7 ms·

> Over the next decade, you’ll see some of these entrepreneurs create companies at YC that rival Airbnb’s social (and financial) impact. I think this sentence

by habitue 11y ago

> Over the next decade, you’ll see some of these entrepreneurs create companies at YC that rival Airbnb’s social (and financial) impact. I think this sentence is interesting. It kind of hints that they use the term "AirBnB" internally as a short-hand way of saying "Our most successful company". He doesn't mention AirBnB anywhere else in the post, and this sentence expects the listener to understand the implied context.

zajd 11y ago
I find it odd that AirBnB is consitently pointed at as a resounding success when, alongside Uber/Lyft/TaskRabbit/the now shutdown maid service, it simply relies on literally breaking the law and hoping that you'll make enough money to change the laws. Granted, AirBnB doesn't have the same "fuck the worker" mindset as the others, but I still feel like the "sharing econony" is far from an established sure thing. Then again, if you own stock in AirBnB I doubt it matters at this point.
- staunch 11y ago
  Airbnb has the "fuck the neighbors" mindset. Interesting way to think of the inherent evilness of different companies. Google and Facebook have the "fuck user privacy" mindset. Microsoft has a "fuck competitors up" mindset. This is fun.
  - zajd 11y ago
    I think the analogy breaks down when you consider what sharing economy companies do is explicitly illegal, especially in the places they operate. Granted, there's been differing levels of enforcement from various agencies, but Hillary has been mentioning addressing it from the federal level. Point being, there are probably changes/regulations coming to the current free for all that is the sharing economy.
  - reitzensteinm 11y ago
    I recently went travelling and used it. An old woman opened the door to the apartment building for me when the lock was giving me trouble, then was then confused then concerned that she didn't recognize me. I used it once before, in Barcelona, staying in the flat of a wonderful couple who we got along well with and it was like visiting relatives. This time, it felt like we were saving a buck, and the owner making a buck, by scaring old ladies. I guess it's back to hotels and hostels.
    - TheAnimus 11y ago
      I too have had some mixed experiences. A B&B in Rome, where the host had elegantly decorated our room, provided fresh flowers each day all whilst respecting our privacy. Contrasted with a flat in residential block where one of the neighbours started shouting loudly at my girlfriend, I do not speak French (she is fluent) and didn't have any idea if things where about to get violent. It turns out the previous guests had been making lots of noise late at night, being tourists we where of course staying up much later than we would normally. It's embarrassing having someone complain about your sex noises. Another time we simply couldn't find or contact the host. Airbnb did not help in this matter at all. Contrasted to a friends experience on NYE when a booking.com room turned out to not be available, he ended up in the Shangri La hotel. It's clear AirBnB doesn't help you when things go wrong. As such I'd never use them for an important visit, or a visit during an event.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nadya 11y ago
    What's the difference between AirBNB and being good enough friends with people to stay at their place for a night or two - or even a week? The exchange of money? I occasionally give my own family money if I inconvenience them for several days. It is illegal for me to pull to the side of a free-way and pick up a stranger who's car broke down/ran out of gas to give them a ride to the nearest gas station/place they were trying to get to. I find it absolutely absurd that it is illegal to help someone. Moreso on the merits of "helping strangers is bad, but it's legal if they are friends or family". I have a very loose definition of "friend". So where do I draw the line between legal ridesharing (giving a friend a ride to the airport for $20) and illegal ridesharing (giving a stranger a ride to the airport for $20)? Legitimate curiosity - so if someone would like to clarify why one is OK but the other is bad, I'd love to hear it.
    - justathrow2k 11y ago
      You must have a very loose definition of help, too, if you consider renting your property for profit as act of help as opposed to a self serving act with the aim being lining ones pockets.
      - Nadya 11y ago
