Asking "what have note-taking apps accomplished?" is like asking "what have spreadsheets accomplished?" or "what have cameras accomplished?". A tool doesn't accomplish anything on its own. A tool is a means to an end.
A few days ago, someone jokingly asked if Henry Ford had a personal knowledge base in Obsidian... Well, sort of! He had something he called "jot books", where he journaled, kept notes, grocery lists, etc. Not dissimilar to how people use Obsidian. The Henry Ford Museum has fifty of these notebooks: https://www.thehenryford.org/search?Query=%22jot+book%22
How should we quantify the impact of Henry Ford's notebooks? How should we quantify the impact of spreadsheets?
Most people who accomplish anything take notes in some form, because writing is a way of thinking. We love to mythologize the tools and methods of accomplished people because we hope it will let us absorb a bit of their genius. But a good camera doesn't make a good photographer. Taking lots of photos helps.
Should you take notes? Probably. Does it matter what your method is? Probably not. Whatever works for you. Obsidian (or any other form of notetaking) is successful if it disappears and lets you accomplish your work.
Totally on your side here, asking for the accomplishments of a tool is strange. Isn't it easy to envision two people using the same note taking system extensively, with one achieving nothing and one really making it a tool that is essentially to their goals?
That being said, I have never seen such procrastination as with people on the lookout for their ideal productivity systems. People writing lengthy blogposts about the last 0.1% of optimization on their note taking systems as if note-taking was their main job. The thing is: a note taking system doesn't need to be ideal, because as with most tools it matters much more who is using it, how they are using it and for what purpose. A note taking system is like a musical instrument: if you constantly find yourself swapping them because "they don't work" chances are this is a skill-issue, not a problem inherent with the system.
There is immense value in just picking a simple system, sticking to it and only revisiting it if there are real tangible problems. I for example just put a piece of paper on my desk every week and write down the things I need to do that aren't appointments. For more complex things, sketches, etc. that I may need in the next two or three months I use a notebook. For long lived stuff I use whatever. A markdown file in the project folder, a text file on the server, Obsidian. This has served me very well for the past decade.
But my job isn't taking notes, my job is doing the things I need to do, taking notes is just something that helps me doing that.
> A tool doesn't accomplish anything on its own. A tool is a means to an end.
Let's be fair, this article is about this exactly.
> That is a question that, the more that I look at it, seems completely wrong. (...) How does anyone measure what the contribution of a piece of software is to the world? (...) The tool doesn't make the contribution. The tool enables people to make contributions to the world.
and then tries to challenge quoted articles again to prove/disprove those words.
The contribution of Excel, the most popular programming environment in the world, is undoubtable - therefore, not only has Excel accomplished something (popularize programming among non-programmers) but it's also easily measurable (it has done so more than any other technology in existence). It _is_ a genuine contribution to the world, by the tool itself, not just by what people use the tool for.
So, I disagree with this line of criticism - I think you very well can do those things.
I don't disagree here. I just pointed out that above commenter seems to dispute the author without having read the article in full. Turns out, some of us are just bad at communication :)
>Asking "what have note-taking apps accomplished?" is like asking "what have spreadsheets accomplished?" or "what have cameras accomplished?". A tool doesn't accomplish anything on its own. A tool is a means to an end.
Yes, but, the _shape_ of something does offer affordances of what it makes easier or harder to do. So "obsidian" vs "saving files on my computer" does seem to be a legitimate question.
I agree with you. For example, [[links]] are a useful affordance for thinking that wasn't as popular before Obsidian. However the original piece was asking:
> Has there been a meaningful increase of understanding and creation thanks to personal knowledge management systems?
My question is: in a world where photography didn't exist, how would your life have been different? How would everyone's lives be different? It's a counterfactual that's impossible to answer meaningfully. Similarly, we can't measure how the world is different as a result of the popularization of [[links]].
He also has Dyslexia, so this would have been harder and more effort than for most other people. It probably help him overcome the short term into long term memory flow that a lot of people with Dyslexia struggle with.
> Asking "what have note-taking apps accomplished?" is like asking "what have spreadsheets accomplished?" or "what have cameras accomplished?"
