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

Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 527 posts

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#511

Post by techcode »

cultofmetatron wrote: post #431
casenmgreen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a digital nomad. One luggage, no permanent home, been fifteen years. I used to use AirBnB all the time. They gradually become more and more, well, "large company". Governments gradually made AirBnB illegal or effectively illegal, largely or wholly killing off AirBnB in given cities, or countries. For example, it used to be about impossible to get into Amsterdam, because of rent control and renting regulations; no…

> The one and critical thing AirBnB got right was building into their platform the expectation owners would offer discounts for stays over a week, or over a month. I'm also a digital nomad. new country every 1-3 months and I completely agree. I'd love to find an alternative but the one month discount is critical for keeping my costs fairly low. booking doesn't even allow you to book over 30 days.

Actually Booking has been allowing reservations longer than 30 days for a few years now.

Perhaps accommodations in your destinations that are on Booking don't have availability for the whole duration you're searching for?

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#512

Post by bonton89 »

digging wrote: post #350
bonton89 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you reliably find cameras?

There are numerous techniques needed to search but, crucially, nothing can guarantee you've found them all. I'm struggling to find it, but I read an article a few months ago where a team placed about 30 cameras hidden in a home and tried to find them all. Most methods found low single digits. Even the best ("an advanced lens detector" for $400) brought the total up to fewer than 20. Really wish I could find that beca…

It looks like the best method only found 11. It looks like 17 is the total amount of cameras they found using all methods. Pretty crap really. The advanced lens detector was the most effective and only found a third of them.

The only method I can think of that might work is one of those media sniffing dogs the cops have, which is super impractical obviously.

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#514

Post by xyzzy123 »

saywhanow wrote: post #508
kshacker wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And did it work? I ask because corporates usually figure out how to use the rules to their advantage and I am now trying to sniff through how they would play this.

Can I buy a property, rent it out for six months, then re-sell it to this other, totally independent corporation I own? This seems both obvious and difficult to prevent.

Usually there are large and unavoidable transaction costs involved in selling/buying properties. It's a liquidity event on a large amount of capital so it's pretty much inevitable that government want to get involved with taxes, duties, fees etc.

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#515

Post by idiotsecant »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #368
idiotsecant wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stay at hotels all the time that don't do a cleaning on the first night. How could they possibly figure out the complex calculus of what to charge? Oh right, averaging .

As another user replied, hotels have a cleaning staff that they just pay a salary to - it is, for the most part, a fixed cost. The owner of a single rental/room really is usually paying a flat fee every time they need their placed cleaned, and thus can have widely different costs based on whether someone stays 1 night or 28. They simply don't have the luxury of averaging their costs over a wide base, no matter how ma…

This is maybe the least complicated business problem ever. Businesses with fixed asking price but variable cost do it literally every day. This is how it is done: you look at your records and figure out average length of stay, giving you your average cost per customer. You can base your price added to the room on that cost, plus say 20%. Hiding the cost in tack-on fees is not necessary and it's clearly just a method to increase visibility for your property and add the real cost in the back end.

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#516

Post by tavavex »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #505
ghaff wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beat on Instagram influencers all you like but popular cities tend to be popular for good reasons. I might go meh to a few cities on that list but quite a few of them would be high on my visit again list.

That is exactly my point. The OP read like a moaning Amsterdammer. I see it a lot: residents of that city complaining about the tourist crowds. I think a better idea would be a very high tourist tax -- like 100 EUR per day charged via hotels etc. (Business travelers would be exempt.) Then, you can exclude all of the low end tourists that few people want in their crowded cities -- they can enjoy second tier cities, or…

That's a terrible idea. Why the insinuation that only very rich visitors are "high-quality", and that "low-end" tourists are icky and undesirable?

I'm a university student, and I enjoy traveling by myself, as long as I can do it on a reasonable budget. In North American cities (and in plenty of other countries), I pretty much blend in with the crowd, am not loud, annoying or obtrusive. What exact quality is imbued into someone who's willing to throw away EUR100/day that everyone else doesn't have? Doing this in large, world-class cities would turn any major destination into VIP hangout clubs for rich people. Not to mention that it's probably flawed financially - even if tiny towns that are over-capacity with tourists might be able to justify it, enormous cities will be forcing their businesses to lose money. Fewer people would travel to the city on account on it being too expensive, and the people who do travel would spend less money since they're paying the tax.