        My definition agrees with the dictionary definition, which I don't consider very loose. You can still help someone without being altruistic. Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter, so I recognize I tread a fine line here, unlike the aforementioned, I do not see a reason to differentiate between the following two actions: a) I let someone stay the night in my house and they offered me $60 as a thank you in return for the hospitality, I initially decline but they continue to insist so I take the $60. b) I charged for someone to stay the night in my house and they agreed to pay $60 to stay at my house instead of an alternative place (and/or sleeping in their car/on the street) I guess as a couchsurfer I have a different moral perspective about the act of sleeping in someone's house, offering money, accepting money, and bargaining. E: A reply to this comment was deleted, comparing that A helps all people and B helps people "willing to pay". My response to that is below: You're still helping someone in either scenario. The pool of people you are willing or able to help is smaller in B than A, but you are still helping someone. Again - helping someone else does not need to be a selfless, altruistic act. "Instead of spending $80 at a hotel, you can spend $60 at my place and you can join me for dinner." By saving you $20, I have helped you. You saved $60 and had a place to sleep. Your alternatives were: 1. Sleep in car for free 2. Find someone willing to help you for cheaper and/or free 3. Sleep at a more expensive place By giving you a superior option to 1 and 3 and you failing to find 2, I am still helping you. Would I be more altruistic if I let you stay for free? Sure. But to say I'm not helping you when I'm saving you $20 is stretching the definition of "help" to include altruistic behavior.
  - MichaelCrawford 11y ago
    While Microsoft is content to merely fuck its own W-2 permanent employs, it tears out the spleens of its contract programmers with rusty entrenching tools. I thought I would have a really nice office with a door I could shut. Instead I was required to sit in - I Swear I'm Not Making This Up - "The Boiler Room" with some other contract programmers. I haven't had the headspace to deal with it yet but I'm going to drop a dime to the Redmond Fire Marshall and King County Code Inspector to have a lot at The Boiler Room. The Mind Simply Reels.
- Swizec 11y ago
  Wasn't that historically how laws have changed? More particularly, the people want this. Because the people like it. The economy is rough for everyone outside Silicon Valley right now and they love the fact that with some hustling they can make a good side income. Any company that helps people make money will be loved by people and when the people pressure the government, that's a very powerful thing. Remember, Al Capone was loved by the people because he funneled a lot of his money into helping the poor and funding soup kitchens and things like that. That made it much much harder for the government to take him out. But unlike Al Capone, who was considered a gangster and a crook even by the people who loved him, the sharing economy is seen as morally good. People think they should be able to rent out their apartment whenever they want. They think they should be able to give people rides and so on. These companies are doing nothing wrong in the eye of the people, they only laws they are breaking are bureaucratic laws. Which are the kind of laws people break all the time anyway. Not saying those laws don't exist for a reason, because they do. But they've been in effect for so long that the reason has fallen out of the public conscience and people don't understand why these "outdated" laws shouldn't be broken. At the end of the day, taxis don't drive around London with a bale of hay in their trunk like they're supposed to. I may have trailed off there, my point is that in the eye of the masses, these companies are doing the right thing. And that's powerful.
  - zajd 11y ago
    Yes, some laws are silly. Worker protections though? I don't think there's much to cheer about when the reason many of these sharing companies are so profitable is because they basically eliminate using employees for their "unskilled"(read: job markets with an excess of employable people) labor. Also I would dispute that people(edit: this is basically impossible to prove, it'd be nice to see some data) see the sharing economy as "morally good". I certainly don't. Not because I don't think people should be allowed to share, but because I don't think corporations should be able to 1099 what are obviously employees in order to cut costs. edit. I guess I'm getting downvoted because worker protections actually are considered a bad thing here? smh
    - jlarocco 11y ago
      I agree with you, and I think companies are abusing the word "sharing." If I lend my neighbor a tool, that's sharing. If I bring cookies in to work and put them in the break room for everybody, that's sharing. If I visit a website, order something and pay for it, then it's not sharing - it's ordering a product or service. I don't care who actually owns the car or the room.
- derefr 11y ago
  I think the "social impact" in the above quote is more interesting than the "financial impact." It's not just their most successful business, it's the business that is most reshaping the world—doing the most controversial things, affecting laws and regulations wherever it goes, etc.
- larrys 11y ago
  "hoping that you'll make enough money to change the laws" I think what you mean to say perhaps was "raise enough money to change the laws by hiring lawyers and political operatives that know how to work the system".
- roymurdock 11y ago
