6 ms·

I think this misses another critical point. The platform owner only retains control of the transactions, if they keep the buyer and seller from getting to know

• damnfine 9y ago
  Man, that just kinda feels dirty, but its true. Even for uber! An (ex?)uber driver I know in a semi rural area now just connects directly with locals and runs a charter to and from the nearby city, as those were most of his fares. It also kinda hurts that the isolation of people is seen as financially viable. I would argue, but with very little to back me up, that there is an intangible (and perhaps a tangible) benefit from closeness to those we associate or do business with, that we are losing.
  • cvsh 9y ago
    I've long thought the endgame of Uber is open-source software that continually automatically adjusts how much of the transaction it skims off so that it always has just enough to pay its own AWS bills.
    • tomcam 9y ago
      Who would do dispute resolution, driver verification, and background checks? Who would get sued when a driver assaulted a passenger or vice versa?
      • icebraining 9y ago
        Just thinking aloud: Uber doesn't actually run driver verification and background checks, they hire other companies for that. In a more decentralized world, drivers would pay for that service themselves and get a digitally-signed certificate that they could upload to the software. Same for being sued: the driver would have to get insurance or escrow a certain lump sum (and upload proof too), so that if someone sued and won, the money could be used to pay for that.
  • Razengan 9y ago
    > It also kinda hurts that the isolation of people is seen as financially viable. I would argue, but with very little to back me up, that there is an intangible (and perhaps a tangible) benefit from closeness to those we associate or do business with, that we are losing. As an introvert, I appreciate that there are services that isolate me from unnecessary contact with people. Where I live, taxi drivers often try to strike up conversation and get "friendly." Not only that's awkward and uncomfortable for me, here it's also generally not very safe to indulge in chitchat with strangers (you can get marked for scams, muggings or worse.)
    • preordained 9y ago
      I'm an introvert as well...plenty are...but I don't think avoiding "unnecessary contact" is really healthy. Introversion is a weakness as I see it honestly...a negative feedback loop of underdeveloped social skills yielding yet more fear, insecurity around social contact. It's not a binary condition like I'm a Leo or a diabetic. Just saying, it's probably better to view as personal challenge than a condition that needs to be accommodated outright.
      • Baeocystin 9y ago
        Social anxiety and introversion are not the same thing. I am an introvert, and need a lot of alone time to feel properly refreshed. People, even ones I love, wear me out. But I have no problem whatsoever interacting, and have zero social anxiety. Need me to talk in front of a group? Sure! Meet new folks? Great! And I genuinely enjoy doing these things. But it burns a lot of mental energy to do so. I need quiet alone time, too, and a lot of it. I say this not to make anyone feel bad about social anxiety, but rather to try and make people not feel like introversion is a defect. It is not, in any way, shape or form. So seriously, don't beat yourself up about feeling introverted, if that is how you are. Anxiety is a different beast, and working on that will help. And if you get it under control, and still enjoy an introverted lifestyle, that is 100% OK, normal, and healthy.
  • aianus 9y ago
    > An (ex?)uber driver I know in a semi rural area now just connects directly with locals and runs a charter to and from the nearby city, as those were most of his fares. Either he's driving without commercial insurance (very risky) or most of his savings from Uber fees are going towards the same.
    • SOLAR_FIELDS 9y ago
      Probably the former based on conversations I've had with various drivers. It's a bit more common than people first let on. From the drivers I spoke to that have cut out Uber/Lyft as middlemen, typically they started out on the platform and established a rapport with a customer (almost always a business traveler who has regularly scheduled trips). Customer and rider exchange info and then it's a regularly scheduled under-the-table operation where the circumstances of the ride are incredibly easy to conceal from insurance and even the tax-man.
• krrrh 9y ago
  This is a crucial point. Another way to look at the viability of these casual labor startups is to what degree is the service dependent on trust, and how generic is the delivery? For the most part, a car driver is the same as any other car driver, but a baby sitter, house cleaner, or dog walker is someone you need to trust with things that you care deeply about. When you find a good one, you'll be happy to pay a premium out-of-network wage to keep them.
