Maybe you already know it. I’ve just discovered Logseq (Github page) and it has some interesting and inspiring feature:
It also claims to be open-source in the future.
I hope those feature will be implemented in Obsidian, too.
I think with Roam raising a bunch of money and getting so much hype it’s only natural that clones will begin to appear. While they’re competing in the same space I see Roam and Obsidian as very different products and Obsidian gels with me a lot more.
I think the obvious potential is for competitors to challenge Roam on price, unpicking the features and architecture is relatively straightforward so I imagine people might go after that. Roam @$5 a month is lot more compelling to people than at $15…
Remember that the $15 is for 3 graphs. Anyone with 2 friends and only needing one graph would pay $5, half that if they were students or had low income.
Roam has plenty of scope to compete on price if it ever needs to.
But probably they will always be playing catch up. Roam has more development money than current competitors.
None of this is an issue for Obsidian, which is, as you say, a very different product.
I’d pay $15 a month in a heartbeat for the Roam functionality - IF it was in my files and not in a web browser.
Yes. If a database in the cloud were the only option, I’d try to work out what I could do with it, just as I do with OneNote, Evernote et al.
But that would be only a fraction of what I hope to achieve with Obsidian.
I think many of Roam’s features work best with databases, but if it were doing it with files and charging $15 I’d have to think carefully about whether I’d select it instead of Obsidian (assuming that were a similar price).
I have rarely seen any project that claimed to “be open-source in the future” that actually became that.
Rarely is not equal to never.
Of course, Obsidian is quite different and more promising.
Could you elaborate on the differences? Or maybe there is already a comparison somewhere?