the speed of support is already a big issue for me, so anything that further slows it would not be welcome.

On the open source scenario - I would be open to using the app. I would be more open if there was quality feedback from Make and/or other users. Prehaps similar to what app stores do when they list permissions or security settings and have reviews etc. It also depends a little on the app, e.g. probably wouldn't use for a financial app like Wise.

Alec Wills: Thank you for clarifying on these points.

Jannis Carstensen: yes, you are right. You can find it here: https://www.make.com/en/integrations/wise. MakeItFuture who is developer of that app is a certified Make Partner: https://www.make.com/en/partners-directory/makeitfuture-srl. For small use cases it is available for free, for larger at attainable prices.

Jan Knettig: Nevermind I checked it out a while ago, customer dashboard was unresponsive and clunky

Jannis Carstensen: Thank you for your response. Can you be more specific by what you mean by customer dashboard?

Jan Knettig: I had input my make api key and wanted to make a new one but when I tried inputting it into makemarket the save API key button didnt do anything so my account is stuck with an unusable API key

Jannis Carstensen: oh, I see. Have you tried contacting MakeMarket.io support?

Jan Knettig: I did now but I just gave up back in june when it happened

Jannis Carstensen: Understand. We are in close communication with them. Let us know if there are any problems you are unable to solve with them. I am positive they will help you. I also made sure they would know about your problem.

Jannis Carstensen: Can you please use the following link to provide more details?

Jannis Carstensen: Hi! Can I help you resolve the makemarket issue? Please schedule a call with me so we fix your account https://calendly.com/makeitfuture/30min

Kind regards

Tiberiu