3 ms·

Minor quibble, but Airbnb doesn't own the hosts' homes or apartments, and Uber doesn't own the drivers' cars. Renting is an accurate descriptor of Netflix or K

by qiqing 8y ago

Minor quibble, but Airbnb doesn't own the hosts' homes or apartments, and Uber doesn't own the drivers' cars. Renting is an accurate descriptor of Netflix or Kindle (and Google Play movies actually does have "rent" on the label of the button when you want to rent a movie). And I can see what you mean from the perspective of the guest or rider, but not from the perspective of the host or driver.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I'd also agree that Uber/AirBnB do not really fit well in that comment. These are companies that mostly just serve as middlemen. They could theoretically be entirely decentralized enabling people to genuinely connect directly with other people to offer a service. There are even technological solutions towards avoiding bad actors and abuse. For instance mutual facial recognition to ensure people are who they say they are - when you get in a ride, you and the driver both snap a pic of each other, it's verified on both ends, and off you both go. And all metainformation could be publicly stored in a trustless append-only decentralized ledger. They're just the early middlemen of budding industries that, in an optimistic future, will not even need middlemen.
- gaius 8y ago
  I'd also agree that Uber/AirBnB do not really fit well in that comment They are not “sharing” anything in the sense that people normally understand the word. Money is exchanged for services, as normal. The only thing they do differently is evade regulations and taxes.
- hotgoldminer 8y ago
  They're protocol. Without a trusted party in the middle, there isn't a market.
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    ...which makes me wonder if maybe the blockchain aficionados are onto something. The problem that blockchains solve is precisely to replace the "trusted middlemen" with a distributed network of miners and coin-holders, and to split the rewards that would accrue to them across a competitive market. If every Internet marketplace were replaced with a smart contract, that's a massive potential market.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      Yip. In my opinion this is the real future of blockchains. There are even incredible possibilities like connecting decentralized services to create new businesses. Imagine a digital farmers' market that directly connects consumer to farmer using our decentralized vehicle transport service. Only problem is that this/these sort of project(s) would entail an enormous amount of energy and effort to develop. And then you'd also need to ensure you have sufficient marketing clout so it doesn't just lay dormant. And then in the end it's a completely decentralized system. The idea of a creator sitting around skimming money off every transaction is not really part of this picture. So it's not really the most enticing of projects to take on. Big investment, minimal personal reward. On the other hand, I think it will happen - eventually. We just need another Tim Berners-Lee type individual. Except preferably one that happens to be a brilliant engineer, salesperson, and billionaire.
- qubex 8y ago
  As lallysingh noted just above, Uber and AirBnB are brokers.
_bxg1 8y ago
> a centralized company which outsources the generation of actual value to others I would argue that you're still renting from Uber and AirBnB, who are just outsourcing their labor and properties to others. Companies like this - I'm looking at you, Facebook - like to claim that they're only impartial platforms, but the reality is that they gain an enormous amount of power over both sides; stealthily, because they hide behind that image.
- baxtr 8y ago
  It’s somehow funny to think about these companies as utilities or infrastructure, which is traditionally created and maintained by the state. I’m not sure if that’s the better scenario
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    Created and maintained by the state, or simply regulated by the state. One of the two is absolutely appropriate for at least the most important of the companies we're talking about, but we currently have neither.
- lallysingh 8y ago
  They're brokers.
  - qubex 8y ago
    Market-makers, even.
    - pathseeker 8y ago
      A market maker provides demand and supply to both sides to smooth out pricing. Airbnb does not do that, they are just the market. An argument could be made that Uber does do that by paying wages to the driver independent of what it charges the rider.
- EGreg 8y ago
  You could argue that you are in control and just outsourcing the making of money and spending it to Elon Musk or the large corporations :)
dredmorbius 8y ago
Content isn't king. Channel control is.
- ddingus 8y ago
  Yes. Thought experiment: There are two channels. One airs very compelling content (the king), but is low quality. The other has tepid content, but is excellent quality. Which do you use? Over time, I have asked this of a ton of people and have A/B tested it a few times in my home. Originally about legacy, broadcast media and choices I did not understand. Compelling is the majority answer people give. And yes, that varies, but not so much as to make the discussion moot. Yet, what we see is majority tepid, regardless of production and delivery quality. Secondly, peak quality is rare. Choice comes before that. Broadcast wants multiple streams more than fewer, better ones. Almost every time. Channel control is king. Competition gets balanced to avoid mass tune outs. Anyone doing all compelling, goid quality, few to no ADS will win big, costing others a lot. Watch Netflix, Amazon, YouTube and the legacy media sorting all that out right now.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    The vein I had in mind would better be reflected by; excellent content but generally unavailable, vs. mediocre content, but it's unavoidable. Sole-vendor contracts with major metro areas, piped into all public spaces, stores, restaurants, bars, coffeeshops. Incorporated in other entertainment (films, video games). That's control over channel.
    - ddingus 8y ago
      I agree. I think we're sort of talking at this Dynamic from two different points of view.