I think you have to be somewhat careful with this line of reasoning - the camera put the portrait artist out of business pretty much permanently, and the spreadsheet had similarly cataclysmic effects on the accounting and engineering professions.
Just because these things are tools, doesn't mean they can't distort the world by their very presence. I'd be hard pressed to put my finger on the distortion caused by obsidian et al
That is exactly the point I am making (echoing the author of the linked piece). Those tools did change the world. But I do not know how you go about measuring the net effect of it all. I can certainly share many anecdotes but what is the sum of things that happened and did not happen due to photography or spreadsheets or notes?
> what is the sum of things that happened and did not happen due to photography or spreadsheets or notes
In someways the problem here is the inverse one might expect. Without photography, the entire modern world does not exist - it's the base technology required to develop optical lithography, without which we never achieve silicon chips. Without the spreadsheet (VisiCalc), the IBM PC likely fails to find product-market fit, and the entire tech and financial worlds are a decade or more behind where they are today. These are technologies with downstream tech trees so deep we can't reasonably put an upper bound on their value.
I don't personally believe that note-taking represents a paradigm change in the same sense - obsidian and friends are really just reifying existing text-based (and even paper-based) note taking workflows, with some hypertext niceties layered in...
We're in agreement. And it's not only the technological advances that came after, it's all the small life moments and personal accomplishments too. That's why I connected this to the Henry Ford example. How can we determine which of his accomplishments would or wouldn't have happened without his notetaking practice? He probably would not be able to answer that question himself.
Web clipper is great. just tried the reader mode on this chatgpt transcript, it only shows 1 page of it. Is the purpose of reader mode to enable interactive annotation before saving to notes?
Hi,
Huge fan of your work! Just to clarify, this project isn't an alternative to obsidian-cli.
My goal is simply to enable semantic search across my vault by ingesting note chunks into ChromaDB while preserving all Wikilinks and tags. This allows AI agents to retrieve specific, semantically relevant text chunks based on user queries, rather than fetching entire notes. It also helps to find hidden connections between notes.
Like Evernote, they keep adding more and more features and functionality to the core product. The original idea of it being a great notes application over a directory of markdown files (and attachments) was simple and brilliant.
I think they jumped the shark with the canvas feature. They had to add a non-markdown file to the directory system and signaled that they were okay moving on from the original idea. Obsidian has only gotten fatter since then.
Canvas and the other big changes are all interesting ideas, but they should be a separate product or products. IMHO, Obsidian should be recognized as complete and go into a maintenance mode where stability, security, and performance are the development goals.
I think they worry that if they slow down, their paying customers (of which I am one) will jump ship. For some of us, it's the opposite.
Canvas can be disabled in Core Plugins, like most other features.
In general I mostly see the opposite criticism: that Obsidian out of the box is too barebones and that it requires plugins to be useful.
I tend to be more on your side though. I prefer Obsidian to be as streamlined as possible and hate bloat. Last year I asked the community "what should we remove from the app?" And I mostly got feature requests :(
It's a hard thing to balance, but what makes me hopeful that Obsidian won't become bloatware is:
1. We're only seven people, we don't have investors, and we plan to stay a small team so we don't have the same growth pressure that Evernote faced. We simply don't have that much bandwidth.
2. The file-over-app approach makes it easier to build opt-in interoperable tools like you describe. We've explicitly focused on shipping things like Obsidian API, URI, and CLI instead of building everything into the app (most other teams in our space seem busy stuffing a bunch of AI junk in their apps). One example is Obsidian Web Clipper, a separate tool we made that has matured into a great separate product.
3. Plugins (both core and community) mean you can make the app as streamlined as you want.
> Obsidian out of the box is too barebones and that it requires plugins to be useful.
From my perspective, it's absolutely not. I have a couple of vaults, and only one of them has one community plugin installed, and that's edit history. I'm pretty happy with what it provides out of the box.
I have a couple of friends who uses bigger/heavier plugins like media manager to basically transform Obsidian to other tools, but as a note taking tool and wiki/digital garden publishing platform, it does a great job out of the box.
I currently trust it to keep my most valuable notes, to be honest.
