zlacker

That's my point, "It's full of features". You said it yourself.

You have bought a shallow but wide SaaS product, one with tons of features that don't get much development or testing individually.

You're then trying to use it like a deep but narrow product and complaining that your complex use case doesn't fit their OK-ish feature.

MS do this in a lot of their products, which is why Slack is much better than Teams, but lots of companies feel Teams is "good enough" and then won't buy Slack.

>>mattma+(OP)
I'm arguing this is an entirely flawed product category (which might have elements of fraud as well) - things that are easy to get started with, but as your skill level or the requirements complexity increases, you start to see the limitations, and get entangled in the 'ecosystem', so given a sufficiently knowledgeable workforce, you are at a net negative by year 2 or 3 compared to experts having built something bespoke, or going the open-source route.

I'm sure you have encountered the pattern where you write A that calls B that uses C as the underlying platform. You need something in A, and know C can do it, but you have to figure out how you can achieve it through B. For a highly skilled individual(or one armed with AI) , B might have a very different value proposition than one who has to learn stuff from scratch.

Js packages are perfect illustration of these issues - there are tons of browser APIs that are wrapped by easy-to-use 'wrapper' packages, that have unforeseen consequences down the road.