Has the BitLicense affected other U.S. state regulators' actions? What aspects of New York's new BitLicense have most affected New York-based companies already? 

How have California and other states who are planning BTC policy learned from New York's example? (For example, have other states commented in public on the BitLicense?)
To answer your first question, @Cointelegraph writes "burdensome and expensive process of acquiring such a license, the lack of agility as a consequence of the regulations, or customers' privacy concerns". 

Companies who have left New York state because of the BitLicense include, amongst others: ShapeShift, BitFinex, Kraken, LocalBitcoins,Rebit and Genesis Mining.

The blockchain which is used as the underlying transmission component for bitcoin is modeled on the notion of a deregulated system. Attempts by players to regulate a deregulated market demonstrate inadequate understanding of the blockchain technology, while failing to acknowledge the fundamental human right of free market participation by free people.