Please keep it up that way. I really feel sad when the tools I like go haywire and I'm forced to stop supporting the people behind that because I can't use the tool anymore.
Hi! Not the OP but I've used Obsidian since before 2020 till about 2022 when I switched to org-mode and Emacs.
I like the new Obsidian features like the CLI a lot but I still feel Obsidian inherently is incredibly similar to org-mode and Emacs (guess that's why I was drawn to both) in the sense that both work with local data and file formats that usually can be opened in any text editor but both of them bolt so much stuff on top that the files themselves (markdown or org) become incredibly coupled and hard to use by themselves.
Now of course in Obsidian's case you're not forced to install a lot of plugins that lead to this issue but I don't know a lot of people that have the diligence to keep their notes "light". Though if I remember from your blog post showcasing how you do note-taking you might qualify.
And then it's also the fact that you've got a powerful piece of kit and now you're not supposed to mold it to your needs and preferences and avoid driving it hard, instead you're forced to practice discipline. Sure, there's something to be said for that too but that's besides the point.
If I understood correctly Obsidian is readying for a plugin marketplace akin to the Unity Asset Store and I'm personally thinking this might drive you to monetize Obsidian harder even though you've shown throughout the years you're a great steward of it.
To get to the point finally I guess people are worried that because Obsidian itself is not open source at some point it might evolve in a way that becomes incompatible with most peoples' preferences and for me that's where something like org-mode and Emacs inch ahead because it's FOSS.
That said thank you for Obsidian. It was my entry point towards clearer thinking and brought a semblance of structure when I needed it most. I don't use it anymore but I watch enthusiastically from the sidelines.
tl;dr the chance of a paid plugin marketplace might signal a shift in the community
My bad! I've mixed up some parts from this official blog post[0] and some talk in the community.
I thought the "What does it mean for a plugin to be Paid or have Optional Payments?" part from the FAQ was hinting towards the chance for people to sell plugins on https://community.obsidian.md/ and Obsidian itself would facilitate the transaction for a small cut at some point in the future.
I'm glad that's not the case and I apologize again for the confusion though I hope it's clear now why I believed this in the first place.
I really don't understand how one could come to that conclusion. The blog post states that "Obsidian Community is not a store". I wrote that so that the community explicitly knows we are not going in that direction.
The new labels are meant to indicate which plugins have payments, since many plugins connect to paid services. There is no intention for Obsidian to ever become a middleman.
Yeah, that's on me. Thanks for clearing this up. I hope my previous comment didn't come across as doubling down on my mistake!
Now after our interaction I don't worry that much that Obsidian is closed source, it's clear that it's in the right hands.
Also I want to say that I hope JSON Canvas catches on, initially I was worried that the Canvas feature would lead to a "soft lockdown" but it isn't the case and I've found out about it recently. Thank you for the work that went into it!
As far as I can tell, every issue you flagged in this article is now automatically caught in the new plugin review system launched last week. The new system prevents plugin updates from being released/downloaded if any of these issues are present.
The team is also working on adding permissions and more controls, see the recent announcement and HN discussion:
Since last week hundreds of plugins have been updated to patch vulnerabilities. That said there is a lot more to do and we're actively working on it. It's a very high priority.
If there are any other checks you think we should add to the automated review system I'd be happy to look into those. Since the review system is mostly open source you can also contribute to it directly, though perhaps that would be in conflict with the purpose of your company since our approach doesn't use AI for now?
On the other hand, that may be part of the reason why Obsidian has such a rich plugin ecosystem. Perhaps there is less of an incentive to build a good plugin API if you can just tell people to fork instead.
That's fair. And vim and Emacs have been forked in the past, so you may be on to something there. But, I still expect my editor to be open source. I might be weird like that though.
True, and it's great that they don't block those (they absolutely could).
But those are plugins and aren't as easy to use as the integrated sync. Obsidian wants to have their sync to be the easiest to use, and the easiest to discover.
If they went FOSS anyone could just create a rebranded fork that includes their sync instead of Obsidian's sync. Even GPL wouldn't stop that, if the competitor would just keeps their product open source too.
As an Obsidian LiveSync user, there is no way I would recommend using it or other third-party alternatives to my non-technical friends. The initial setup and fly.io setup was worth me saving ~50 Euro/year, but I doubt that holds for my less technically inclined peers.