  This will be even more pertinent to startups in the new "hot" industry of wetware/biotech. It's one thing to break up a dumb taxi/hotel cartel by allocating capital more efficiently through iphone apps and good customer service (albeit illegally). It's another thing to perform rigorous scientific testing an analysis of drugs, treatments, hardware, etc. that will be interfacing with fathers, mothers, children; human beings who could die as a result of the fail fast, break things SV startup mentality.
  - Fomite 11y ago
    This. I'd be very worried about the "regulations are for other people" mentality that pervades some firms - that's not something I want in my biotech.
- BurningFrog 11y ago
  Some laws should be broken. I'm sure you have your own list of exceptions.
liseman 11y ago
I wouldn't read too much into it: I simply consider Airbnb a highly-valued and socially-impactful company.
thomasrossi 11y ago
The first time ?ve read the comment I read "Alibaba", now, that would have been interesting! Airbnb is successful indeed but it's a "tax-wise iffy" solution to an old problem. On the other hand competing with Alibaba takes the challenge to a whole new level!
MichaelCrawford 11y ago
The Portland/Vancouver Metropolitan Area is heavily into mobile devices. When I ride the bus or TriMet MAX light rail, roughly half of my fellow passengers are using an iOS, Android or Windows phone device. Uber has limited penetration here because of the Portland taxi drivers. Many of the people around here regard the taxi companies as Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organizations because there are far too many drunk people and far too few taxis on Friday and Saturday nights. One can ride the MAX Red Line non-stop to the airport from Hillsboro, Beaverton, and Portland for I think $2.50. One takes the Blue line from Gresham then transfers to the Red at the 99th Avenue Transit Center. One takes the Green from Clackamas then transfers to the Red. One takes the Yellow Line from Portland State University just South of Downtown then transfers to the Red at the Rose Quarter (ie. Moda Center) as well as from North Portland South to the Rose Quarter. There are two C-Tran express busses that will get you to the Light Rail for $3.50, or you can take any of a half-dozen bus lines to the Westfield Vancouver Mall Transit Center, transfer to the #4 Delta Park / Vanport MAX bus then transfer to the Yellow Line. When the Yellow arrives at Delta Park / Vanport, just about always the #4 into Downtown Vancouver then most of the way across Vancouver to the mall Transit center is waiting right there. Amtrack goes from Vancouver to Portland and back. I find it hard to understand the controversy over running the Yellow line over the recently-cancelled Columbia River Crossing. Oregon insisted on light rail into Vancouver, Washington now has to repay the Feds $500,000.00 because its refusal to fund light rail led to a desperately needed new Interstate 5 bridge being cancelled. Washington and Oregon each spent $250,000.00 before Washington withdrew. There are no busses to the Vancouver Amtrack Station. Nor is it ever advertised. Ticket prices at brick-and-mortar Amtrack stations are significantly cheaper than online at Amtrack's website. You can reserve a ticket at a significant discount without actually paying for it until you board the train, but only at the stations. This leads me to believe Amtrack commuter rail into Portland, which meets the Yellow and Green line as well as lots of busses is quite cheap if one reserves fares ahead of time for every day one expects to work on the other side of the River. There are 4,000 homeless people in Portland. The city is carefully constructed so as to keep all the homeless in Oldtown and Chinatown; that's where the soup kitchens, rescue missions, shelters and subsidized housing are to be found also the Portland Police Bureau and private security guards are completely cool about sleeping on the sidewalk in Oldtown and Chinatown. But not in the Pearl District, Downtown or PSU neighborhoods. All over the wealthier parts of Portland's central core are solar-powered trash compactors, with a few recycling bins that permit one to recycle a can or bottle but not remove it from the bin so one can claim the five-cent deposit. But there are very large conventional trash cans in China Town and Oldtown that the homeless dig through to get their five cents. However there is nowhere to actually claim the deposit anywhere in Oldtown or Chinatown. Some of the larger grocery stores have automated recycling machines. Rather than dispensing cash they issue a ticket that one can exchange for cash at the checkout stands. One can only obtain that cash while the grocery store is open. Despite that some of the grocery stores open at 5:00 AM and all the rest at 6:00, the recycling machines are down until 9:00 each morning. I don't know when they shut off for the night but the grocery stores close anywhere from 9:0 PM to 1:00 AM. None of those grocery stores are anywhere near Oldtown or Chinatown. Oregon's bottle bill limits one to recycling no more than 200 cans at any one merchant. At five cents per beverage container, that means you make ten dollars then you have to go find another supermarket. Most