Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

cntraveler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 332 posts

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#321

Post by newfoundglory »

xapata wrote: post #302
newfoundglory wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber loses money, so at most you could argue that it is law breaking AND VC money. And without a lot of numbers on the cost of medallions, etc in each city it operates, you're actually just asserting your belief, not making an argument.

> Uber loses money, at most you could argue that it is law breaking AND VC money. I don't follow the logic. Many companies have negative cash flow while they invest in growth. What is "it" in your sentence? If you're saying there are only two possible factors for the relatively low ride fares, I think you're forgetting the reduction of transaction costs. Hailing a cab on the street is frustrating. Hailing a cab by ph…

Uber has a low cost because they are not charging you enough to cover their own costs, they are making up the difference with VC money. Any factors that make the cost of providing an Uber lower than the cost of providing a taxi are unimportant because they are not pricing based on the cost. If they had to pay for taxi medallions they could still undercut existing taxis if they wanted to.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#322

Post by xapata »

newfoundglory wrote: post #321
xapata wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uber loses money, at most you could argue that it is law breaking AND VC money. I don't follow the logic. Many companies have negative cash flow while they invest in growth. What is "it" in your sentence? If you're saying there are only two possible factors for the relatively low ride fares, I think you're forgetting the reduction of transaction costs. Hailing a cab on the street is frustrating. Hailing a cab by ph…

Uber has a low cost because they are not charging you enough to cover their own costs, they are making up the difference with VC money. Any factors that make the cost of providing an Uber lower than the cost of providing a taxi are unimportant because they are not pricing based on the cost. If they had to pay for taxi medallions they could still undercut existing taxis if they wanted to.

> not charging you enough to cover their own costs

Are you an Uber employee revealing private information? If not, it seems you're making a big assumption about the proportion of their expenses that are marketing and growth versus steady-state marginal cost.

Amazon didn't make profit for a while and everyone wondered if they could. Oh, it's a low margin business, they'll never be profitable, blah, blah. Turns out they can, in fact, make a bit of money. Maybe Uber and Lyft can, too. Delta can, even though flights are a commodity business.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#323

Post by newfoundglory »

xapata wrote: post #322
newfoundglory wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber has a low cost because they are not charging you enough to cover their own costs, they are making up the difference with VC money. Any factors that make the cost of providing an Uber lower than the cost of providing a taxi are unimportant because they are not pricing based on the cost. If they had to pay for taxi medallions they could still undercut existing taxis if they wanted to.

> not charging you enough to cover their own costs Are you an Uber employee revealing private information? If not, it seems you're making a big assumption about the proportion of their expenses that are marketing and growth versus steady-state marginal cost. Amazon didn't make profit for a while and everyone wondered if they could. Oh, it's a low margin business, they'll never be profitable, blah, blah. Turns out the…

wow, you're really attached to this narrative you have, to be so desperately reaching for a reason to discredit the impact of VC money on their operation. I think my previous comments have already said everything relevant about the breakdown of their marketing costs vs steady state marginal costs.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#324

Post by xapata »

newfoundglory wrote: post #323
xapata wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not charging you enough to cover their own costs Are you an Uber employee revealing private information? If not, it seems you're making a big assumption about the proportion of their expenses that are marketing and growth versus steady-state marginal cost. Amazon didn't make profit for a while and everyone wondered if they could. Oh, it's a low margin business, they'll never be profitable, blah, blah. Turns out the…

wow, you're really attached to this narrative you have, to be so desperately reaching for a reason to discredit the impact of VC money on their operation. I think my previous comments have already said everything relevant about the breakdown of their marketing costs vs steady state marginal costs.

> really attached to this narrative you have

Oddly enough, I was thinking the same thing.

You've asserted that they're ignoring cost in their pricing, but have provided no evidence for it. Uber and Lyft have claimed to be profitable in their biggest markets. Doesn't that suggest they set prices above marginal cost?

