4 ms·

I edited the comment with a few more numbers, if you'd like to re-read it.

• troupo 2y ago
  > Which is why Spotify became available in Sweden, the US, and the rest of the EU in that order. All that matters is the original comment: "Which is why Spotify became available in Sweden, the US, and the rest of the EU in that order." Where reality is Spotify became available in 7 countries before attempting to expand in the US. Which is, funnily, what you literally wrote in your edit: > That means Spotify launched for 222 million europeans, expanded to 300 million US-americans, before becoming available for the remaining 281 europeans. Edit Where by "expanded to the US" is literally "failed to capture any significant market for a long time"
  • kuschku 2y ago
    > Edit Where by "expanded to the US" is literally "failed to capture any significant market for a long time" Sure, but they still decided to expand to the US, despite a worse outlook, before expanding to the remaining EU countries. As said, you'd never see a US company do that.
    • troupo 2y ago
      The US is a large, rich homogeneous market with a population of over 300 million. There's no wonder foreign companies want to get a foothold in this market, and it's no wonder US companies don't tend to look outside of the US until there's nothing to do in the US. I don't think anyone disagrees about that.
      • kuschku 2y ago
        Sure, but that's exactly my point: The primary factor limiting EU startups isn't regulation, it's that they don't have access to a large, homogeneous, monolinguistic market