6 ms·

Stallman is right on many points. Uber, Airbnb, delivery services and the like are nothing more than glorified communication and payment tools. These services

Stallman is right on many points. Uber, Airbnb, delivery services and the like are nothing more than glorified communication and payment tools. These services can only be called "sharing" economy if they operate at zero profit and their app code is open source. I think they should and pretty soon will be public services, developed by the community and run by local non profit organisations, like Firefighters. Furthermore, these should be local services, catering to the specific circumstances of the city or town they operate in, obeying the local customs and so on.

golergka 10y ago
Then they'll soon get as effective and well developed as typical public services. Thanks, but no - I'd rather pay a little extra to someone who has a real incentive to do a good job than rely on charitable motivations of strangers.
petra 10y ago
>> Uber, Airbnb, delivery services and the like are nothing more than glorified communication and payment tools. Let's focus on transportation services. Yes, their technology wasn't that big of a deal. But their largest contribution is building a thriving market. And that market could be used to offer interesting services like real sharing(UberPool). Can communities build that market on their own ? well there's little effort and in general the results aren't encouraging. Even places who put a serious effort in such services(kutsuplus service in sweden), didn't seem to sucseed , and old services like dial-a-ride didn't seem to do so well with regards to scaling or sustainability. Of course , it's hard to speak of the sustainability of current ride services(hopefully they wouldbe), but at least they seem take us a bit further.
- dancek 10y ago
  Kutsuplus was in Finland. Some of the reasons it didn't succeed is that employing people in Finland is very expensive, there are a lot of regulations to be met, and Helsinki area a very small market so the payback period for any new investments is long (such as the information systems required). Meanwhile Uber is successful in Finland alright but it's illegal and not really profitable for the drivers. (It's legal if the driver has a taxi permit which is very rare.)
  - petra 10y ago
    >> not really profitable for the drivers Maybe(altough why do people still work? ) . But again, if they(or some other model) sucseed in scaling true sharing , maybe than would be the time to intervene a bit in behalf of drivers ?
    - dancek 10y ago
      A young man made the headlines driving Uber with his dad's car, where his dad paid for the gasoline and all. I don't remember the exact profit he made but I calculated that wouldn't cover the cost of servicing and fueling the car. Someone else will make a better profit, of course. But enough to pay taxes, insurance, required employer costs? I don't think so.
aykutcan 10y ago
And the workers of that non-profit organisations will work for free or use taxes for that ?
- walterbell 10y ago
  Non-profit organizations can pay salaries and choose business models appropriate for their services.
- pfortuny 10y ago
  Take a look at hospitals: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/50-largest-non-profit-hospitals-in-america.html http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/50-largest-non-pr...
IanCal 10y ago
I think the "sharing economy" is one of the most impressive rebrands of an idea. It sounds all nice and friendly, who doesn't like sharing? And so new! I've not heard of the sharing economy before! And it's just people selling things to other people. The same thing we've been doing as a species since we understood the concept of trading, something it seems chimpanzees have a grasp of.
- mikebelanger 10y ago
  That's where all the real innovation is going on: marketing terms. I'm amazed at the effect it has on perceptions.
- trprog 10y ago
  Sharing economy is certainly a lot more catchy and friendly than more accurate descriptions of airbnb or uber like "monetising surplus capacity".
  - takno 10y ago
    A more accurate description would probably be "pretending to monetize surplus capacity while actually enabling misallocation of scarce resources"
    - ionforce 10y ago
      How are Uber and Airbnb a misallocation?
      - wool_gather 10y ago
        Uber perhaps not, but the main problem with AirBnb is the transformation of homes into de facto hotels. Long-term residential rentals are misallocated as short-term when the supply of the former is already tight.
        dzhiurgis 10y ago
zanny 10y ago
If freedom respecting public services are destined to replace proprietary platforms that demonstrated markets where you can use a communications platform to replace business, than facebook and twitter would be losing to gnusocial and diaspora. In practice, consumers are ignorant about the consequences of the businesses they do business with. This exists way beyond tech to how companies consumers will spend money on for goods or services will take that money to then lobby government to harm those citizens, yet the vast majority of people are apathetic to taking responsibility for that behavior. Hopefully we see state intervention to stop Uber for simply breaking regulations, like we saw in Austin, where in the aftermath of knowing about Uber more open communication tools were used instead because the citizenry realized they didn't need an app to have a network of drivers and customers who could rate and pay one another.
smsm42 10y ago
> These services can only be called "sharing" economy if they operate at zero profit and their app code is open source. That's a very weird claim. It's like saying information economy can be called so only if everybody uses open source and nobody is making profit from information. That's just nonsense. Making profit is part of the economy - in fact, a vital part, an engine that makes the economy move, and using open source has nothing to do with this at all. I get that Stallman wants everybody to use open source - but it has nothing to do with economy. It's a moral ideal Stallman strives to, and it's fine, but economy can be economy with or without it, so can sharing economy. > I think they should and pretty soon will be public services They won't, unless the government forces them to and kills them by that. > Furthermore, these should be local services, catering to the specific circumstances of the city or town they operate in, obeying the local customs and so on. Nobody prevents you from doing that, but it's harder than you think. And on local level taxi lobby will swat such service like a fly. Uber can resist it because they are big enough to put up a fight. Volunteer non-profit service won't stand a snowball's chance in a volcano.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  > It's like saying information economy can be called so only if everybody uses open source and nobody is making profit from information. No it's not. Sharing is a word that has a meaning. What it's like is saying that you can't call the trade in oranges the information economy, because trading oranges has little to with information. Selling is not sharing.
morgante 10y ago
> Furthermore, these should be local services, catering to the specific circumstances of the city or town they operate in, obeying the local customs and so on. Please no. I have precisely zero interest in downloading a new app every time I go to a city. It's amazing how ignorant of basic economics people on HN are. Have you ever heard of economies of scale? Uber pays literally millions of dollars to their developers every year. I sure as hell don't want my taxes going to pay for my city to develop its own Uber knockoff.

