No, I understand that. I just think the reason we talk about it is because of later developments. That is why I'm taking Japan as an example because they have made some of the best music equipment around but we don't talk about how good education, research and manufacturing is the source Japanese hip hop and electronic music because that never really happened. Instead most of the world is playing American or European music made with Japanese equipment.
Maybe I'm reading the parent to harshly. I just want to make the point that talent and money isn't everything. Most of Sweden's successes hasn't come from research spending and top talent but from widespread interest and application of technologies. Spotify didn't come out of Fraunhofer. The Swedish video game industry did arguably come out of the demoscene however.
While I do think things defense spending matters I don't think it is what makes (or made) the difference. Look at countries like Germany, France or South Korea. Arguably they have some of the best education and industries in the world but they don't have an outsized number of new tech companies. That is because most of the time you aren't inventing technology (because that is too hard) but trying distribute or commercialize technology that mostly exists.
Silicon Valley is of course where many things in computing were invented but it is more importantly where business machines became home computers. And in the end that is were most of the graphics cards, operating systems, network switches, software applications and services comes from. Sweden didn't invent many computers or operating systems but it was ready to distribute the next thing once it became available. Just like many good synths and samplers came from Japan but many of the big electronic music artists are from the US, the UK or Sweden.
I was referencing Swedish Wikipedia which says he studied actual civil engineering (väg- och vattenbyggnad numera samhällsbyggnad) at Chalmers. NyTeknik writes that he applied for industrial economics but didn't get accepted.
It is of course not common to rent for 30k because most people feel they can't afford that but it is essentially the "spot price".
Many apartments in central Stockholm are ~100k SEK per square meter to buy. So a 100 square meter apartment is 10 million. That is 16-17k per month just to beat the inflation target. Then you have the building fee which is probably 4-5k. And then profit on top of that of 8k per percent. So with 1% profit you are more or less at 30k per month.
> Zurich is in fact a tech hub, Google is there, and many interesting startups come from their outstanding technical school.
That is exactly what I mean. Zurich has prestigious schools and foreign companies that you have to attend because otherwise you can't get things like good housing or health care. In 00s Stockholm you didn't really have to do that. Which is why Stockholm have the homegrown companies and exits.
Daniel Ek didn't attend university. He tried to apply to Google but wasn't accepted. Now Spotify has had a $30 billion IPO. Presumably more than all contemporary Swiss startups exits ever. His co-founder had a degree in civil engineering (as roads and water infrastructure) but had instead founded and exited an adtech company.
Markus Persson didn't attend university either. The company behind Minecraft which he owned ~70% of sold for $2.5 billon to Microsoft. He was a former employee of King, the company behind Candy Crush Saga, which sold to Activision Blizzard for $5.9 billion.
That was the difference between Stockholm and Zurich. And between Stockholm and most other self-proclaimed tech hubs for that matter.
I would say they did maybe just not directly. There are plenty testimonials of people crashing on other peoples couches, working out of garages or sitting in on classes at Stanford in the 00s in SV. Of course today SV also recruits from all over the world and spends plenty of venture capital for housing, transportation and health care. But that isn't something most cities or even countries can do.
New York and London are outliers because they are big financial centers. They are still far more like Stockholm than the other financial centers are. In theory a smaller financial center like Zurich should arguably be better for startups than Stockholm but it isn't even a competition when looking at the outcome.
While I agree those aren't unimportant I have come to a somewhat different conclusion after spending some time outside of Sweden. Most people in most places are just busy doing other things. I don't think Stockholm's success is so much what was, but what you didn't have to do.
In the early 00s it was relative easy to become "high middle class". Rent controlled public housing was available so you didn't have to spend $10k-$100k to have stable housing. Public transport was in a good state so you didn't have to spend $5k-50k on a car. Education was available but not generally considered necessary. Mostly cost-free universal health care was the norm. Even marriage wasn't the norm. This meant you had pretty good chance of having your life relatively sorted by your mid-twenties and therefor a much lower cost of doing something else. Compared to other countries where most people are busy trying to attain such things for far longer.
That other countries didn't have the same success because they didn't have good enough broadband is a somewhat safe explanation. Most countries didn't even try, and still don't try, to get good broadband because success is mostly seen as something private.
This is of course somewhat controversial not just abroad but in Sweden as well. As the Stockholm of today would do quite badly by these criteria.
Maybe I'm reading the parent to harshly. I just want to make the point that talent and money isn't everything. Most of Sweden's successes hasn't come from research spending and top talent but from widespread interest and application of technologies. Spotify didn't come out of Fraunhofer. The Swedish video game industry did arguably come out of the demoscene however.