[grokas]

Yea they completely brushed over the likes of VRBO and other competitors.

I think the biggest similarity is consumer mindshare and the art of turning your brand into a verb.

Even if I'm ordering a Lyft, in conversation I'll say I'm "ubering".

Likewise when booking an "AirBnB", I'll browse all sorts of alternative sites just to spot check locations/prices/etc.

The real limit to the market is how many players are in the game.

Remember when Austin Texas had a fingerprinting law that prevented Uber/Lyft from operating inside the city? There were a million and one alternative services, but generally both drivers and riders would recommend and use one or two based on personal experience/word of mouth recommendations. (ie- Ride with a driver that provides a good experience and who talks about which ones he or she uses and likes, then you will tend towards those apps rather than the smattering of others)

In markets like these where both the buyer and seller are using a 3rd party to accomplish a secured transaction, there seems to be only room for a few. This generally is down to mindshare of both the buyers and sellers, which comes down to marketing and getting your name out there.

Uber and AirBnB are in the same boat. They have the market's mindshare and brand name recognition... and thats about it.

[treis]

I think you missed the point about the local vs international services. AirBNB has potential competitors, but effectively those competitors need to have an international or at least national scope. AirBnB makes most of its money on tourists that will use their service over an over again in a different city. Most people will use something like ChicagoAirBnB.com once when they go to Chicago for their vacation that year. Thus, ChicagoAirBnB.com would need to make their entire customer acquisition cost back in one transaction. That's far less viable than AirBnB which can spread it out over dozens of transactions. AirBnB's problem (if it has one) is that there's dozens of competitors with that scope in the online travel industry. They are just missing the supply.

Compare with ride sharing. In that case, your business is almost entirely local. Someone that uses ChicagoUber will likely use it for as long as they live in Chicago. So you can spend $20 (or $100, or $200) to acquire that customer and make it back over time. The result is that Uber has to defend their turf against theoretically thousands of competitors across the globe.

[Spivak]

> tourists that will use their service over an over again in a different city

This is the part that I don't think follows. Why would they? There are a million different travel sites and people do their homework. There's nothing preventing people from using different booking sites for each trip. I see an advantage in having a large portfolio of hosts but I don't think they will ever be at the point of charging a premium because they have lock-in.

[valuearb]

Except that the Uber app works in every city and has lots of drivers in every city. Most People aren’t going to download the app for some local company to test if they have drivers. They know Uber works and that it will work when they travel. Brand matters and Ubers works.