Obsidian is a powerful markdown-based knowledge management tool with local-first architecture, used by 1M+ power users. Known for bidirectional linking, graph view, and extensive plugin ecosystem. Pricing: $0 for personal use, $8/month for commercial use. Obsidian emphasizes manual note-taking, linking, and knowledge building—favored by researchers, writers, and knowledge workers who enjoy crafting personal knowledge bases.
A: Because manual note-taking captures 5% of valuable information—automatic capture gets 95%. Obsidian user behavior: dedicated users create 50 notes/month (meeting insights, reading highlights, project notes)—deliberate knowledge work. Same users also: take 200 photos, save 100 screenshots, record 30 voice memos, send 500 messages, browse 100 websites. Obsidian captures 50 items (5%). Dzikra captures 980 items (95%). Why the gap? Obsidian requires conscious note creation: (1) open app, (2) create note, (3) write/paste content, (4) add links/tags, (5) organize in vault. That's 5 actions per capture—only happens for "important enough" information. Real memory happens spontaneously: overheard advice in hallway, visual inspiration on street, verbal instructions from colleague. Zero chance of Obsidian capture. Dzikra: automatic indexing of spontaneous moments. We're complementary: Obsidian for deliberate knowledge synthesis, Dzikra for comprehensive memory backup. Power users benefit most—they understand value of information but lack time to manually capture everything.
A: Plugins reduce friction but still require: (1) remembering to use plugin, (2) opening Obsidian, (3) pressing capture button, (4) confirming/editing. That's 4 conscious steps vs Dzikra's 0 steps. Plugin adoption reality: <10% of Obsidian users use capture plugins regularly (based on plugin download vs active install data). Why low adoption? Even "quick" capture is too slow for spontaneous moments. Scenario: walking, see interesting architecture, want to remember. Obsidian flow: stop walking, unlock phone, open Obsidian, launch camera plugin, take photo, add note, tag—2 minutes. Reality: you keep walking, forget moment. Dzikra: take photo with native camera app, automatic indexing + OCR + location tagging. No Obsidian opening required. Behavioral insight: capture tool must be frictionless as breathing or fails adoption. Plugins make manual capture faster. Automatic capture eliminates capture entirely. We're not "faster plugin"—we're different architecture (always-on background indexing vs on-demand capture).
A: Even organized people lose 80% of spontaneous information because life is unpredictable. Obsidian attracts highly motivated knowledge workers (maybe 1% of population who enjoy manual knowledge management). But organizational enthusiasm ≠ capture completeness. Research: even productivity enthusiasts lose information because: (1) capture moments happen when inconvenient (driving, meeting, exercising), (2) some formats resist manual entry (500 photos/month is unmanageable in Obsidian), (3) fatigue—maintaining perfect vault requires unsustainable daily effort. Evidence: Obsidian Reddit filled with "fell behind on PKM" posts. Even community's most dedicated users struggle with capture consistency. Our value for organized users: keep Obsidian for deliberate knowledge synthesis (book notes, project docs, connected thinking), add Dzikra for automatic background memory (photos, voice, screenshots, messages). Division of labor: Obsidian for curated knowledge, Dzikra for comprehensive memory. Even professional organizers don't manually catalog every possession—some things need automatic systems.
A: Templates reduce creation time, not capture burden. Template workflow: (1) trigger template, (2) fill in fields, (3) save note, (4) link to other notes—still 4 steps, still manual. Faster manual ≠ automatic. Example: user has "daily note" template that auto-creates. Great for planned journaling. But: spontaneous photo of whiteboard? Must manually: (1) transfer photo to computer/Obsidian folder, (2) embed in daily note, (3) add context. Result: 90% of spontaneous captures never make it into Obsidian. Templates optimize for predictable workflows (daily notes, meeting notes, book notes). Life memory is 95% unpredictable (random inspiration, overheard conversations, visual references, verbal instructions). Templates don't help unpredictable capture. Dzikra's advantage: no template needed because capture is automatic, not form-based. We index reality as it happens, not as you document it. Templates are powerful for intentional knowledge work. Don't solve comprehensive memory backup problem.