Obsidian doesn't collect any telemetry data but my estimate is that less than 10% of Obsidian users use plugins (might be closer to 1%). Most people don't even activate any of the built-in core plugins that are off by default.
Just wanted to say a huge thankyou for being so patient in the forum; it's quite annoying that the comment section is a more a function of the title + personal opinions than a function of the blog content.
I love using obsidian, and thanks so much for all the work that you and the team have put in :)
For what it's worth - and I know I'm being very critical of the plugin security model here - I also think Obsidian is very good, and am a paying customer.
Part of my frustration with this is that I've seen hobbyist video games with a more robust plugin security model than Obsidian's plugins. It's possible to do better than just "yolo, eval(github)", and I feel like it would thoroughly improve Obsidian for me, and apparently many others (judging by all these comments), if Obsidian invested in creating a secure plugin ecosystem rather than putting lipstick on the existing yolo plugin vortex.
Just because Obsidian is in JS, and JS has a terrible culture around package security, doesn't mean Obsidian needs to inherit and propagate that culture.
As I wrote, yes, a permission system is planned. But 1. we cannot oversimplify the problem of getting from here to there, 2. permissions are not a panacea. If you look at the scorecards for a few plugins you'll immediately see issues that a permission system wouldn't catch.
Millions of people depend on thousands of Obsidian plugins. We cannot just flip a switch and break everyone's workflows overnight. It will be a gradual process. We're working on it, and I hope you'll at least concede that this is better than nothing.
No, I don't agree. Asking plugins to pinky-promise which resources they will and will not use is absolutely meaningless from a security perspective. If anything, it engenders a false sense of security in end users, and continues a pattern whereby Obsidian tacitly endorses things that are inherently risky.
The fundamental issue here is that the current plugin model is intrinsically broken, and tinkering around the edges is just a diversion of efforts from clearing that tech debt. It doesn't need to happen overnight, but it does need to happen.
The meaningful improvement here is the promise of sandboxed plugins in the future, assuming I understood correctly, and that's just a fairly vague promise at this stage. I absolutely and in full earnestness wish you guys the best with that one. It will meaningfully improve Obsidian and make it easier to recommend to others.
It's not tacit, it's explicit. People should have the freedom to do dangerous things as long they understand and accept the risks. I'm not interested in making software that imposes limits on what a person can do with their own computer.
I completely understand if you disagree, in which case Obsidian is not for you. It's perfectly fine to not recommend it! Obsidian is not trying to be for everyone.
I'm a programmer, I have zero fear of programmable tools, and it's a clumsy attempt to divert from my point to suggest I do.
You're creating a false dichotomy. A well designed sandbox with accurate permissions is HOW a person "understands and accepts risks". A system whereby a plugin pinky-promises one thing, and then does another, precludes informed consent.
Obsidian tacitly endorses this ecosystem because it is profitable for Obsidian to point to plugins for missing base functionality, and then throw up its hands and pretend like it's not their problem when something inevitably goes pear-shaped. That's how we end up with "warning screens" that in fact encourage the user to press "Yes". (And, as in the recent security incident, Obsidian then disclaims any responsibility when the user does click Yes, despite the heavy encouragement by Obsidian.)
Not hard to see why a business would act this way - all profits are ours and all risks are someone else's - but spare me the faux moralising about software freedom.
It is surreal to claim that a well defined sandbox with accurately described permissions is somehow against freedom. It would be a far more robust, trustworthy and empowering plugin ecosystem than the one Obsidian has now.
> Obsidian is not for you
Ooft.
And a lot of other HN commenters and other tech-savvy users with my exact concerns, apparently.
Somehow, most other software doesn't have this recurrent problem of mainlining third party malware to their users. See you at the next Obsidian "security incident", I guess?
I'm trying to have a real conversation with you but you seem determined to disagree with me, twist my words, and put up these straw man arguments. Why are you trying to pin me as anti-sandbox/permissions? I'm not.