homeless people as well as the vast majority of mentally ill are reluctant ever to stray far from their homes. I just love to roam all over Creation but I know lots of people who spend decades in Oldtown without ever setting foot in Chinatown let alone riding MAX to a supermarket for recycling. Back in the day Portland rent was quite cheap and there was lots of it. What with all the startups, the VCs, the highly paid engineers, web designers, graphic designers, sales and marketing people as well as Oregon's No-Fault Eviction Law rents are skyrocketing. An apartment that rented for $600.00 ten years ago is now $3,500.00. I personally prefer to rent a room in a shared house. Not because it's less expensive but because I regard any more than one room as wasteful, also I prefer living with other Bohemians. But AirBNB saw through my Evil Plan. Many cities are passing ordinances to outlaw short-term rentals. Portland requires a hotel license but the Portland Police Bureau don't enforce it. So were I to rent one single room in a shared house anywhere in Portland, the very instant my landlord clued into AirBNB I'd be out on the street. Parking for those who commute to Downtown Portland is quite expensive, also there is a traffic jam from six in the morning until nine in the evening on all the highways. Then there are your car payments, scheduled maintenance, replacing worn-out tired, unexpected major repairs, insurance, traffic citations, sales tax if one purchases one's car in Washington as well as the higher price of one's home if one has a garage and a driveway. That's why the Clark County Council as well as the Vancouver City Council are so adamantly opposed to public transit. Someone actually wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Columbian. "You don't want light rail into Vancouver. Everyone knows what happens when light rail goes in." What? Economic prosperity all along the railbed and for several miles on other side? The cafes I like to hang out? Restaurants? Pubs that serve Oregon's world-reknowned craft beer? Ethnic cuisine? I would far far far prefer to live in Portland I regard Vancouver as a total shithole but among the reasons I am here is that I was born in Spokane and so regard Washington as my family's ancient homeland. I am determined to reside inside Vancouver's herpes-ridden anal fissures because I have a duty to fix my ancient homeland's cluelessly asinine clusterfuck problems. That's why I don't live in Canada any more because War on Terror, Surveillance State, hatred of immigrants even legal ones and the occasional unarmed black man. Is This the America I Love? I learned in the Boy Scouts that upside-down flag signals an emergency http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/25/641/18793 http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/25/641/18793
logicallee 11y ago
airbnb is a great example for hardware companies. YC (specifically PG) didn't believe in the the idea. If they hadn't started selling Presidential Cereal, they would have died. Literally, they bet the whole company and a binder full of credit cards on Obama O's, a gimmick cereal. if no selling cereal, then no YC investment, and no airbnb. This is an important lesson to hardware companies, who need more money than anyone will bet on them: FINANCE YOURSELF DOING SOMETHING ELSE. Nobody ever, ever believes in any idea, ever, even if it obviously works and is great, in fact ten billion dollars great. Nobody will believe you. Go sell cereal - you'll get sales from a standing start in a market you've never played in, faster than you can get liquid investment when rushing full-scale ahead toward $10 billion that you're executing on. Never, ever forget this lesson. Obama O's obviously weren't even a $50 million worldwide market. airbnb "obviously" was a $10 billion worldwide market. The former is what financed the latter - "convincing someone" didn't. Brian Chesky famously posted his 7 rejections here - https://medium.com/@bchesky/7-rejections-7d894cbaa084 https://medium.com/@bchesky/7-rejections-7d894cbaa084 (well, 2 didn't respond.) The only one who will ever, ever believe in you is you. If you can't do it without money, go do something else: vc's don't care about seeing and investing in winners; they want to ride their coattails. You may think I'm being cynical, but let me turn it around and make it a hypothetical: everyone knows battery tech kind of sucks, it lags behind all other advances in consumer electronics. If I personally had a breakthrough battery technology, everyone in the world would want to hear from me when we're raising series A. But to my point: nobody would look at the tech itself and invest before then. the stages are just totally different. This is just a hypothetical and I don't know anything about battery tech. I just know that if I did, I could never raise an investment for it, on the basis of what likely would be a research report and maybe prototype. it'll never happen.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
justathrow2k 11y ago
It makes me question, however, what is Air BnB's 'social impact'? Providing an easier gateway for people to engage in illegal renting?

