[troupo]

They launched in 7 countries before launching in the US. In the same year as they launched in the US they also launched in 4 other countries.

In 2012, after their "expansion" in the US they had five times as many paying users outside the US as in the US.

[kuschku]

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

[troupo]

> 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]

> 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]

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]

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