I’m not yet totally clear, but there are definite issues to solve, either for me in config/setup, or Fibery in features or import handling. More generally I think there are a number of things Fibery could do better in a functional/organizational respect to appeal more to Notion or a general PKM crowd. There are some specific challenges that arise for the exact situation I was referring to (a lot having more to do with migration, which is relevant here, but also not exclusive to the PKM consideration by any means).
So I want to suggest 1-2 specific, potentially more high impact and/or unique areas of development/focus, and then perhaps elaborate on some of the other issues specific to my current new-workspace experience elsewhere. But first here I just want to highlight that I think reaching the PKM demographic is as much about simply deciding to do so and orienting some marketing/outreach efforts that way as it is about how exactly Fibery works or developing any specific feature.
So first, this may surprise some, but as I confront the potential migration from Notion to Fibery for the above-mentioned project, one of the biggest issues of “clunky, I don’t now if my teammates will accept this” is the significance of Fibery’s orientation toward databases vs. “pages”. Our workspace in Notion has involved quite a large number of ad-hoc created and organized Pages, often nested under each other. This apparently doesn’t import well into Fibery, so that’s an initial problem right off the bat. Fibery can basically do most of what Notion does when it comes to pages (and more in some respects), especially now that nested pages are available. But even if I were to manually address the hierarchy issue from the imported data, it’s a lot of work, and more importantly for this conversation it’s true that the default is to orient people toward DBs in Fibery vs. Pages in Notion. And I understand why, I really do! But Notion users, and especially PKM-focused ones, really like Page-first and “database anywhere”.
The Database orientation of Fibery is not a fundamental technical limitation but it shows up often in how Fibery is designed. A solo PKM-oriented user is likely to feel overwhelmed and annoyed by the persistence of Database-oriented stuff in their primary navigation in the side panel (even I was in coming to this new workspace!). As solo users they are, of course, Admins, because they’re the only person in their workspace. They haven’t built-out a “Personal” view yet, and probably don’t even understand what that distinction means yet (add this to the onboarding somewhere!), and even then probably don’t want to have to Fav whole hierarchies of Pages they might want to use or at least see frequently and easily. I was skeptical of the “Database editing is now just a part of the hierarchy all the time” approach when it was initially proposed and I remain so, but especially in the contest of PKM solo users.
And I get it, a big part of Fibery’s power is in DBs. But I think that’s something people can get to more fully in time as they become more comfortable with the system, and I also think there is a lot of potential for figuring out how to keep things as DBs (including Pages/”Docs”), but preserve the advantages of Pages in terms of flexibility, ease of use, obvious and easy to use Hierarchy, etc. For example a Relation to “Parent/Child” pages (how Fibery seems to have handled the import of the hierarchy) is just not the same as simple sub-page creation, drag and drop, etc. even if you can emulate a lot of that with Smart Folders, etc.
Entity/Doc/Page Nesting potentially deserves an explicit hierarchy function that is separate from standard Relations and thus would be compatible, e.g. with actual Breadcrumbs, and other simpler and more familiar usage models for the vast majority of people more used to folder/nesting-based organization (which includes not just Notion people but also Obsidian, Logseq, Evernote, and… well actually most other PKM tools 
). Personally I think there is genuine work to do here that would service both new PKM-oriented users and the existing company users, many of whom also are used to hierarchical systems. Again it’s not that Fibery can’t technically do much of this, it’s that it tends to be clunkier when you do vs. other systems (meanwhile DBs are amazing to work in with Fibery and pretty crap in Notion and other systems).
Anyway I won’t go on further about that, but I think it’s actually a seemingly small but potentially significant-in-practice issue: the combination of databases being a “heavy” solution to the initial or most basic needs people often have in PKM, and the strong emphasis on DBs and their configuration in Fibery’s UI particularly in the default and Admin-level experience.
The second major idea I want to mention is a bit specific but I think could be a promising Wedge to actually get people interested in Fibery over, say, Notion (it’s also something I happen to have a vested interest in, hah) and that is to develop a class of Integrations that are based on syncing - ideally bi-directionally - with local-first, file-based PKM systems, especially Markdown-based ones. And depending on how you do it this could be a sneaky-AF way of getting people to use Fibery with some short-term resource use sacrifice (CPU cycles, storage, bandwidth) for hopefully long-term gain (user conversion).
This can start with a feature more broadly useful for everyone of local Markdown sync of Fibery entities, perhaps. A nice minimal backup approach and a nod toward the “what if Fibery goes away!?” crowd. Then imagine bi-directional sync of Obsidian data into Fibery as the next step. If you need something that either tool does better, you can go to the other and you have the same data to work with. And each one is backing up the other, to some degree. This is a challenge to implement fully and well, I know, but not insurmountable IMO, especially if you are willing to customize how Fibery deals with the Obsidian entities DB in some ways (obviously this orients it toward one particular tool, but I think it will be good to have a strong starting point while also using the same functionality to support generic local Markdown sync).
I imagine the sync function overall potentially being handled through an extension to the existing Fibery desktop app, maybe a background helper app that handles the syncing on a file-system-level but can at least be part of the same install(er). You may still need to have dedicated plugins for popular tools like Obsidian, but hopefully they can be simpler, just there to provide app-specific settings, make it work better on mobile, etc.