by habitue 11y ago

zajd 11y ago

I find it odd that AirBnB is consitently pointed at as a resounding success when, alongside Uber/Lyft/TaskRabbit/the now shutdown maid service, it simply relies on literally breaking the law and hoping that you'll make enough money to change the laws. Granted, AirBnB doesn't have the same "fuck the worker" mindset as the others, but I still feel like the "sharing econony" is far from an established sure thing. Then again, if you own stock in AirBnB I doubt it matters at this point.

staunch 11y ago
Airbnb has the "fuck the neighbors" mindset. Interesting way to think of the inherent evilness of different companies. Google and Facebook have the "fuck user privacy" mindset. Microsoft has a "fuck competitors up" mindset. This is fun.
- zajd 11y ago
  I think the analogy breaks down when you consider what sharing economy companies do is explicitly illegal, especially in the places they operate. Granted, there's been differing levels of enforcement from various agencies, but Hillary has been mentioning addressing it from the federal level. Point being, there are probably changes/regulations coming to the current free for all that is the sharing economy.
- reitzensteinm 11y ago
  I recently went travelling and used it. An old woman opened the door to the apartment building for me when the lock was giving me trouble, then was then confused then concerned that she didn't recognize me. I used it once before, in Barcelona, staying in the flat of a wonderful couple who we got along well with and it was like visiting relatives. This time, it felt like we were saving a buck, and the owner making a buck, by scaring old ladies. I guess it's back to hotels and hostels.
  - TheAnimus 11y ago
    I too have had some mixed experiences. A B&B in Rome, where the host had elegantly decorated our room, provided fresh flowers each day all whilst respecting our privacy. Contrasted with a flat in residential block where one of the neighbours started shouting loudly at my girlfriend, I do not speak French (she is fluent) and didn't have any idea if things where about to get violent. It turns out the previous guests had been making lots of noise late at night, being tourists we where of course staying up much later than we would normally. It's embarrassing having someone complain about your sex noises. Another time we simply couldn't find or contact the host. Airbnb did not help in this matter at all. Contrasted to a friends experience on NYE when a booking.com room turned out to not be available, he ended up in the Shangri La hotel. It's clear AirBnB doesn't help you when things go wrong. As such I'd never use them for an important visit, or a visit during an event.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Nadya 11y ago
  What's the difference between AirBNB and being good enough friends with people to stay at their place for a night or two - or even a week? The exchange of money? I occasionally give my own family money if I inconvenience them for several days. It is illegal for me to pull to the side of a free-way and pick up a stranger who's car broke down/ran out of gas to give them a ride to the nearest gas station/place they were trying to get to. I find it absolutely absurd that it is illegal to help someone. Moreso on the merits of "helping strangers is bad, but it's legal if they are friends or family". I have a very loose definition of "friend". So where do I draw the line between legal ridesharing (giving a friend a ride to the airport for $20) and illegal ridesharing (giving a stranger a ride to the airport for $20)? Legitimate curiosity - so if someone would like to clarify why one is OK but the other is bad, I'd love to hear it.
  - justathrow2k 11y ago
    You must have a very loose definition of help, too, if you consider renting your property for profit as act of help as opposed to a self serving act with the aim being lining ones pockets.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      My definition agrees with the dictionary definition, which I don't consider very loose. You can still help someone without being altruistic. Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter, so I recognize I tread a fine line here, unlike the aforementioned, I do not see a reason to differentiate between the following two actions: a) I let someone stay the night in my house and they offered me $60 as a thank you in return for the hospitality, I initially decline but they continue to insist so I take the $60. b) I charged for someone to stay the night in my house and they agreed to pay $60 to stay at my house instead of an alternative place (and/or sleeping in their car/on the street) I guess as a couchsurfer I have a different moral perspective about the act of sleeping in someone's house, offering money, accepting money, and bargaining. E: A reply to this comment was deleted, comparing that A helps all people and B helps people "willing to pay". My response to that is below: You're still helping someone in either scenario. The pool of people you are willing or able to help is smaller in B than A, but you are still helping someone. Again - helping someone else does not need to be a selfless, altruistic act. "Instead of spending $80 at a hotel, you can spend $60 at my place and you can join me for dinner." By saving you $20, I have helped you. You saved $60 and had a place to sleep. Your alternatives were: 1. Sleep in car for free 2. Find someone willing to help you for cheaper and/or free 3. Sleep at a more expensive place By giving you a superior option to 1 and 3 and you failing to find 2, I am still helping you. Would I be more altruistic if I let you stay for free? Sure. But to say I'm not helping you when I'm saving you $20 is stretching the definition of "help" to include altruistic behavior.
