# Fibery for knowledge management, what I desire **URL:** \ **Category:** Ideas & Features\ **Created:** [August 11, 2024, 2:34pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/fibery-for-knowledge-management-what-i-desire/6497 "2024-08-11T14:34:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 17
**Author:** ![Chr1sG](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/chr1sg/32/3941_2.png) [@Chr1sG](https://community.fibery.io/u/Chr1sG)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2024, 9:32pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/fibery-for-knowledge-management-what-i-desire/6497/17 "2024-08-12T21:32:43Z")
> [@Multiple Entity View in Pro Plan is a mistake?](https://community.fibery.io/t/multiple-entity-view-in-pro-plan-is-a-mistake/6501/5): > > Ultimately, if it was mentioned during development that it would be a premium feature (and maybe it was but I just missed it), instead of being launched as a premium feature after many of us had been looking forward to it and had discussed with our teams, it would be essentially a non issue. I think it’s unrealistic to expect that Fibery will decide/declare up front what pricing tier will apply for all the yet-to-be-developed features, and I’m not sure when is the most appropriate time to mention it for any given feature. When development starts? A week before launch? A day before? 🤷 Also, Fibery has tended to release an MVP of a feature (sometimes as experimental) and then add more sophisticated functionality. This could mean that the pricing tier choice seems steep for the initial release, but this way is probably preferable to the alternative - releasing a feature in one tier and then elevating to a higher tier as the feature comes out of experimental/functionality improves (a mistake made once already 😬 ). > [@Multiple Entity View in Pro Plan is a mistake?](https://community.fibery.io/t/multiple-entity-view-in-pro-plan-is-a-mistake/6501/5): > > it’s essential functionality of every planning/execution tool used by a team of more than 1. As has been discussed in other topics in this forum before, the definition of what is ‘essential functionality’ or ‘table stakes’ can vary from user to user. In general, Fibery is priced so that users should feel like they’re paying a fair amount for the value they’re getting, but there’s always people who will feel that it’s a bit overpriced (but hopefully a lot of people who think it’s great value). > [@DiegoKamp](#): > > the most important feature in the realm of knowledge management is the ability to transition from a general entity to multiple specific entities. For example, the entity [information source] can be divided into several views: [book], [website], [magazine], [video], each with its specific fields. This sounds like a classic PKM use case, which as Michael has said, is not the Fibery target. > [@interr0bangr](#): > > Let the Fibery team handle their own community please. We don’t want to police the forum 👮 We’re mostly a bit nerdy in here, so if in doubt, remember API = assume positive intent --- _[View the full topic](https://community.fibery.io/t/fibery-for-knowledge-management-what-i-desire/6497)._