[lotsofpulp]

> there was never a way for individual hosts to compete with hotels on price.

That way was to skirt laws around obtaining hotel permits and zoning and paying all the relevant hotel taxes and business insurance.

[xdfgh1112]

Exactly. Airbnb was much cheaper than hotels when it started because of this.

[fkyoureadthedoc]

And better. It was all around a better experience, analogous to Uber vs taxi. But while Uber is still more convenient than taxi, I haven't even considered using AirBnB in years.

[hidingfearful]

agreeing (strongly) that uber is better than taxi, and yet again on price it is because uber skirts the law-- drivers typically do not have commercial insurance etc and also uber subsidized rides for a long time with VC money.

[lotsofpulp]

That does not seem to be true:

https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/insurance/?city=portland

>When you earn with a transportation network company (TNC), referred to here as ridesharing, most states require extra—and costly—insurance.

>Uber maintains this commercial insurance on your behalf. What’s covered depends on factors such as who was at fault; whether you were offline, online, en route, or on-trip; and your personal insurance policy. Learn more about the commercial insurance coverage Uber maintains on your behalf below.

[fasthands9]

This is a very good point.

But I still think it was inevitable that cities caught up, either by restricting AirBNB units or giving in and allowing more hotel construction. There was no path for Airbnb to grow for 30 years without it ending up with basic econmics.