- MichaelCrawford 11y ago
  While Microsoft is content to merely fuck its own W-2 permanent employs, it tears out the spleens of its contract programmers with rusty entrenching tools. I thought I would have a really nice office with a door I could shut. Instead I was required to sit in - I Swear I'm Not Making This Up - "The Boiler Room" with some other contract programmers. I haven't had the headspace to deal with it yet but I'm going to drop a dime to the Redmond Fire Marshall and King County Code Inspector to have a lot at The Boiler Room. The Mind Simply Reels.
Swizec 11y ago
Wasn't that historically how laws have changed? More particularly, the people want this. Because the people like it. The economy is rough for everyone outside Silicon Valley right now and they love the fact that with some hustling they can make a good side income. Any company that helps people make money will be loved by people and when the people pressure the government, that's a very powerful thing. Remember, Al Capone was loved by the people because he funneled a lot of his money into helping the poor and funding soup kitchens and things like that. That made it much much harder for the government to take him out. But unlike Al Capone, who was considered a gangster and a crook even by the people who loved him, the sharing economy is seen as morally good. People think they should be able to rent out their apartment whenever they want. They think they should be able to give people rides and so on. These companies are doing nothing wrong in the eye of the people, they only laws they are breaking are bureaucratic laws. Which are the kind of laws people break all the time anyway. Not saying those laws don't exist for a reason, because they do. But they've been in effect for so long that the reason has fallen out of the public conscience and people don't understand why these "outdated" laws shouldn't be broken. At the end of the day, taxis don't drive around London with a bale of hay in their trunk like they're supposed to. I may have trailed off there, my point is that in the eye of the masses, these companies are doing the right thing. And that's powerful.
- zajd 11y ago
  Yes, some laws are silly. Worker protections though? I don't think there's much to cheer about when the reason many of these sharing companies are so profitable is because they basically eliminate using employees for their "unskilled"(read: job markets with an excess of employable people) labor. Also I would dispute that people(edit: this is basically impossible to prove, it'd be nice to see some data) see the sharing economy as "morally good". I certainly don't. Not because I don't think people should be allowed to share, but because I don't think corporations should be able to 1099 what are obviously employees in order to cut costs. edit. I guess I'm getting downvoted because worker protections actually are considered a bad thing here? smh
  - jlarocco 11y ago
    I agree with you, and I think companies are abusing the word "sharing." If I lend my neighbor a tool, that's sharing. If I bring cookies in to work and put them in the break room for everybody, that's sharing. If I visit a website, order something and pay for it, then it's not sharing - it's ordering a product or service. I don't care who actually owns the car or the room.
derefr 11y ago
I think the "social impact" in the above quote is more interesting than the "financial impact." It's not just their most successful business, it's the business that is most reshaping the world—doing the most controversial things, affecting laws and regulations wherever it goes, etc.
larrys 11y ago
"hoping that you'll make enough money to change the laws" I think what you mean to say perhaps was "raise enough money to change the laws by hiring lawyers and political operatives that know how to work the system".
roymurdock 11y ago
This will be even more pertinent to startups in the new "hot" industry of wetware/biotech. It's one thing to break up a dumb taxi/hotel cartel by allocating capital more efficiently through iphone apps and good customer service (albeit illegally). It's another thing to perform rigorous scientific testing an analysis of drugs, treatments, hardware, etc. that will be interfacing with fathers, mothers, children; human beings who could die as a result of the fail fast, break things SV startup mentality.
- Fomite 11y ago
  This. I'd be very worried about the "regulations are for other people" mentality that pervades some firms - that's not something I want in my biotech.
BurningFrog 11y ago
Some laws should be broken. I'm sure you have your own list of exceptions.