A: Plugins automate note manipulation, not capture from external sources. Plugin limitations: Obsidian plugins operate within Obsidian's sandbox—can rearrange notes, query content, generate templates. Can't access: (1) iPhone camera roll, (2) system-wide screenshots, (3) voice recorder, (4) message apps, (5) browsing history. Why? Security + OS limitations. Obsidian is desktop/mobile app, not OS-level integration. Building automatic capture requires: background processes, OS permissions (photos, microphone, location), multi-app monitoring, cloud sync infrastructure. This isn't plugin—it's separate system app. Technical reality: no amount of Obsidian plugins can capture content outside Obsidian. Users would need: separate capture tool → export to Obsidian folder → plugin processes it. That's Dzikra's architecture. But Obsidian users won't build this (requires engineering skills) and maintaining DIY system fails (complexity overwhelm). We're pre-built, professional-grade automatic capture system that can export to Obsidian vault. We're infrastructure layer Obsidian plugins can't replicate.
A: Complexity is appropriate for knowledge synthesis, overkill for memory backup. Why power users accept Obsidian's learning curve: manual linking and graph building improves thinking → creates insights → intellectual ROI = worth 100 hours learning. Why same users won't accept complexity for memory backup: complex memory tool doesn't improve thinking—just preserves information. No intellectual ROI, pure utility. Must be effortless or fails adoption. "Power vs simplicity" is false dichotomy. Right framing: "deliberate knowledge work vs automatic memory preservation." Different jobs require different tools. Power users will use both: Obsidian for active knowledge synthesis (connecting ideas, writing notes, building arguments). Dzikra for passive memory backup (preserving everything automatically). Analogy: power users love manual transmission cars (control, engagement) but appreciate automatic garage doors (utility, convenience). Not dumbed down—right-sized for task. Memory backup should be invisible, not engaging. Engagement is for knowledge work.
A: We want 1.5B people who lose important information, not 1M knowledge work enthusiasts. Market segmentation: Obsidian serves self-selected minority who enjoy knowledge management as intellectual activity (~1M users globally). Dzikra serves everyone who loses important information (91% of smartphone users = ~1.5B people per Verizon research). 1,500× larger market. Different value props: Obsidian = tool for thinking (building second brain, connecting ideas, personal knowledge management). Dzikra = utility for memory (preventing information loss, finding forgotten items, backing up life). Obsidian users are valuable but small—academics, researchers, writers, PKM enthusiasts. Memory backup is universal need—everyone loses photos, forgets conversations, misplaces information. We're optimizing for mass market, not power user niche. Quality vs quantity: Obsidian's quality = engaged users who customize vaults. Our quality = reliability for everyone (system "just works" without customization). Different business models: Obsidian can succeed with 1M passionate users. We need 10M+ mainstream users. Requires different UX philosophy (friction vs frictionless).
A: Graph view surfaces connections between manually created notes—requires notes to exist first. Our automatic capture creates comprehensive dataset for AI to find connections you never made manually. Connection discovery comparison: Obsidian approach: (1) user creates notes, (2) manually links related notes, (3) graph view shows link structure. Requires disciplined linking. Our approach: (1) automatic capture of everything, (2) AI finds semantic connections across all content (photos, voice, text, screenshots), (3) show unexpected relationships user never linked manually. Coverage: Obsidian finds connections within 50 manually created notes/month. Dzikra finds connections across 1,000 automatically captured items/month. 20× more material for serendipity. Example: Obsidian might show "meeting notes about Product A" links to "book notes about scaling." Our AI shows: (1) photo you took of competitor's product (similar to Product A), (2) voice memo where you mentioned scaling concern, (3) screenshot of article about Product A's market, (4) message thread discussing launch strategy. Richer connections because more comprehensive data. We're not replacing manual linking—we're providing automatic connection discovery at scale manual linking can't achieve.
A: PKM methods optimize deliberate knowledge work, not comprehensive life memory. Method adoption reality: (1) user discovers Zettelkasten/PARA, excited about potential, (2) spends 20 hours setting up system in Obsidian, (3) actively maintains for 6-8 weeks, (4) falls behind on daily processing, (5) abandons system, back to chaos. Abandonment rate: ~75% within 3 months (based on PKM community discussions). Why? Methods require daily discipline to process inputs into organized outputs. Most people can't sustain discipline. Our value: system works without discipline. No "method" to follow—just automatic capture and AI-powered search. PKM is for knowledge workers building expertise (deliberate practice). Memory backup is for everyone preventing information loss (life insurance). Different goals: Zettelkasten creates interconnected knowledge for writing/thinking. Dzikra preserves unfiltered life experiences for future retrieval. User overlap: power users can have both—Obsidian for curated knowledge synthesis (20 notes/month), Dzikra for comprehensive memory backup (1,000 items/month). Different tools, different purposes. PKM methods are intellectual systems for deliberate work. Not solution for automatic life memory.