  • the_stc 9y ago
    Yep, exactly. We're dealing with personal services workers, and in the higher-range, these are not interchangeable. If a client finds a provider and they really mesh, then it's likely they'll directly contact. We'll deal with this by offering very reduced fees for those kinds of repeats. We're also working to expand our services so we still provide value even in such a case, but that can be hard. A lot of the value we provide is up-front. We verified the providers so we know they perform services and are not LE. We will have verified health status periodically. So if you find someone using our system, that alone is a big endorsement right there. There are multi-million-dollar businesses that only handle that part (and only handle it to a lesser extent). In the not-high-end range, I think scheduling alone is enough to justify using us. It's annoying to have to message a couple people and wait for their responses versus just having it all automatically booked. Security, too. Plus people are more likely to want to try something new and different.
    • Canada 9y ago
      So, you're going to recruit girls, "try them out", take their pictures, get test STD results, provide physical security for them, verify the identities of their clients, collect payment, provide insurance, and publish an Android app to promote this? And you're going to do it all through Tor because, of course, you need to be anonymous? That is very convenient considering that you're doing a token sale! I have to say, if I were totally anonymous and my ICO went well I'd probably renege on the whole thing. After all, why would I put myself in serious legal jeopardy by running a form of darknet market when I could just pocket the investors money secure in the knowledge that nobody will feel sorry for them?
• goialoq 9y ago
  Not necessaarily. A platform can provide value and make a profit. Consider Amazon A2Z Marketplace sellers, who do get to know their buyers. But customers prefer the experience on A2Z over the sellers own website. See also Android (Google Play Store), where app builders are able to get to know their users (subject to some possibly controversial platform constraints). Of course one can always do better for oneself by intermediating and rent-seeking on a platform.
• clairity 9y ago
  the disintermediation issue is actually directly covered in the article. being a commodity service means you're not invested in any perticular service provider, so you don't need or want to escape the platform.
• kharms 9y ago
  >But for Uber for local babysitting, why would the buyer and seller not just leave the platform permanently after meeting, and transact directly, saving both the fee? Insurance. Uber/airbnb/rover/etc. provide insurance for both parties. To me that's a critical value add - I want to know that if my dog sitter leaves some chocolate around I won't be out a few grand. The more important the task, the more likely I am to stick with an insured party.
  • the_stc 9y ago
    We guarantee payments and provide legal insurance to both sides. But honestly, once you have worked with someone, your trust of them is probably enough for you to decide if you want to keep them on without the insurance. If you get a worker that is working on a Dog Sitter platform and you've had an appointment or two with them, you're probably going to judge they're OK enough. The insurance is more of a first-time-per-person kind of thing. Same for renting out your house and so on: For the first meeting, yeah it's super important. After that, you'll probably know if you trust them enough to skip the fees.
    • FICO 9y ago
      That is not how insurance works, or rather, people don't just insure against malice perpetuated by untrusted actors. Example: Say I rent out my house and an electrical fire breaks out. Insurance company says "you were using the premises for commercial purposes at the time of loss and your policy does not cover commercial activity. We won't cover the fire damage." This is a very real possibility you'd find yourself in unless you specifically bought commercial/landlord insurance.
    • icebraining 9y ago
      Same for renting out your house and so on: For the first meeting, yeah it's super important. After that, you'll probably know if you trust them enough to skip the fees. You poor trusting fellow. That's exactly how they get you: pay a few months on time, then stop and live for free until you can evict them. Been there, had it done to me.
  • lsc 9y ago
• amelius 9y ago
  What should also be addressed is what is keeping users from going to a competitor Uber-for-x. In the case of Uber, there is little lock-in possible. It is relatively simple to duplicate the service (especially compared to the capital that Uber has burned already).
• seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Uber for babysitting could work if it targeted stay at home moms and dads as both users and providers, so I have to watch my kid anyways, why not watch a play date? Or I need a break, perhaps someone could watch my kid for awhile? Insurance would be a killer, however, and we aren't ones to easily trust our kids with strangers.
  • Jemaclus 9y ago
    Right, but the OP's point is that if I watch your kid for you, and you think I'm doing an OK job, then you and I can reach an arrangement separate from UberSitting. Say UberSitting charges $15/hr, where I get $10/hr and they get $5/hr. When you pick up your kid, I could say "hey, if you pay me $12/hr, then you'll save $3/hr" and then I make an extra $2/hr and UberSitting makes nothing. In other words, once you make that initial connection, you don't need UberSitting anymore. This is one of the reasons why those cleaning service companies like HomeJoy have floundered, btw.
    • seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      The on-the-fly nature of Uber is convenient, if you wanted someone to watch your kids NOW, your pre existing relationships might not work out.