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#517

Post by techcode »

septic-liqueur wrote: post #123
usaar333 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cleaning fees exist to charge a fixed fee for a reservation, regardless of the number of days. There's more overhead for a reservation beyond just "cleaning". The most consumer friendly thing would be for AirBnB to just explicitly have a fixed "stay" fee and a per-day fee. That said, AirBnB's site shows the total cost for a stay when browsing, so I don't really see this as particularly deceptive. I don't care how the…

I haven't checked the platform lately but from what I remember the first search view did not show the total (plus cleaning) fee and only when you advance to book you would see the final cost. While not a scam, it definitely feels like a dark pattern.

AFAIK everyone in e-commerce tries to have consistent pricing throughout the whole flow - otherwise people notice difference between pages and drop off.

Stuff that you explained can happen because initially IP-to-Country isn't 100% precise (later in booking/checkout stage you provide country and then it knows for sure).

Other case I've seen is that meta (comparison) website you came from showed you prices without including everything even though they should've.

And then booking platform tries to transition you into correct pricing in between their pages.

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#518

Post by Doxin »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #444
Doxin wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, it used to be about impossible to get into Amsterdam, because of rent control and renting regulations; no supply of places to let. Then AirBnB came along, and everyone and their dog let places on AirBnB. You could get in, and at a good price. Then AirBnB was essentially banned, and now you can't get into Amsterdam. Slightly off topic, and not aimed at you in particular but at tourists in general: For t…

Will you say the same for Paris, London, Rome, Milan, New York, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Beijing, Tokyo, Hongkong, Singapore, and Seoul? All of those cities (and more!) fit this template: "X is expensive and overcrowded." Yeah, and they have lots of interesting culture so people want to visit. They are willing to pay the high prices and put up with crowds.

I've got no first hand experience of those cities, so no I won't.

The point I'm trying to make with Amsterdam is that it's really nothing special when compared to a bunch of other nearby cities. Sure if you want to visit the Anne Frank house you need to go to Amsterdam and stand in a long line. If, however, you are more interested in the culture of the country you can find that nearly anywhere. Pretty much any city of reasonable size will have a FEBO and a pancake restaurant and a couple of neat museums. No need to queue for those, and yet people DO queue for those in Amsterdam for some reason.

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#519

Post by Doxin »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #505
ghaff wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beat on Instagram influencers all you like but popular cities tend to be popular for good reasons. I might go meh to a few cities on that list but quite a few of them would be high on my visit again list.

That is exactly my point. The OP read like a moaning Amsterdammer. I see it a lot: residents of that city complaining about the tourist crowds. I think a better idea would be a very high tourist tax -- like 100 EUR per day charged via hotels etc. (Business travelers would be exempt.) Then, you can exclude all of the low end tourists that few people want in their crowded cities -- they can enjoy second tier cities, or…

> The OP read like a moaning Amsterdammer.

I'm very glad I don't live in Amsterdam, commuting there is bad enough. I'm actually trying to convince people to visit, among other places, the city I live in. Spreading the tourists around more will make everyone happier. Including the tourists.

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#520

Post by ryukoposting »

ghaff wrote: post #279
ryukoposting wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. The Airbnb of today is a far cry from its early days. Back then, the annoyances of an Airbnb were tolerable because rates were competitive with hotels, and you got more space and a proper kitchen. Nowadays, it really only makes sense if you're renting as a group. Small, affordable Airbnbs just don't exist anymore. Airbnb knows this - just look at their new ad campaign. Not sure if that was inevitable as the c…

I have stayed in AirBnBs once or twice as an individual and was happy with both the accommodations and the pricing relative to other options. That said, a lot of "the hotel experience just doesn't work" is mostly about groups or large families. As an individual or a couple I'll generally take the relative predictability of a hotel or a traditional B&B.

I've stayed with Airbnb once as a large group, but as a terminal cheapskate I always check to see if they have a good deal available. I almost stayed at one in Memphis, then checked the Google street view and realized it was a shack, and a recent review mentioned that there wasn't a functioning toilet on the property.

I've stayed with a couple small competitors to Airbnb, though. Mint House was a good one, with solid rates and a nice living space.

I'll be trying Vrbo for my bachelor party next month.

Post reply on HN