A: Memory backup needs don't evolve—humans want to preserve and recall experiences, period. Feature maturity: power users outgrow note-taking tools because knowledge work needs evolve (new methodologies, linking strategies, output formats). Memory needs are constant: "Don't lose photos, voice notes, documents, messages." Unchanging requirement. What improves: execution (better AI, faster search, more storage), not core function (comprehensive capture + reliable retrieval). Power users won't outgrow automatic memory backup—they'll appreciate it more as memory archive grows. Data network effects: 1 year of Dzikra = 12K captured items. 5 years = 60K items. Value increases with time (irreplaceable historical archive). Obsidian similarly: older vaults are more valuable (more connections). We're complementary long-term tools: Obsidian = growing knowledge graph from curated notes. Dzikra = growing memory archive from comprehensive life capture. Neither tool you outgrow—both appreciate with age. "Advanced features" for memory = better AI search, more integrations, privacy controls. Not complexity—invisible intelligence. Power users want powerful results, not powerful interfaces. We deliver former.
A: Local-first is great for text notes (small data), insufficient for comprehensive memory (large media). Storage math: Obsidian vault = 5,000 notes × 2KB = 10MB of text (fits on any device). Dzikra memory = 10K photos (20GB) + 500 voice memos (5GB) + 1K videos (30GB) = 55GB. Can't store everything locally on 64GB iPhone (OS + apps use 45GB). Requires cloud backup or data loss risk. Local-only limitations: (1) no cross-device access (desktop vault ≠ phone vault without sync), (2) no backup (device loss = data loss), (3) no collaboration/sharing (data stuck on device). Users compensate with Obsidian Sync ($8/month) or Dropbox/iCloud—now data is in cloud anyway. Our approach: privacy-preserving cloud with encryption + zero-retention contracts. (1) Media stored locally on device, (2) Cloud AI via encrypted APIs with zero-retention policy, (3) Vector storage encrypted in cloud. Privacy via encryption + contractual guarantees, not location. Data is in cloud but encrypted end-to-end (we can't read it). Better than local-only because: (1) automatic backup (device loss okay), (2) cross-device sync, (3) encrypted at rest and in transit. Local-first is privacy theater if users need cloud sync anyway (which they do for device backup). True privacy = encryption + zero-retention contracts, not data location.
A: We provide export in standard formats (photos as JPG, voice as M4A, notes as text)—no lock-in. Data portability comparison: Obsidian: stores notes as markdown files (plain text, no proprietary format), readable by any text editor. Good portability. Dzikra: stores memories in native formats (photos as JPG, voice as M4A, videos as MP4, text as TXT)—also standard formats, also readable by any app. Equal portability. What we add: AI-generated metadata (transcriptions, OCR text, smart tags) stored as sidecar JSON files. Optional enhancement, doesn't lock core data. Export capability: users can export entire memory archive anytime (download all files + metadata). Import into: Obsidian vault (if they want), Google Drive, Dropbox, local hard drive. No lock-in. Vendor lock-in reality: happens with proprietary formats (Microsoft Word .doc in 1990s) or no export function (Facebook memories). We're built on open standards. Lock-in concern applies to processing/AI layer, not data layer. Users can leave Dzikra with all data intact. But won't because: AI search/retrieval is valuable. Data portability is insurance, not daily use case.
A: Dzikra captures locally, syncs when online—offline-first architecture with cloud benefits. Our offline functionality: (1) capture continues offline (photos, voice, screenshots saved to local device), (2) basic search works offline (local index), (3) full AI search requires online (cloud processing). When online: automatic background sync to cloud (encrypted upload). Why hybrid approach: offline capture ensures no memory loss, online processing enables powerful AI features (transcription, OCR, semantic search). Obsidian comparison: Obsidian works perfectly offline for notes—but most users enable sync (Obsidian Sync or Dropbox) for backup/device access. Result: Obsidian also depends on internet for full functionality (vault sync, plugin updates, community plugins). Neither app is truly "offline-only" in practice. Real user behavior: smartphones have internet 90% of time (WiFi + cellular). Offline capability is edge case, not primary use case. We optimize for 90% (cloud-powered AI search) while supporting 10% (offline capture). Pure offline = limiting AI capabilities users expect. Hybrid = best of both (reliable capture + powerful search).