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#325

Post by newfoundglory »

xapata wrote: post #324
newfoundglory wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wow, you're really attached to this narrative you have, to be so desperately reaching for a reason to discredit the impact of VC money on their operation. I think my previous comments have already said everything relevant about the breakdown of their marketing costs vs steady state marginal costs.

> really attached to this narrative you have Oddly enough, I was thinking the same thing. You've asserted that they're ignoring cost in their pricing, but have provided no evidence for it. Uber and Lyft have claimed to be profitable in their biggest markets. Doesn't that suggest they set prices above marginal cost?

Wow. They were apparently profitable for two minutes in 2016, might be what you're referring to? I haven't provided any evidence because I assumed you had access to the same real world information as I do, but if you don't have internet I can mail you some stuff.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#326

Post by xapata »

newfoundglory wrote: post #325
xapata wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> really attached to this narrative you have Oddly enough, I was thinking the same thing. You've asserted that they're ignoring cost in their pricing, but have provided no evidence for it. Uber and Lyft have claimed to be profitable in their biggest markets. Doesn't that suggest they set prices above marginal cost?

Wow. They were apparently profitable for two minutes in 2016, might be what you're referring to? I haven't provided any evidence because I assumed you had access to the same real world information as I do, but if you don't have internet I can mail you some stuff.

You're confusing company aggregate profit for profit within each market.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#327

Post by lovemenot »

ekianjo wrote: post #319
lovemenot wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. Japan has a stability-at-all-costs mentality. Until the old is completely untenable, and then change can happen incredibly rapidly.

> and then change can happen incredibly rapidly. Problem is that fast changes in Japan has been associated with bursts of civilian violence. Pushing back what needs to be done until it's untenable is NOT a good strategy.

>> ... is NOT a good strategy

I think you can be right under some circumstances and wrong in others.

For such a strategy to be effective, what is required is for there to be a period of social / technological stability in the rest of the world. I believe that once the direction is clear, Japan's internal coherence allows it to forge ahead. Until that time though, they cannot figure out how to proceed, so they prefer to wait for clarity.

Definitely more Waterfall than Agile. Again, Waterfall remains the best methodology for some types of project.

But all of this is a vast generalisation. Even now, there are signs of adaptation.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#328

Post by csomar »

Fede_V wrote: post #102

I think this is an interesting and unintended consequence of AirBnB not investing nearly on filtering their users. AirBnB obviously was interested in getting their product used by as many people as people (growth at all costs) - but this had the effect of getting a lot of young, cost conscious people to take holidays in area that were traditionally residential. While most AirBnB renters are polite and respectful, eno…

It is funny but you know there is an invention to the problem you just mentioned: It is called a "Hotel". For cost conscious people it is called a "Hostel" or a "Guest House".

The reason Airbnb is cheaper is because users are running afoul of the laws and possibly taxes.

Have you checked the Airbnb listings? Very little people are sharing their places. Most of the people are running this as a business. Many of them are not either there and delegate the key to another third-party.

It is a mess. And I'm not against it (I'm not a legal citizen of every country). But it is not fair to have registered hotel who comply with rules and pay taxes. And have Airbnb. You'll have to pick.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#329

Post by newfoundglory »

xapata wrote: post #326
newfoundglory wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. They were apparently profitable for two minutes in 2016, might be what you're referring to? I haven't provided any evidence because I assumed you had access to the same real world information as I do, but if you don't have internet I can mail you some stuff.

You're confusing company aggregate profit for profit within each market.

No, I'm referring to the US market. They have never been profitable overall but for a very brief period in 2016 they claimed that the US operation was profitable.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#330

Post by xapata »

newfoundglory wrote: post #329
xapata wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing company aggregate profit for profit within each market.

No, I'm referring to the US market. They have never been profitable overall but for a very brief period in 2016 they claimed that the US operation was profitable.

How about in NYC? Profitable there? I believe they announced that they were.

In any case, even if they're not currently profitable, that may be because of capital expense, not operating costs. Until they go public, it's hard to know.

Post reply on HN