Now the sneaky part for Obsidian specifically: architect the sync so that it…
- Maintains all underlying and local Obsidian data, including file paths
- Allows full bi-directional sync on the free plan, only enforcing file size limits (now with Obsidian Bases you need to decide if you want to allow synced Obsidian bases to be > 10 on free plan, maybe this is a good upgrade incentive even for solo use)
- Make Fibery basically a free alternative to Obsidian Sync, to as much of a degree as you can! Obviously you can’t make them add Fibery as an option natively in Obsidian, nor get them to add it to their official docs, but outside of that whatever you can do to make it easy to setup, e.g. maybe a small plugin or something.
I can’t be sure, but I bet some parts of the Obsidian community would be pretty excited about such a full-featured cloud PKM/DB tool as Fibery giving that level of support to Obsidian. You’d probably get a decent amount of free users just for the sync and edit-anywhere (with a web browser) + superior mobile app experience (arguably, already). Would they convert to paid users? Hard to say, of course. But if you previously spent $10s of thousands of dollars on various marketing efforts, employees, PR companies, etc, etc. over the years, maybe this is another worthy experiment as a real alternative to pure marketing for Fibery growth…
Phew, that was a lot, and I realize some (or all 
) of this may be impractical, wishful thinking, etc. But I think it’s important to do some “thinking outside the box” because let’s face it: Fibery is amazing and its growth is slower than it deserves for its capabilities, pace of development, openness and transparency, etc. Plus it’s 8 years old and if it wants to have any hope of being an acquisition in the next 2 years as @mdubakov alluded to on Twitter then it’ll need to pick up the pace! (I’m at least half kidding 
)
Many other products have gained huge and passionate communities doing things little different or better than what Fibery is doing in principle or in terms of underlying tech, just in a different space and with a different orientation or emphasis of the underlying capabilities (mostly PKM, examples include Heptabase, Capacities, Anytype, and of course Notion, among many more). And of course simply trying to be an “everything tool” is often a liability (though it can also lead to decent success, see ClickUp, at least in terms of user count and awareness/mindshare), so it makes sense that Fibery focused on the problems it was trying to solve and that specific market segment. I just feel like you can keep that core strength and primary orientation while also exploiting and benefitting from the enthusiasm and word-of-mouth/social proof strength of the PKM community, which is unfortunately almost lacking in the more strictly company-oriented toolspace (e.g. people who are big fans of Asana aren’t running around telling everyone how great it is, how it changed their lives, and how everyone should use it, but they are doing that for Notion, Obsidian, etc.).
I’m not Fibery team, yet I feel qualified to say you are definitely allowed to share your perspective here. 
I agree that more templates and examples of PKM stuff would be potentially helpful, however I’m not sure it’s actually the highest leverage thing the Fibery team can spend their time on. There are several people here in the forums who are very Fibery knowledgeable and have indicated that they are either partly or wholly PKM users of Fibery (myself included). Notion’s personal use really took off, I think, once their public template gallery was introduced and sharing of normal users’ templates and workflows became easy and a potential way to get attention for individual Notion users. I think it’s very satisfying and rewarding for PKM nerds who already spend dozens of hours investing in their personal setups to then have a way of being recognized for all that work, outside of their own potential benefit. And even though starting with just a public gallery on their website is not going to create traction on its own, I think there are plenty of things Fibery team could do to incentivize sharing by Fibery superfans who have PKM uses, e.g. contests, weekly or monthly “best template” features on their social media accounts and in the weekly newsletter, etc, etc. Those are all super low effort on Fibery’s part, and quality (of the shared work) matters a bit less than participation and orienting toward those use cases IMHO. Lord knows Fibery could use some more visual or otherwise novel content for social media!
Yes, I think this is Fibery’s Achilles heel vs. Notion (formerly lack of a mobile app would have been, but hopefully that is being solved well enough soon). I would love to see a more full implementation of “blocks” and drag-and-drop in Fibery and I’m not sure how difficult it is/should be because we see many other tools emulating this without huge dev teams (e.g. Appflowfy, Affine).
There are probably other things Fibery can do to appeal to this aesthetic-oriented crowded but I think the value of doing so is dependent on just how much and in what ways Fibery wants to lean into PKM. And I think there’s a fair case to be made that Fibery actually needs to differentiate if it enters that space and ironically it might be able to do so in part by playing into the common trope (in Notion circles, e.g. on Reddit) of the “Vanity dashboard”, simply spending all your time making your workspace look good rather than useful. Fibery’s marketing already leans into honest, self-deprecating, sarcastic, and other similar tones, so this could fit right in. It might not be effective as a sole strategy, but it certainly has potential as one way to stand out: making almost intentionally utilitarian workspaces to share as if they were beautiful and then writing good copy that inverts the paradigm and pokes gentle fun at the aesthetics-first PKM crowd, for example.
But, aside from aesthetics (Notion), the above also exactly describes Fibery too. All 3 are different “flavors” or toolsets of this “flexible to shape it as you need it”, for slightly different audiences (I say “slightly” because of how much circulating back and forth between tools there is on the margins of all of these, between each other).
Wow, I’m sure that’s a thing people do, but it seems far from the norm for Notion users from everything I’ve seen. Is it even an enjoyable user experience to watch from there? It’s not like it’s a comparatively cheap form of backup, Backblaze is cheaper and it also has unlimited space and way better file handling, restore, etc. (though obviously no DB, metadata editing, etc.) Anyway I have to question bringing this up as the one example of what it means (or would need to be accommodated by Fibery) to “go against Notion” in the PKM space. 