golergka 10y ago

Then they'll soon get as effective and well developed as typical public services. Thanks, but no - I'd rather pay a little extra to someone who has a real incentive to do a good job than rely on charitable motivations of strangers.

petra 10y ago

>> Uber, Airbnb, delivery services and the like are nothing more than glorified communication and payment tools. Let's focus on transportation services. Yes, their technology wasn't that big of a deal. But their largest contribution is building a thriving market. And that market could be used to offer interesting services like real sharing(UberPool). Can communities build that market on their own ? well there's little effort and in general the results aren't encouraging. Even places who put a serious effort in such services(kutsuplus service in sweden), didn't seem to sucseed , and old services like dial-a-ride didn't seem to do so well with regards to scaling or sustainability. Of course , it's hard to speak of the sustainability of current ride services(hopefully they wouldbe), but at least they seem take us a bit further.

dancek 10y ago
Kutsuplus was in Finland. Some of the reasons it didn't succeed is that employing people in Finland is very expensive, there are a lot of regulations to be met, and Helsinki area a very small market so the payback period for any new investments is long (such as the information systems required). Meanwhile Uber is successful in Finland alright but it's illegal and not really profitable for the drivers. (It's legal if the driver has a taxi permit which is very rare.)
- petra 10y ago
  >> not really profitable for the drivers Maybe(altough why do people still work? ) . But again, if they(or some other model) sucseed in scaling true sharing , maybe than would be the time to intervene a bit in behalf of drivers ?
  - dancek 10y ago
    A young man made the headlines driving Uber with his dad's car, where his dad paid for the gasoline and all. I don't remember the exact profit he made but I calculated that wouldn't cover the cost of servicing and fueling the car. Someone else will make a better profit, of course. But enough to pay taxes, insurance, required employer costs? I don't think so.

aykutcan 10y ago

And the workers of that non-profit organisations will work for free or use taxes for that ?

walterbell 10y ago
Non-profit organizations can pay salaries and choose business models appropriate for their services.
pfortuny 10y ago
Take a look at hospitals: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/50-largest-non-profit-hospitals-in-america.html http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/50-largest-non-pr...

IanCal 10y ago

I think the "sharing economy" is one of the most impressive rebrands of an idea. It sounds all nice and friendly, who doesn't like sharing? And so new! I've not heard of the sharing economy before! And it's just people selling things to other people. The same thing we've been doing as a species since we understood the concept of trading, something it seems chimpanzees have a grasp of.

mikebelanger 10y ago
That's where all the real innovation is going on: marketing terms. I'm amazed at the effect it has on perceptions.
trprog 10y ago
Sharing economy is certainly a lot more catchy and friendly than more accurate descriptions of airbnb or uber like "monetising surplus capacity".
- takno 10y ago
  A more accurate description would probably be "pretending to monetize surplus capacity while actually enabling misallocation of scarce resources"
  - ionforce 10y ago
    How are Uber and Airbnb a misallocation?
    - wool_gather 10y ago
      Uber perhaps not, but the main problem with AirBnb is the transformation of homes into de facto hotels. Long-term residential rentals are misallocated as short-term when the supply of the former is already tight.
      - dzhiurgis 10y ago

zanny 10y ago

If freedom respecting public services are destined to replace proprietary platforms that demonstrated markets where you can use a communications platform to replace business, than facebook and twitter would be losing to gnusocial and diaspora. In practice, consumers are ignorant about the consequences of the businesses they do business with. This exists way beyond tech to how companies consumers will spend money on for goods or services will take that money to then lobby government to harm those citizens, yet the vast majority of people are apathetic to taking responsibility for that behavior. Hopefully we see state intervention to stop Uber for simply breaking regulations, like we saw in Austin, where in the aftermath of knowing about Uber more open communication tools were used instead because the citizenry realized they didn't need an app to have a network of drivers and customers who could rate and pay one another.

smsm42 10y ago

> These services can only be called "sharing" economy if they operate at zero profit and their app code is open source. That's a very weird claim. It's like saying information economy can be called so only if everybody uses open source and nobody is making profit from information. That's just nonsense. Making profit is part of the economy - in fact, a vital part, an engine that makes the economy move, and using open source has nothing to do with this at all. I get that Stallman wants everybody to use open source - but it has nothing to do with economy. It's a moral ideal Stallman strives to, and it's fine, but economy can be economy with or without it, so can sharing economy. > I think they should and pretty soon will be public services They won't, unless the government forces them to and kills them by that. > Furthermore, these should be local services, catering to the specific circumstances of the city or town they operate in, obeying the local customs and so on. Nobody prevents you from doing that, but it's harder than you think. And on local level taxi lobby will swat such service like a fly. Uber can resist it because they are big enough to put up a fight. Volunteer non-profit service won't stand a snowball's chance in a volcano.

pessimizer 10y ago
> It's like saying information economy can be called so only if everybody uses open source and nobody is making profit from information. No it's not. Sharing is a word that has a meaning. What it's like is saying that you can't call the trade in oranges the information economy, because trading oranges has little to with information. Selling is not sharing.

morgante 10y ago

> Furthermore, these should be local services, catering to the specific circumstances of the city or town they operate in, obeying the local customs and so on. Please no. I have precisely zero interest in downloading a new app every time I go to a city. It's amazing how ignorant of basic economics people on HN are. Have you ever heard of economies of scale? Uber pays literally millions of dollars to their developers every year. I sure as hell don't want my taxes going to pay for my city to develop its own Uber knockoff.