Disagreement is fine and I do understand where you are coming from.
As I said, I don’t think there’s an issue with Obsidian picking up ideas from other places when they’re a good fit for the design and vision.
I also see no issues with anything added through plugins.
For the rest, although you are persuasive, I believe you are wrong.
There are two issues. The first is that time is urgently needed to develop the core vision. And it’s a very different core to Roam in being based on documents rather than a database. It needs to lever the document advantages rather than trying to imitate functions that come easily in the Roam database.
The second is about branding and the future. Conan is very clear that he’s positioning Roam on the high ground. It already has status and high profile adherents. He believes that the focus on intensive users will give the best feedback for development and a higher bang for buck in support costs. He recognises that all users are not equal.
Many current users are likely to be driven away by the initial pricing. If they come here, they are naturally going to look for the features they valued in Roam. Dynalist have a tradition of using user votes to drive decisions about feature development. This is where the risk comes. If that route is followed, it cedes primacy of vision to Roam with Obsidian playing imitator. And, when Roam reduces its price or users become wealthier, they will trade up by returning to Roam. Leaving behind the users who were the best fit for the Obsidian vision with a program that is not as good for their use as it might have been.
There’s a perfectly good business to be made out of providing a cheaper clone. But it only works if its designed to be that from the ground up.