Is it true that GNU/Linux is to MS Windows as Wikipedia is to MS Encarta? A reporter from Wired Magazine asked me a similar question the other day, except regarding Britannica. (Mav was making a more subtle point here, the reporter was just asking about our competition with traditional proprietary products.)
My answer was that unlike an operating system, in which there is a significant learning curve and significant network externalities that prevent people from switching, there is basically no cost for users of Britannica to switch to a GNU-free alternative of equal or better quality.
Here I am a total linux and free software geek, and yet, I have two computers on my desk -- one is Linux for actually doing work, and one is Windows because, as a businessman, I'm always getting proposals and contracts in Microsoft .doc format, and people are always asking me to put together spreadsheets in Excel format.
None of those kinds of considerations apply to texts. The field of competition is much more level for upstarts, because there are very low costs of switching.
Consider our textbook initiative. There's a small cost to professors or teachers to switch from existing proprietary texts to our new texts (which don't exist yet, of course), but it's pretty darn small. In my experience, they already undergo those costs from time to time anyway as department heads or administrators change to the latest new textbooks from a competing publisher.
So, unlike the software world where entrenched use is slowing the adoption of free alternatives, there's really nothing standing in our way of "World domination. Fast."
--Jimbo