A: Our data is in standard formats (JPG, MP4, TXT) that last forever—same longevity as markdown. Longevity comparison: Obsidian: markdown files (.md) readable by any text editor forever. Dzikra: photos (JPG), videos (MP4), voice (M4A), text (TXT)—also standard formats, readable by any app forever. Both use open standards, equal longevity. If Dzikra shuts down: (1) users export all data (photos, videos, voice, documents) in native formats, (2) data remains accessible forever (standard formats), (3) loss: AI search layer (but data preserved). If Obsidian shuts down: (1) markdown files remain, (2) data remains accessible, (3) loss: graph view, plugins, Obsidian-specific features (but notes preserved). Equivalent risk/protection. Data longevity lesson: format matters, not application. We chose standard formats intentionally (future-proof). Markdown isn't more durable than JPG—both are open standards lasting decades. Risk mitigation: we provide automatic export to user-controlled storage (Google Drive, Dropbox, local drive). Users can maintain live backup outside Dzikra. Plain text isn't uniquely eternal—standard media formats are equally future-proof.
A: Local text search is faster (milliseconds), but AI-powered semantic search requires cloud processing—different trade-offs. Search architecture comparison: Obsidian: keyword search across markdown files on local device = instant (50ms). Limitation: exact keyword matching only, no understanding of meaning. Dzikra: semantic AI search across multi-modal content (photos, voice, video, text) via cloud = 2-3 seconds. Capability: understands meaning, searches across formats (find "dog photos" even if never tagged "dog"). Trade-off: speed vs intelligence. Obsidian optimizes for speed (instant keyword search). We optimize for intelligence (AI understands what you're looking for across all formats). Use case: find note mentioning "productivity." Obsidian: instant results for exact word "productivity." Dzikra: returns photos of productivity books, voice memos discussing efficiency, screenshots of tools, text mentioning focus—comprehensive cross-format results. 2-3 seconds vs instant is acceptable when results are 10× more comprehensive. Latency perception: users tolerate 2-3 seconds for complex AI tasks (Siri, ChatGPT). Instant search expectation is for simple keyword matching. We're doing complex AI reasoning—latency is proportional to capability.
A: Second brain = curated knowledge for synthesis. Memory backup = comprehensive life record. Different purposes, both valuable. Second brain philosophy (Obsidian): capture what might be useful for future thinking/writing, link ideas, build knowledge graph. Result: 500 curated notes over years = high-quality knowledge base. Memory backup philosophy (Dzikra): capture everything in life, retrieve when needed. Result: 60K items over years = comprehensive life archive. Use case difference: Second brain: "I'm writing article about productivity, what have I learned?" (deliberate knowledge retrieval for creation). Memory backup: "Where's photo of prescription bottle?" or "What did Sarah recommend 3 months ago?" (spontaneous memory retrieval for living). Knowledge work vs life: Obsidian serves knowledge workers 5% of time (when deliberately thinking/writing). Dzikra serves everyone 100% of time (living daily life, needing information). We're complementary: use Obsidian to synthesize insights from curated notes. Use Dzikra to never lose important life information. Different tools for different jobs: thinking vs remembering. Both essential, not competing.
A: Curation assumes you know what's valuable—you don't. Importance is context-dependent and time-delayed. Curation philosophy: save only high-quality insights, ignore trivial moments. Problem: "trivial" in moment becomes "crucial" later unpredictably. Example: you photograph random restaurant sign during walk (seems trivial, don't add to Obsidian). 6 months later, friend asks "what was that place you mentioned?" Suddenly important, impossible to recall. Research: 60% of valuable information has unpredictable future utility (Microsoft Research on PIM). Manual curation captures 40% (known valuable). Automatic capture gets 100%. Noise concern: solved by AI. We capture everything, AI surfaces relevant items on-demand (intelligent retrieval, not manual filtering). Storage cost: $2/month for 1TB (negligible). Search quality: AI makes "noisy" data instantly searchable—better than perfect curation with gaps. Modern approach: comprehensive capture + intelligent retrieval > selective curation + manual organization. Obsidian serves knowledge you know matters. We serve knowledge you'll discover matters later. Different philosophies: quality through curation vs quality through comprehensiveness.
