Custom app

Hi,

I’m used to using Zapier and I’m finding creating an integration in make.com (custom app?) a little confusing. I’ve looked through the help and asked support but I can’t find an answer to my question.

Q. I understand that anyone can create a custom app for an API that does not already have a custom app in make.com (which is an improvement over Zapier). But, what I find confusing is whether they can then publish that and have it available to other make.com users. If that is the case then what happens when an employee from the actual company wants to create an official published app in make.com?

Thank you,

Regards,

Steve

Hi @Steve_Borg,

interesting question! I don’t know what happens! :smiley:

Good question indeed.
That’s something the internal Make team would have to answer.
@Michaela can you forward that to Michal and his team internally?

Your app can remain active on an invitation only basis. But I guess the official app by the company would be prioritized.
They would be smart to arrange a deal with you so yours will be the official one, and you’ll maintain it for them OR you sell it completely to them, and they will maintain it.

Hi @Steve_Borg, welcome to the community :wave:
Thanks for the tag @Manuel.Techflow.ai :pray:

If the actual company contacts us wanting to take over a custom app built by one of our users/build an entirely new app for their service, we reach out to the owner of the app and consult the situation with them.

2 Likes

Hi @Michaela,

thank you for shedding some light into the dark! :slight_smile:

I can imagine it’s probably on a case-by-case basis but as it’s quite interesting for me as a developer I’m keen to know. Is there some sort of “right” to the company to become owner of the current app? Let’s say I’ve developed the app, do they simply get the code?
Or is it the other way around and there is some sort of “right” to the dev, as the API probably is publicly documented etc. and the development has been done already?

As you can probably not delete the app (being used in workflows) and put a new one in… there has to be some sort of pre-setting?

Thanks for the interest @Richard_Johannes :slight_smile:

At this moment it’s really all about reaching an agreement with the owner of the app. It does sometimes happen that the custom app owners realize that app maintenance is no piece of cake and are actually quite happy to hand it over to the owner of the API.

In case this is helpful, I’m also adding links to a couple of resources where all the relevant processes are described

:arrow_right: App Review
:arrow_right: Custom app maintenance

1 Like

Thanks a lot @Michaela! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thank you to everyone who has replied.

Surely, a better solution would have been to allow for both official and unofficial apps? The official apps (i.e. those written by the owners of the API) would be marked as official apps and the unofficial apps would be marked as unofficial. This then allows the official app together with any number of unofficial apps to be listed and the creator of a scenario can then decide which they use. The company that owns the API can still negotiate with the existing app creator to take over what they have already done if they want a head start.

I must say, as a potential official app creator and potential unofficial app creator, this worries me. I would still like to know please what happens if no agreement can be reached.

Best regards,

Steve

Thank you @Michaela for the links. That worked for me!

1 Like

Why is the Review word link in the post above going to a site called masterbox24?