Obsidian 1.5 Desktop (Public)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Obsidian’s 1.5 release prompts broader comparisons between it and open-source, local-first note-taking tools such as Logseq, Joplin, Anytype, SiYuan, Foam, and Emacs-based workflows. Commenters weigh trade-offs between proprietary but polished apps and fully open solutions, focusing on data portability (plain Markdown vs databases), syncing and paywalled cloud services, plugin ecosystems, performance, and mobile parity. Many also question the “second brain” promise, finding real value less in elaborate knowledge graphs and more in simple, low-friction workflows that fit their habits and are resilient to vendor lock-in.

Obsidian 1.5: Features and Changes

  • Noted improvements: first-party markdown table editing is widely praised; many expect to drop “advanced tables” plugins.
  • Tables still have limitations (e.g., list formatting inside cells not fully supported).
  • Global renaming of YAML properties is now built-in; global tag renaming remains plugin / editor dependent.
  • Legacy editor has been removed, affecting legacy plugins and workflows.
  • Roadmap hints at “dynamic views” and Notion-style database-like capabilities, though exact scope is unclear.

Desktop vs Mobile & UX

  • Several users find feature parity between desktop and mobile strong, including plugin support on mobile.
  • Others report the mobile editor UI as clunky and off-putting, especially compared to desktop.
  • Android storage permissions appear scary but are explained as necessary due to scoped storage limitations.

Alternatives and Ecosystem

  • Popular alternatives discussed: Logseq, Joplin, Anytype, SiYuan, Zettlr, Foam (VS Code-based), org-mode/org-roam, Notes/Plume, DEVONthink, VS Code-only setups.
  • Logseq is seen as more outliner/Roam-style and FOSS but “jankier” and often slower; plugin ecosystem is weaker.
  • Joplin praised for web clipping, but criticized for SQLite storage, lack of graphs, and some UX quirks.
  • Anytype and SiYuan positioned as Notion-like, local-first tools; licensing of Anytype is debated as not truly “open source.”
  • Foam and VS Code workflows appeal to those wanting tight integration with a powerful editor and static-site publishing.

Open Source, Lock-in, and File Formats

  • Strong concern from some about proprietary apps gradually increasing lock-in and monetization pressure.
  • Others argue Obsidian’s use of plain(ish) markdown and normal folders keeps lock-in low, since any editor can open the vault.
  • Disagreement over what counts as “open source”; licenses restricting commercial use are flagged as non-OSI-compliant.

Sync, Pricing, and Monetization

  • Sync is divisive: some view it as a “non-feature” best delegated to tools like Syncthing, git, or cloud drives; others see robust native sync as essential.
  • Obsidian’s paid sync and publish (around $8/month) are seen by some as fair given complexity; others consider that too expensive compared to general cloud storage.
  • Complaint that both Obsidian and Logseq put sync behind paywalls, forcing DIY solutions for non-technical users.

Workflows, “Second Brain”, and Skepticism

  • Many describe life-changing workflows: daily journals, project notes, recipes, RSS reading, Dataview queries, and templated meeting notes.
  • Others report spending too much time on “second brain” systems that they rarely revisit, concluding most knowledge lives fine in their head or is easily re-found via web/LLMs.
  • A middle-ground view: light structure plus good search, minimal tagging/backlinking, and focus on writing rather than curating.