  • saalweachter 9y ago
    Except you would still be more likely to target other parents in the same close-by neighborhood, which would lead to a lot of repeat "business", at which point you would develop relationships with your neighbors with kids of a similar age. I mean, a business accidentally creating closer, friendlier communities is great, but I think it'd still be a financial failure in the end, because once you've met all your neighbors with kids and trust them, you can just friend them on Facebook and say "Hey, can anyone watch Timmy while I run to the grocery?"
• koolba 9y ago
  Exactly. This is why Homejoy and every other "repeat by the same contractor" business in this market fails. The savvy players on the provider side use these companies as a lead generator. Once they've got a new lead, they switch to their private services and they've got a 30% price advantage by cutting out the middleman. Throw in cash / under the table billing and there's no way to compete against the direct provider. The best part for the providers is they don't even have to advertise the "off the books" offer. Every consumer knows it's there and they seek it themselves.
• pawelk 9y ago
  I love the idea of sharing economy and, since I moved to a rural area, participate in it. Someone, somewhere, has this thing I need currently and they have in excess. Chainsaw, trailer, tractor, scaffolding, baby formula, really long stepladder, time, capable hands, knowledge. I also let people borrow my tools and offer advice/services. Most of the connections I made here were due to a random need and someone who has connected us knowing what the other party had on their disposal. I'm in constant awe experiencing how well it works without apps or platforms. But the crucial part is: no money changes hands in all this. You get something, you give something back to the community. I have the feeling that the large-scale implementations of sharing use this social interaction as a ground to grow small businesses which offer services to strangers. I'm okay with that, it makes everything more efficient and straightforward, but there's little left of the sharing part of the deal: Hey, why not use your car that would sit in the garage while you waste time to make extra few bucks -> lease a new car and work as not-taxi-driver. Have an empty apartment or go for vacation, let someone occupy it -> get a mortgage for 3 condos and run a totally-not-a-hotel. Tools collecting dust in the shed -> buy a few sets of commonly used powertools and lease it for $xx/day. Etc. "Sharing economy" now means that you cover all the expenses of running a business and share the revenue with the platform that brought you customers. There's very little actual sharing, but the economy works as usual. I guess my point is: sharing works without intermediaries and there may be no money exchange to take a cut, "sharing" with the intent to make a profit inevitably leads to professionalization and requires the "sharer" to operate a regular business.
  • mlamat 9y ago
    I would never lend my chainsaw to an another person. If they don't own it, they won't take proper care for it.
    • sgift 9y ago
      These things tend to sort themselves out in sharing economies by word-of-mouth. If someone doesn't handle the things trusted to them carefully, no one will share with them anymore.
  • icebraining 9y ago
• lubujackson 9y ago
  I actually use an Uber for babysitting, Trusted (at usetrusted.com). I think there are a few reasons why I haven't poached a babysitter from the service yet and why it might not happen too often. 1) The cost to me is invisible. I don't know or care what their cut is. I see a rate and pay it. 2) I also get some benefits including online scheduling and pay by credit card. 3) There is an unspoken stigma because it would be a cost-saving measure for the parents but more of a hassle for the babysitter. Would the sitter get more money? Maybe a little? But they wouldn't usually suggest it for the risk of getting tattled on and getting kicked off. Parents might also have this risk. Most good sitters are always booked through the service in SF, so what is their upside?
  • jakobegger 9y ago
    I'm curious. Do you always use the same sitter? How far in advance do you book your sitter? We've had a number of babysitters (found via family, recommendations, and job boards), and scheduling is incredibly annoying. We usually have to plan at least a week in advance, and even then there's no guarantee that our sitter is available. I'd absolutely use a service that connected me to a professional baby sitter who is available tomorrow evening, and I'd pay extra for the flexibility. (Vetting is also important. We are really happy with our current sitter, but in my experience it's really hard to know in advance)
• fijal 9y ago
  Or just charge reasonable fees for the service provided (booking, billing etc) and not try to abuse it. If the fee is 2-5% noone would bat an eye
• jakobegger 9y ago
  But does the platform necessarily need to profit from every transaction? Consider a real estate website: They don't get a cut of the monthly rent, they just charge a single fee up front. The value that these platforms provide is connecting customers with service providers, and this is what should be charged for. The value of the platform goes to zero as soon as the customer/provider know each other. So here's an idea: maybe the platform should charge only for the first appointment? Sure, revenue per customer is lower, but retention is bigger -- people keep using your service, and next time they need someone on short notice, they will use your website again. If you run a marketplace, you need to make sure your business model is aligned with your users. If it isn't, you'll fight an uphill battle.