Of course you get an image, but is it as good as the one you could get with a conventional developer? You might not care at all and be more than pleased, but it's not that simple. A monobath is a balancing act. You have two different processes running parallelly, development and fixation. It is obviously mandatory to fix film completely, which means that there is a minimum processing time. But what if this time is too long and you get too high contrast? What if it's too short and you get low contrast? And what if you wanted to push process your film? How about pull processing? That's what I was talking about previously. You can do all these things with a monobath, but it has to be specifically formulated for each film and use case scenario, which excludes a "universal" formula from being adequate. These are the shortcomings, which may, or may not apply to you. If you are happy with a monobath, I will not be the one to judge what you should do, this is up to you. But a marginally shorter processing time and one less bottle of chemicals to store isn't much of a pro as far as I am concerned.