No, that is your assumption. What I was addressing isn't how many potential customers there are. It's how much each customer is willing to spend. The United states outranks the entire world, on a country basis. Even on a territory basis, it's ranked higher than the EU, and higher than China. Americans are wiling to spend more money, even with significantly lower populations. This is not my opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_markets
The US is absolutely the most important consumer market in the entire world.
The population of the US is indeed smaller, but proves a point. If the US is #1, and has a smaller population, that means on a per person basis we are willing to spend more than double other countries. The only way the US with a smaller population, can outspend other countries, is because on average each person shops significantly more than the rest of the world. Therefore we are more prone to pay for luxuries, pay for services that can be otherwise gotten for free, and we are much more wasteful. So you're comparing the populations of countries where people won't pay for a premium subscription in the first place, thinking they are "potential customers" when they are not really. While also factoring in countries which pay a lot less per subscription, deluding they in combination compare to a country where the people are more prone to pay for a subscription and pay more for that subscription than the rest of them. That doesn't make sense. That's like saying a third world country which has a higher population has more financial impact than a country with a higher GDP.
The entire reason the EU was formed and made a single currency is because of the fact that the US had just too much weight in the global market. It wasn't about currency value, it was about buying power in order to promote a fair market. No country in the EU came anywhere close to being as significant of a market as the US until the EU was formed, and even now the US is still more significant. Australia ranks VERY far behind the US as a consumer market, in GDP they're around 14th on the list. The only country that compares is China, and even they around half of the US.
In money, the US tops every financial list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
It's a fact, Spotify lost in its most important market.
I'm pretty sure that Spotify has more paying customers in the US than any other region in the world. Yes, the US is only a third of their paying customers, but I'm certain no other region has as a higher percentage of Spotify's profits. The second most significant market for Spotify would probably be the Eastern market (the EU is probably third). The Eastern market's paid subscribers, probably comes close to the US (but wouldn't beat it). I'm confident enough to say that the US makes up more than half of Spotify's western paying customers. Most of the rest of "The West" isn't going to be paying for Spotify premium, so the countries not prone to, don't even factor into the equation.
[doublepost=1554657591][/doublepost]
You really have a hard time understanding. I challenge you to show me a single premium smart speaker that beat HomePod.
The only thing you can show me are things which factor in cheap speakers. You can't actually show me the things Apple actually competes with. In Apple's actual area of competition, they won.
I challenge you to show me bluetooth headphones more popular than AirPods, or Beats.
I challenge you to show me a premium laptop more popular than a MacBook.
I challenge you to show me a similarly priced or higher desktop that is more popular than an iMac.
You're not really looking at Apple's competition. You're looking at overall units, not even seeing where the battle is actually taking place.
Last edited:
