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

Subject: Airbnb (2011)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 165 posts

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#31

Post by zaphod12 »

throwawaymath wrote: post #23
dsl wrote: post #2

Airbnb, like Uber, took advantage of regulatory inefficiencies instead of market inefficiencies. The model is do something (in the minds of regulators) illegal, quickly enough that you can become large enough to get a seat at the table when the regulations are reworked. The counter example to these companies are the ones that quickly raised capital to dump scooters on public streets before they could be shut down by…

Great observation. > The counter example to these companies are the ones that quickly raised capital to dump scooters on public streets before they could be shut down by cities. I live in NYC, and I’m frequently in Westchester (the county immediately north of NYC, for those not familiar with New York). There’s been a large influx of Lime bikes in the past several months. My opinion on Lime - the bike/scooter company…

I agree with almost everything you've said, but have to mention that Lime bike was entirely endorsed by White Plains - https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/westchester/white-pla...

Not sure if they're winding up in other towns nearby (inevitable, I guess), but in this case the city was totally on board with them showing up!

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#32

Post by presscast »

lexs wrote: post #11
zimablue wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's some truth that these guys dodge/ignore/lobby down regulations, but there's this narrative now that that's all they do. Being able to flag a taxi through an app is amazing, so is being able to rent a flat from a stranger with confidence that it will be give and work out. Regulation arbitrage is only a fraction of their value, and the regulations are often just rent seeking by those with power. Insane…

At least in Europe there were apps to call a taxi and sites to book vacation homes before either Uber or AirBnB came over. But sure ruthlessly minimising personnel responsibilities and costs can be another "value".

>At least in Europe there were apps to call a taxi

Where?

In France the taxis never accepted debit cards (= tax evasion), and generally provided piss-poor service. They've stepped their game up massively since Uber arrived.

In the UK I never saw a taxi app that wasn't an utter heap of garbage.

Sweeping generalizations about EU countries are almost always wrong or meaningless.

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#33

Post by paulcole »

throwawaymath wrote: post #23
dsl wrote: post #2

Airbnb, like Uber, took advantage of regulatory inefficiencies instead of market inefficiencies. The model is do something (in the minds of regulators) illegal, quickly enough that you can become large enough to get a seat at the table when the regulations are reworked. The counter example to these companies are the ones that quickly raised capital to dump scooters on public streets before they could be shut down by…

Great observation. > The counter example to these companies are the ones that quickly raised capital to dump scooters on public streets before they could be shut down by cities. I live in NYC, and I’m frequently in Westchester (the county immediately north of NYC, for those not familiar with New York). There’s been a large influx of Lime bikes in the past several months. My opinion on Lime - the bike/scooter company…

> the straw that broke the camel’s back was when someone parked a Lime bike directly in the spot I usually place my garbage.

Is this spot on your property?

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#34

Post by julianwachholz »

throwawaymath wrote: post #23
dsl wrote: post #2

Airbnb, like Uber, took advantage of regulatory inefficiencies instead of market inefficiencies. The model is do something (in the minds of regulators) illegal, quickly enough that you can become large enough to get a seat at the table when the regulations are reworked. The counter example to these companies are the ones that quickly raised capital to dump scooters on public streets before they could be shut down by…

Great observation. > The counter example to these companies are the ones that quickly raised capital to dump scooters on public streets before they could be shut down by cities. I live in NYC, and I’m frequently in Westchester (the county immediately north of NYC, for those not familiar with New York). There’s been a large influx of Lime bikes in the past several months. My opinion on Lime - the bike/scooter company…

I wonder did the person parking the bike in your garbage disposal spot know that it was your personal spot?

We don't throw our trash bags out in the street but put them in larger containers. Can't park a bike on those.

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#35

Post by spectrum1234 »

dsl wrote: post #2

Airbnb, like Uber, took advantage of regulatory inefficiencies instead of market inefficiencies. The model is do something (in the minds of regulators) illegal, quickly enough that you can become large enough to get a seat at the table when the regulations are reworked. The counter example to these companies are the ones that quickly raised capital to dump scooters on public streets before they could be shut down by…

Its not just regulatory efficiencies. Its more market efficient than using craigslist as many on the sell side previously were.