liseman 11y ago

I wouldn't read too much into it: I simply consider Airbnb a highly-valued and socially-impactful company.

thomasrossi 11y ago

The first time ?ve read the comment I read "Alibaba", now, that would have been interesting! Airbnb is successful indeed but it's a "tax-wise iffy" solution to an old problem. On the other hand competing with Alibaba takes the challenge to a whole new level!

MichaelCrawford 11y ago

The Portland/Vancouver Metropolitan Area is heavily into mobile devices. When I ride the bus or TriMet MAX light rail, roughly half of my fellow passengers are using an iOS, Android or Windows phone device. Uber has limited penetration here because of the Portland taxi drivers. Many of the people around here regard the taxi companies as Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organizations because there are far too many drunk people and far too few taxis on Friday and Saturday nights. One can ride the MAX Red Line non-stop to the airport from Hillsboro, Beaverton, and Portland for I think $2.50. One takes the Blue line from Gresham then transfers to the Red at the 99th Avenue Transit Center. One takes the Green from Clackamas then transfers to the Red. One takes the Yellow Line from Portland State University just South of Downtown then transfers to the Red at the Rose Quarter (ie. Moda Center) as well as from North Portland South to the Rose Quarter. There are two C-Tran express busses that will get you to the Light Rail for $3.50, or you can take any of a half-dozen bus lines to the Westfield Vancouver Mall Transit Center, transfer to the #4 Delta Park / Vanport MAX bus then transfer to the Yellow Line. When the Yellow arrives at Delta Park / Vanport, just about always the #4 into Downtown Vancouver then most of the way across Vancouver to the mall Transit center is waiting right there. Amtrack goes from Vancouver to Portland and back. I find it hard to understand the controversy over running the Yellow line over the recently-cancelled Columbia River Crossing. Oregon insisted on light rail into Vancouver, Washington now has to repay the Feds $500,000.00 because its refusal to fund light rail led to a desperately needed new Interstate 5 bridge being cancelled. Washington and Oregon each spent $250,000.00 before Washington withdrew. There are no busses to the Vancouver Amtrack Station. Nor is it ever advertised. Ticket prices at brick-and-mortar Amtrack stations are significantly cheaper than online at Amtrack's website. You can reserve a ticket at a significant discount without actually paying for it until you board the train, but only at the stations. This leads me to believe Amtrack commuter rail into Portland, which meets the Yellow and Green line as well as lots of busses is quite cheap if one reserves fares ahead of time for every day one expects to work on the other side of the River. There are 4,000 homeless people in Portland. The city is carefully constructed so as to keep all the homeless in Oldtown and Chinatown; that's where the soup kitchens, rescue missions, shelters and subsidized housing are to be found also the Portland Police Bureau and private security guards are completely cool about sleeping on the sidewalk in Oldtown and Chinatown. But not in the Pearl District, Downtown or PSU neighborhoods. All over the wealthier parts of Portland's central core are solar-powered trash compactors, with a few recycling bins that permit one to recycle a can or bottle but not remove it from the bin so one can claim the five-cent deposit. But there are very large conventional trash cans in China Town and Oldtown that the homeless dig through to get their five cents. However there is nowhere to actually claim the deposit anywhere in Oldtown or Chinatown. Some of the larger grocery stores have automated recycling machines. Rather than dispensing cash they issue a ticket that one can exchange for cash at the checkout stands. One can only obtain that cash while the grocery store is open. Despite that some of the grocery stores open at 5:00 AM and all the rest at 6:00, the recycling machines are down until 9:00 each morning. I don't know when they shut off for the night but the grocery stores close anywhere from 9:0 PM to 1:00 AM. None of those grocery stores are anywhere near Oldtown or Chinatown. Oregon's bottle bill limits one to recycling no more than 200 cans at any one merchant. At five cents per beverage container, that means you make ten dollars then you have to go find another supermarket. Most homeless people as well as the vast majority of mentally ill are reluctant ever to stray far from their homes. I just love to roam all over Creation but I know lots of people who spend decades in Oldtown without ever setting foot in Chinatown let alone riding MAX to a supermarket for recycling. Back in the day Portland rent was quite cheap and there was lots of it. What with all the startups, the VCs, the highly paid engineers, web designers, graphic designers, sales and marketing people as well as Oregon's No-Fault Eviction Law rents are skyrocketing. An apartment that rented for $600.00 ten years ago is now $3,500.00. I personally prefer to rent a room in a shared house. Not because it's less expensive but because I regard any more than one room as wasteful, also I prefer living with other Bohemians. But AirBNB saw through my Evil Plan. Many cities are passing ordinances to outlaw short-term rentals. Portland requires a hotel license but the Portland Police Bureau don't enforce it. So were I to rent one single room in a shared house anywhere in Portland, the very instant my landlord clued into AirBNB I'd be out on the street. Parking for those who commute to Downtown Portland is quite expensive, also there is a traffic jam from six in the morning until nine in the evening on all the highways. Then there are your car payments, scheduled maintenance, replacing worn-out tired, unexpected major repairs, insurance, traffic citations, sales tax if one purchases one's car in Washington as well as the higher price of one's home if one has a garage and a driveway. That's why the Clark County Council as well as the Vancouver City Council are so adamantly opposed to public transit. Someone actually wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Columbian. "You don't want light rail into Vancouver. Everyone knows what happens when light rail goes in." What? Economic prosperity all along the railbed and for several miles on other side? The cafes I like to hang out? Restaurants? Pubs that serve Oregon's world-reknowned craft beer? Ethnic cuisine? I would far far far prefer to live in Portland I regard Vancouver as a total shithole but among the reasons I am here is that I was born in Spokane and so regard Washington as my family's ancient homeland. I am determined to reside inside Vancouver's herpes-ridden anal fissures because I have a duty to fix my ancient homeland's cluelessly asinine clusterfuck problems. That's why I don't live in Canada any more because War on Terror, Surveillance State, hatred of immigrants even legal ones and the occasional unarmed black man. Is This the America I Love? I learned in the Boy Scouts that upside-down flag signals an emergency http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/25/641/18793 http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/25/641/18793

