Looks cool.. but as an Obsidian user, i’m uncertain as to the depth of the differentiators. Open source sure, but obsidian has served me well and is lightning fast to open even with all core plug-ins enabled plus several community plug-ins. Nearly all of which are optional anyway.

Obsidian also has quite a moat in terms of third-party functionality enhancements with very feature rich examples like Xcalidraw.

They also offer an end to end encrypted synchronization service that works better than file based synchronization services like iCloud, and a publish service that also works well.

No casting of aspersions, but as a former fortune 500 decision-maker for enterprise software in the millions, I have a tendency to critically think about why X vs Y for my personal stack as well. Counterpoints welcome!

[–] Ozymandias88@feddit.uk 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Enshitification.

If they were really committed to keeping it "for the users" they would open source it.

The fact that they haven't means they are keeping in their back pockets enshitification to drive more users to paid options in case their current investment dries up.

[–] pemptago@lemmy.ml 6 points 17 hours ago

I love FOSS and Obsidian is literally the only close-sourced software in my stack, but open source is not necessary to prevent enshittification, not if you have interoperability. As long as data is stored in md files, if the obsidian team makes bad moves people can pack up and migrate to logseq or other competitors. While the 3rd party plugins add enhancements that might bog down switching, many of those plugins are open source and could be ported.