A: We provide automatic context through AI (time, location, related content)—richer than manual links. Context comparison: Obsidian: user manually adds links between related notes (book notes → project notes → meeting notes). Creates deliberate connections user sees. Limited to what user remembers to link. Dzikra: AI automatically generates context for every capture: (1) timestamp + location (when/where), (2) surrounding captures (photos taken same day, voice notes same location), (3) semantic relationships (AI finds related content across formats), (4) entity recognition (people, places, topics mentioned). Example: voice memo about "client feedback." Obsidian: user might link to client's company note (if they remember and have note). Dzikra: automatically shows (1) photo taken 5 minutes earlier of client's whiteboard, (2) screenshot of client's website from last week, (3) previous voice memo mentioning same client, (4) location of client's office (GPS). Context from AI analysis, not manual linking. Our automatic context is: (1) more comprehensive (across all captures, not just notes), (2) temporal/spatial (real-world context), (3) zero effort (vs manual linking effort). Manual links show thought connections. Automatic context shows reality connections. Both valuable, different types.
A: Different activities: note-writing = reflection for understanding. Memory capture = preservation for retrieval. Not competing. Reflection value: writing in Obsidian forces thinking, clarifies ideas, builds knowledge. Essential for learning and creation. 100% true—we don't replace this. Memory value: automatic capture preserves raw experiences for future reference. Essential for not losing information. Different needs. User behavior: Obsidian users might write 5 reflective notes/week (deep work sessions processing ideas). Same users experience 1,000 memorable moments/week (photos, conversations, inspirations). 5 reflections + 1,000 captures = complementary. Dzikra doesn't discourage reflection—it removes pressure to "capture or lose forever." Actually enables better reflection: (1) don't worry about losing information (automatic backup), (2) access comprehensive context when reflecting (all source materials available), (3) focus energy on synthesis, not capture logistics. Analogy: automatic car backup camera doesn't discourage careful driving—removes blind spot anxiety. Automatic memory backup doesn't discourage reflection—removes information loss anxiety. We handle preservation, users focus on thinking. Complementary, not competing.
A: Zettelkasten creates refined knowledge from captured ideas—requires ideas to be captured first (that's our job). Zettelkasten workflow: (1) fleeting notes (quick capture of ideas), (2) literature notes (summaries of reading), (3) permanent notes (refined insights in own words), (4) link permanent notes (build knowledge graph). Powerful for knowledge work—but only processes what enters system. Our role: comprehensive fleeting notes. Zettelkasten users capture maybe 10 fleeting notes/day manually (ideas worth processing). Reality: 100+ fleeting moments/day could inform thinking (overheard wisdom, visual inspiration, spontaneous insights). 90% never captured because manual entry is barrier. Dzikra provides: automatic comprehensive fleeting notes (all moments preserved). Users can: (1) review Dzikra memories, (2) promote valuable items to Obsidian, (3) process into permanent notes. We're the "fleeting notes" layer at scale. Workflow integration: use Dzikra for comprehensive automatic capture (raw material), use Obsidian for selective processing (refined insights). Zettelkasten without capture system = processing 10% of valuable inputs. Zettelkasten + automatic capture = processing from 100% of inputs (when desired). We're complementary infrastructure for Zettelkasten, not replacement.
A: Plugin ecosystem is strength for customization, irrelevant for automatic memory backup (no customization needed). Plugin value: extends Obsidian for niche use cases (academic citations, habit tracking, spaced repetition, kanban boards). Power users love customization—build unique workflows. Memory backup doesn't need customization: capture photos → index with AI → search when needed. Same workflow for everyone. No "plugin for my specific memory needs." Capture is universal. Architecture difference: Obsidian plugins customize how you organize/manipulate notes (inside app). Memory backup happens outside app (OS-level capture of camera, voice, screenshots). No plugin architecture helps here—requires system-level integration. Our approach: built-in comprehensive capture (no setup) + AI-powered search (no customization). "It just works" is feature, not limitation. Analogy: iPhone camera has fewer settings than DSLR (no customization) but takes better photos for most people (computational photography). Plugins are valuable when users need different workflows. Memory backup has one workflow: automatic capture + intelligent search. No plugin ecosystem needed—would add complexity without value. We're optimized single-purpose tool, not customizable platform.
A: Community is valuable for complex tools requiring learning (Obsidian). Simple tools don't need community (they just work). Community necessity: Obsidian needs active community because: (1) steep learning curve (users help each other learn), (2) endless customization options (users share setups), (3) plugin ecosystem (developers collaborate). Community compensates for inherent complexity. Dzikra design: (1) no learning curve (download → grant permissions → automatic capture), (2) no customization needed (one optimal workflow), (3) no plugins (comprehensive built-in features). Don't need community for onboarding/support—app is self-explanatory. Community vs simplicity trade-off: vibrant community indicates powerful but complex tool (requires external support). No community needed indicates simple, intuitive tool (self-service). Both valid: Obsidian's community is essential for their complexity-for-power model. Our simplicity enables mainstream adoption without community dependency. Support comparison: Obsidian users read 50 forum posts to master tool. Dzikra users open app, automatic capture starts—zero forum posts needed. Community is feature for complex tools, unnecessary for simple tools. We optimize for mass market (simple, intuitive) not power users (complex, community-supported).