logicallee 11y ago

airbnb is a great example for hardware companies. YC (specifically PG) didn't believe in the the idea. If they hadn't started selling Presidential Cereal, they would have died. Literally, they bet the whole company and a binder full of credit cards on Obama O's, a gimmick cereal. if no selling cereal, then no YC investment, and no airbnb. This is an important lesson to hardware companies, who need more money than anyone will bet on them: FINANCE YOURSELF DOING SOMETHING ELSE. Nobody ever, ever believes in any idea, ever, even if it obviously works and is great, in fact ten billion dollars great. Nobody will believe you. Go sell cereal - you'll get sales from a standing start in a market you've never played in, faster than you can get liquid investment when rushing full-scale ahead toward $10 billion that you're executing on. Never, ever forget this lesson. Obama O's obviously weren't even a $50 million worldwide market. airbnb "obviously" was a $10 billion worldwide market. The former is what financed the latter - "convincing someone" didn't. Brian Chesky famously posted his 7 rejections here - https://medium.com/@bchesky/7-rejections-7d894cbaa084 https://medium.com/@bchesky/7-rejections-7d894cbaa084 (well, 2 didn't respond.) The only one who will ever, ever believe in you is you. If you can't do it without money, go do something else: vc's don't care about seeing and investing in winners; they want to ride their coattails. You may think I'm being cynical, but let me turn it around and make it a hypothetical: everyone knows battery tech kind of sucks, it lags behind all other advances in consumer electronics. If I personally had a breakthrough battery technology, everyone in the world would want to hear from me when we're raising series A. But to my point: nobody would look at the tech itself and invest before then. the stages are just totally different. This is just a hypothetical and I don't know anything about battery tech. I just know that if I did, I could never raise an investment for it, on the basis of what likely would be a research report and maybe prototype. it'll never happen.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

justathrow2k 11y ago

It makes me question, however, what is Air BnB's 'social impact'? Providing an easier gateway for people to engage in illegal renting?