4 ms·
Spotify arguably would have qualified if they had included an "online music service" category alongside "online video service" (where YouTube was designated). T
by tomatocracy 3y ago
Spotify arguably would have qualified if they had included an "online music service" category alongside "online video service" (where YouTube was designated). The fact that this was left out is interesting.
- rsynnott 3y agoSpotify is _way_ below the minimum market cap (75bn, I think).
- tomatocracy 3y agoTrue. Including market cap in the definition is another oddity in this - why not just look at the size of the active user base?
- runako 3y agoSpecifically so that EU companies like Spotify wouldn't be included. (I am guessing there is a specific carve-out in the law that exempts Deutsche Telekom, which is bigger than $75b, and Vodafone, which is close.)
- rsynnott 3y agoDT is primarily a telecom, so already subject to a lot of regulation about carriage and so on. Not sure it would do anything if they were included; it’s not like they’re saying (or could say) “yeah, you can’t phone people who use O2 with this phone”. IMO the most surprising omission is Telegram (presumably due to the market cap thing). I would have thought they’d be quite keen to bring _that_ into the net.
- runako 3y agoLooks like Telegram is private (so harder for observers to accurately value) and likely still would be well under the size cap (support for the notion that the size cap is there to exclude EU companies).