by qiqing 8y ago

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

I'd also agree that Uber/AirBnB do not really fit well in that comment. These are companies that mostly just serve as middlemen. They could theoretically be entirely decentralized enabling people to genuinely connect directly with other people to offer a service. There are even technological solutions towards avoiding bad actors and abuse. For instance mutual facial recognition to ensure people are who they say they are - when you get in a ride, you and the driver both snap a pic of each other, it's verified on both ends, and off you both go. And all metainformation could be publicly stored in a trustless append-only decentralized ledger. They're just the early middlemen of budding industries that, in an optimistic future, will not even need middlemen.

gaius 8y ago
I'd also agree that Uber/AirBnB do not really fit well in that comment They are not “sharing” anything in the sense that people normally understand the word. Money is exchanged for services, as normal. The only thing they do differently is evade regulations and taxes.
hotgoldminer 8y ago
They're protocol. Without a trusted party in the middle, there isn't a market.
- nostrademons 8y ago
  ...which makes me wonder if maybe the blockchain aficionados are onto something. The problem that blockchains solve is precisely to replace the "trusted middlemen" with a distributed network of miners and coin-holders, and to split the rewards that would accrue to them across a competitive market. If every Internet marketplace were replaced with a smart contract, that's a massive potential market.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    Yip. In my opinion this is the real future of blockchains. There are even incredible possibilities like connecting decentralized services to create new businesses. Imagine a digital farmers' market that directly connects consumer to farmer using our decentralized vehicle transport service. Only problem is that this/these sort of project(s) would entail an enormous amount of energy and effort to develop. And then you'd also need to ensure you have sufficient marketing clout so it doesn't just lay dormant. And then in the end it's a completely decentralized system. The idea of a creator sitting around skimming money off every transaction is not really part of this picture. So it's not really the most enticing of projects to take on. Big investment, minimal personal reward. On the other hand, I think it will happen - eventually. We just need another Tim Berners-Lee type individual. Except preferably one that happens to be a brilliant engineer, salesperson, and billionaire.
qubex 8y ago
As lallysingh noted just above, Uber and AirBnB are brokers.

_bxg1 8y ago

> a centralized company which outsources the generation of actual value to others I would argue that you're still renting from Uber and AirBnB, who are just outsourcing their labor and properties to others. Companies like this - I'm looking at you, Facebook - like to claim that they're only impartial platforms, but the reality is that they gain an enormous amount of power over both sides; stealthily, because they hide behind that image.

baxtr 8y ago
It’s somehow funny to think about these companies as utilities or infrastructure, which is traditionally created and maintained by the state. I’m not sure if that’s the better scenario
- _bxg1 8y ago
  Created and maintained by the state, or simply regulated by the state. One of the two is absolutely appropriate for at least the most important of the companies we're talking about, but we currently have neither.
lallysingh 8y ago
They're brokers.
- qubex 8y ago
  Market-makers, even.
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    A market maker provides demand and supply to both sides to smooth out pricing. Airbnb does not do that, they are just the market. An argument could be made that Uber does do that by paying wages to the driver independent of what it charges the rider.
EGreg 8y ago
You could argue that you are in control and just outsourcing the making of money and spending it to Elon Musk or the large corporations :)

dredmorbius 8y ago

Content isn't king. Channel control is.

ddingus 8y ago
Yes. Thought experiment: There are two channels. One airs very compelling content (the king), but is low quality. The other has tepid content, but is excellent quality. Which do you use? Over time, I have asked this of a ton of people and have A/B tested it a few times in my home. Originally about legacy, broadcast media and choices I did not understand. Compelling is the majority answer people give. And yes, that varies, but not so much as to make the discussion moot. Yet, what we see is majority tepid, regardless of production and delivery quality. Secondly, peak quality is rare. Choice comes before that. Broadcast wants multiple streams more than fewer, better ones. Almost every time. Channel control is king. Competition gets balanced to avoid mass tune outs. Anyone doing all compelling, goid quality, few to no ADS will win big, costing others a lot. Watch Netflix, Amazon, YouTube and the legacy media sorting all that out right now.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  The vein I had in mind would better be reflected by; excellent content but generally unavailable, vs. mediocre content, but it's unavoidable. Sole-vendor contracts with major metro areas, piped into all public spaces, stores, restaurants, bars, coffeeshops. Incorporated in other entertainment (films, video games). That's control over channel.
  - ddingus 8y ago
    I agree. I think we're sort of talking at this Dynamic from two different points of view.