IMO this category of apps includes the vast majority of apps on the market. It is very well perceivable – I would say it’s a truism – that some apps with humble origins could bring evolutionary change to something in the future. Feel free to call that evolutionary change a disruption or anything you prefer. But why should that be a concern?
The “disruptive innovation” paradigm you cited is strictly retroactive. We can never know in advance which app will actually become the disruptor. Therefore this paradigm is mostly meaningless before the disruption has already taken place.
The police know this situation well: Someone in a community is going to commit crimes at some time, but we don’t know who. Your local police is surely not monitoring everyone in the community with even suspicion. With today’s AI capabilities, they might be using a complex and controversial algorithm to determine who are more likely to commit crimes, and direct more resources towards these individuals.
Does Obsidian deserve more suspicion for being a future disruptor than other apps?
- YES – certain aspects (a.k.a. features) of Obsidian distinguish it from competitors.
- NO – Obsidian lacks certain features critical for disruptive growth.
- DON’T KNOW. Then you’re just telling us to be concerned about emerging apps in general.
I hope this analogy makes the point clear: for the sake of discussion, Obsidian’s features, and a lack of such, are of equal importance. I do believe there is a reason Obsidian is mentioned more often than anything else in the forum. There is something appealing, something unique (a.k.a. features) about it, which has been the trigger of this thread in the first place.