A: Open API enables extensions we don't need—memory backup is complete built-in system. API extensibility: Obsidian's API allows: note manipulation, UI customization, workflow automation, external integrations. Valuable for knowledge management tool (infinite use cases). Memory backup use case: (1) capture life experiences automatically, (2) index with AI, (3) search semantically, (4) retrieve memories. Complete product—what would plugins add? "Plugin for different capture method?" No—we capture everything automatically. "Plugin for better search?" No—AI search is core competency, not outsourced. "Plugin for custom organization?" No—AI organizes automatically, manual organization defeats purpose. Closed system = focused product. We're not platform for extensions—we're complete solution for specific problem (memory backup). Historical precedent: Instagram is closed (no plugin API), focuses on one thing (photo sharing), dominates category. Photoshop has plugin ecosystem (endless use cases). Different strategies: platform with plugins (serve many use cases), focused product without plugins (serve one use case exceptionally). Memory backup is single use case requiring excellence, not extensibility. API would fragment experience, add complexity, dilute focus. Closed system = opinionated excellence.
A: Community development is valuable for niche features—not for core product reliability (that requires professional engineering). Open architecture trade-off: Benefits: community adds experimental features fast (plugins release weekly). Drawbacks: inconsistent quality, breaking changes, maintenance burden on users (plugins stop working after updates). Closed architecture benefits: (1) professional QA (every feature tested before release), (2) consistent experience (no plugin conflicts), (3) long-term reliability (we maintain everything), (4) security (no third-party code accessing sensitive data). Memory backup requirements: must be rock-solid reliable (handling irreplaceable personal data). Can't tolerate bugs or breaking changes. Professional development > community experiments. Update speed: community plugins iterate fast on experimental features. We iterate thoughtfully on core reliability + AI capabilities. Speed is secondary to correctness for personal data protection. Historical evidence: consumer products with closed architecture (iPhone, Dropbox, 1Password) achieve higher reliability than open platforms (Android fragmentation, Linux desktop). Users trust closed systems for sensitive data (photos, passwords, memories) because: professional support, security guarantees, consistent quality. Open is better for experimentation. Closed is better for mission-critical tools like memory backup.
A: Data export in standard formats protects users—service continuity matters but data preservation is guaranteed. Risk mitigation: Obsidian's protection: markdown files remain if Obsidian disappears (community might fork open-source core). Our protection: (1) automatic export to user-controlled storage (Google Drive, Dropbox, local), (2) standard formats (JPG, MP4, M4A, TXT)—accessible forever, (3) metadata as JSON (readable by any app). Equal data safety. If we shut down: users keep all data in standard formats, lose AI search layer. If Obsidian shuts down: users keep all notes, lose Obsidian app features (graph view, plugins). Equivalent risk. Business model sustainability: Obsidian: $8/month Sync subscription + $50 Publish + goodwill. Sustainable if community stays engaged. Dzikra: $8/month memory backup subscription (essential service, high retention). Sustainable if value proposition holds. Both models viable—different risk profiles: Obsidian risk = community interest fades (tool complexity limits mainstream growth). Our risk = execution failure (AI/infrastructure). Different vulnerabilities. Protection: we're incentivized to succeed (recurring revenue from millions of users). Plus data portability means users aren't trapped—can leave with memories intact. "Community ownership" is social comfort, not technical protection. Data portability is technical protection.
Strategic Insight: Obsidian serves power users building second brain through manual note-taking, linking, and knowledge synthesis—powerful for deliberate knowledge work but captures only 5% of valuable information. Dzikra solves automatic personal memory backup for mainstream users—capturing photos, voice, screenshots, messages without manual input. Different markets: 1M PKM enthusiasts who enjoy complexity vs 1.5B people who lose important information. Coexistence model: knowledge workers use Obsidian for curated knowledge synthesis (50 notes/month), Dzikra for comprehensive memory backup (1,000 items/month). Complementary tools: Obsidian for thinking, Dzikra for remembering. Not competing—serving different jobs-to-be-done within information management space.