On Jul 21, 2014, at 6:10 AM, Graham Reginald Hill <
">
> wrote:
Hi Brian
AirBnB is interesting. Chesky suggests that Millenials are different to the rest of us... but are they really?
I hate to make
ad hominem argument, but that piece is by Amy Gallo, who also wrote the awful "How valuable are your customers?" <
http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/07/how-valuable-are-your-customers/> — which excluded from value consideration a load of truly valuable (but not especially calculable) variables.
She does cite research, though. I just can't help wondering how tendentious her argument might be.
The evidence suggests not. And that bodes poorly for the versions of MeCommerce that requires consumers to raise a finger when it comes to data and privacy.
Ends require means. Lack of means does not argue for absent ends. The appetite for privacy online is real and growing, especially as offenses to it pile up on all generations.
Here's the important fact: The Internet is a public space. By design. It's kind of like the physical world that way: "Here ya go, people. You're naked and living outdoors. What are you going to do about it?" (Hmm. Perhaps biting the forbidden fruit in Eden gave us an appetite for privacy, property, and other things to hassle each other about.)
Anyway, we've had thousands of years to create privacy technologies such as clothing and shelter. Frank Lloyd Wright said "The meaning of the word 'shelter' includes privacy." He also said architecture was the original art form.
We don't have either yet, except through centralized services. We've only been at the Internet we know now for eighteen years. We have a long way to go.
Digression... Last night, when our 17-year old son asked me what the big deal was with wanting private (non-intermediated) communications online, I said this: "Imagine if the conversation we are having now in the physical world first required signing in to some company's facility before we could have it."
The future looks much brighter for the versions that allow intermediaries to do it all for them.
Airbnb is an intermediary. So is Uber. Both are more lightweight than the traditional forms they supplement or replace. But they still intermediate. They lean toward what Brian the other day called "minimal viable centralization." I think that's a good way of putting it.
But do we really want self-serving intermediaries expropriating value by placing themselves between consumers and brands? The evidence from other industries, e.g. airline travel, book selling and general insurance, suggests not.
I'm not sure who you're calling self-serving intermediaries. Travel agents, book stores and insurance agents? I'm guessing, but I don't know. Just looking for clarification.
Best regards from Cologne, Graham
On Jul 21, 2014, at 1:43 AM, Brian Behlendorf <
">
> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014, Dan Miller wrote:
http://nyti.ms/1yI1ake
If I'm mistaken, many of us have been pretty dismissive of Tom in the past, myself included. But I think this column gets to the heart of how mainstream columnists can and do connect the dots between all of the headline grabbing surrounding the sharing economy and Big Data and the notion that each individual's personal info counts.
The irony of course is that many of us won't use AirBnB thanks to heavy lifting they require in terms of validating our own IDs. Like uploading fotos etc.
Airbnb lost us as customers when they required us — loyal, frequent customers who liked the service a great deal — to "verify" our identities by logging in with Facebook or uploading a personal video. After I posted a critical (but constructive) blog post about it <
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2013/05/28/lets-help-airbnb-rebuild-the-bridge-it-just-burned/>, they reached out to tell us a bug was involved, and that they were fixing the system. But I don't know if they actually fixed it. From what I gather at <
https://www.airbnb.com/trust>, a "Verified ID" still requires exposure through social networks, or ... not sure. And, looking at <
https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/450>, I'm not interested in trying. Does anybody know if "verifying" one's ID still requires a video if one is not on Facebook or Twitter?
I think someone inclined to rent a room out wouldn't let that stop them, and as much as I care about my privacy I certainly understand the value/purpose to a validated identity in situations like this. What worries me a bit more is:
Chesky answered. “I think now, for the younger generation, ownership is
viewed as a burden. Young people will only want to own what they want
responsibility for. And a lot of people my age don’t want responsibility
for a car and a house and to have a lot of stuff everywhere. What I want
to own is my reputation, because in this hyperconnected world,
reputation will give you access to all kinds of things now. ... Your
reputation now is like having a giant key that will allow you to open
more and more doors. [Young people] today don’t want to own those
doors, but they will want the key that unlocks them” — in order to rent
a spare room, teach a skill, drive people or be driven.
Are we truly at the point in society where no one ever loses their public reputation unfairly, where building a positive reputation is universally accessible and yet hard to game? Are we no longer at risk of confidence games (short or long), where referrals can be minted from thin air, or achievements claimed without any risk of fraud?
These same "young people" also presumably don't want the burden of pensions, insurance, wills... but when cornered will fight for rent control, Medicare, Social Security, and regulations.
I'm reminded of the discussion here about the Uber drivers working 10 hour days at a net wage that only barely covers the gas and wear/tear on the car.
Is that really (or often) the case? I've only used Uber twice, but both times the drivers bragged on the service and told me they were making good money at it. I don't think they were being insincere. And the rides were a helluva log cheaper (in both cases going from airport to home) than taxis.
Or this, echoed by a comment on the NYT article by "SJ" of Wash DC:
I find the phenomenon of things like AirBnB to be more of a sign of
economic desperation than any kind of growing interconnectedness. It
also represents a disconnected population willing to give up their
residences to complete strangers for purely financial reasons. In other
words, as the world becomes more and more cutthroat people are becoming
more and more willing to sell every aspect of their lives. What's next.
I do think there is an optimal state where the AirBNB hosts who truly do this for "more than financial reasons", and yet are able to do so profitably, are the vast majority; but as it expands in popularity if the focus is too much on inventory and scale, eventually it will go south, a la Ebay, and have difficulty recovering. Maybe that's the great cycle of these kinds of things, from niche to novelty to winning to scale to decay.
I think that's the life cycle of all businesses — including successful ones. See Geoffrey West: <
https://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations>
Hope AirBnB doesn't speed through that too quickly, or burn too many people along the way.
Brian
Well, we never used them again. Important fact: there are other choices for some locations, such as VRBO: <
http://www.vrbo.com/>.