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#36

Post by mbesto »

dsl wrote: post #2

Airbnb, like Uber, took advantage of regulatory inefficiencies instead of market inefficiencies. The model is do something (in the minds of regulators) illegal, quickly enough that you can become large enough to get a seat at the table when the regulations are reworked. The counter example to these companies are the ones that quickly raised capital to dump scooters on public streets before they could be shut down by…

> quickly enough that you can become large enough to get a seat at the table when the regulations are reworked.

It also makes sense to do this in areas where no one is watching. For example Monkey Parking got shut down almost immediately during the same time SF was probably at it's height of negotiating what it was going to do with Airbnb rentals in SF. https://www.wired.com/2014/06/app-that-lets-users-sell-publi...

Also, Airbnb, like many other companies who tout "growth hacking", illegally (in the eyes of the craigslist ToS) used a technique to basically leverage Craigslist audience to grow their own.

Mind you, this technique is also being encouraged by a partner at one of the most prominent VC firms in the valley. https://andrewchen.co/how-to-be-a-growth-hacker-an-airbnbcra...

Point is - it's very easy to blindly select what you feel is "right" vs "wrong" or "bad" vs "good"[0][1] when your money is on the line.

[0] - http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html

[1] - http://www.paulgraham.com/ronco.html

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#37

Post by collyw »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #15
dsl wrote: post #2

Airbnb, like Uber, took advantage of regulatory inefficiencies instead of market inefficiencies. The model is do something (in the minds of regulators) illegal, quickly enough that you can become large enough to get a seat at the table when the regulations are reworked. The counter example to these companies are the ones that quickly raised capital to dump scooters on public streets before they could be shut down by…

Seems to me people often confuse something being illegal with something being an actual crime. They had the insight that these minor regulations can be easily broken to deliver value with very few repercussions

Could you explain the difference to me, as I am clearly in the minority in thinking that the two are synonymous.

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#38

Post by lancesells »

jMyles wrote: post #26
abcdcba wrote: post #9

I wish AirBnB took more responsibility for the damage they are doing to the NYC housing market

Well, we don't all agree that the changes are tantamount to "damage", first of all. For my part, having lived much of my adult life in New Paltz, AirBnb has greatly increased the availability of NYC housing for me, as I typically only live in NYC for 3-10 days at a time. I can understand that, if your desire is to live there perpetually for years, you might have a different perception. Perhaps living in a single plac…

Perhaps AirBnb should actually follow the law in NYC (30 days minimum) until they can lobby enough to change the law.

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#39

Post by jermaustin1 »

jMyles wrote: post #26
abcdcba wrote: post #9

I wish AirBnB took more responsibility for the damage they are doing to the NYC housing market

Well, we don't all agree that the changes are tantamount to "damage", first of all. For my part, having lived much of my adult life in New Paltz, AirBnb has greatly increased the availability of NYC housing for me, as I typically only live in NYC for 3-10 days at a time. I can understand that, if your desire is to live there perpetually for years, you might have a different perception. Perhaps living in a single plac…

> if your desire is to live there perpetually for years

You mean like 99% of people? When you work in the city, grew up in the city, have met almost everyone you know in the city, to then be forced out of the city because people want to rent their apartments out for 3-10 days at a time instead of 1-3 years means that people who need the stability of a permanent address now have to either shell out much more cash than a land lord can get (illegally) on airbnb, or move out of the city and abandon the thing they have known their entire lives.

I'm not saying I have a good solution to it, other than the typical protectionist idea of tax the things that are destroying us, but at least that way there is money in the treasury to try and save a portion of the people affected by it.

Re: Subject: Airbnb (2011)

#40

Post by vasilipupkin »

collyw wrote: post #37
vasilipupkin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me people often confuse something being illegal with something being an actual crime. They had the insight that these minor regulations can be easily broken to deliver value with very few repercussions

Could you explain the difference to me, as I am clearly in the minority in thinking that the two are synonymous.

sure. My town has a paid beach with lifeguard and a free beach without. It is illegal to swim on the free beach. It is not a crime. Worst case that happens is they kick you off the beach.
Post reply on HN