I don't think these two points should be particularly controversial:
1. Permissions are planned but they're not a panacea. Apps are sandboxed on iOS/Android, browser extensions have permissions, yet both can easily do dangerous things. Permissions suffer the same issue you described: all a user needs to do is press "Yes" to allow danger. If you care about making powerful software you inevitably must have some way for a user to say they "understand and accept the risks". The other option is to simply not let your software be powerful, which is not what I am interested in working on.
2. Analyzing plugin source code must be part of the overall solution not only for security, but also performance, reliability, ease-of-use, etc. How can you be against that? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
48 hours in, the new review system is already working. Hundreds of updates have been published by developers cleaning up their code and making their plugins safer in ways that a permission system would not catch. You can see that for yourself by looking at recent updates from the community: https://community.obsidian.md/search?type=plugin&sort=update...
As I have stated elsewhere many times, I'd be working on Obsidian even if I were the only user. That's why the app is free, we don't have investors, and we're okay staying small. The way plugins work is not motivated by money, it's a reflection of the kind of software we want to use.
It is fulfilling to see many people find value out of the app. People are creating many useful and interesting plugins I would have never imagined. Selfishly, I want to be able to use and trust those plugins just like anyone else. And that's the only motivation I need to work on the problem of plugin safety.
I understand you wish we had sandboxed plugins first, and built on top of it that way. But we didn't. Now we have been cursed with success and a large ecosystem that needs to be managed and transitioned. We will continue to chip away at the problem bit by bit. I don't think there's any other way to do it.
FWIW, I think you're twisting my words and putting up strawman arguments too.
Permissions are not a panacea, but it is a very rare plugin indeed that will need to run unsandboxed executable code with full disk and network access. Currently, that's every plugin. The work of the vast bulk of Obsidian plugins could be achieved with much narrower permissions than this. You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good if you're letting the 0.1% be a blocker for improving security around the remaining 99.9%.
I use and pay for Obsidian. I very much look forward to a future where plugins are something that someone could confidently run. I don't think we're there yet, and that's all my stance comes down to. I am happy you're taking the plugin situation seriously and I wish you the best of luck.
On an interpersonal note, I was really put off by the tone of the response ("Obsidian isn't for you", "clearly, you didn't read the post", etc) and the strawman arguments laced throughout (how can you be against code review? Unlike you, we believe in software freedom... ). I'm not sure what comments like "Obsidian isn't for you" were supposed to achieve, but I found that comment quite galling. To the extent my response to that was a little fiery, I apologise. I don't think either of us came at this discussion in the most constructive way. I can only own my part of that.
Good luck with the plugin improvement roadmap! Genuinely. I intend to remain a paying customer, despite - uh - the CEO's opposition. :P
I apologize for being so feisty. I found your initial comment extremely disheartening:
> No permissions system, nothing resolved.
I could not let that comment stand because it's simply not true, and you probably wouldn't say it that way to me in person. We're not some faceless corporation. We're a team of seven sharing a year's work, which is expressly imperfect and in progress. I'm not looking to be showered with praise, like I said in my comment on the post we're listening to everyones gripes, and working on them. But a bit of nuance and congeniality is appreciated.
You're right! I apologise for the tactlessness. I would find it extremely disheartening to hear what I said to you. There was a better, gentler way to express my overall concerns, and I owed it to you to take that extra minute to do so. Not only would it have avoided needless upset, but it would have been more effective in getting those concerns across. Mea culpa.
A few days ago, someone jokingly asked if Henry Ford had a personal knowledge base in Obsidian... Well, sort of! He had something he called "jot books", where he journaled, kept notes, grocery lists, etc. Not dissimilar to how people use Obsidian. The Henry Ford Museum has fifty of these notebooks: https://www.thehenryford.org/search?Query=%22jot+book%22
How should we quantify the impact of Henry Ford's notebooks? How should we quantify the impact of spreadsheets?
Most people who accomplish anything take notes in some form, because writing is a way of thinking. We love to mythologize the tools and methods of accomplished people because we hope it will let us absorb a bit of their genius. But a good camera doesn't make a good photographer. Taking lots of photos helps.
Should you take notes? Probably. Does it matter what your method is? Probably not. Whatever works for you. Obsidian (or any other form of notetaking) is successful if it disappears and lets you accomplish your work.