[dancric]

There are lots of good comments here, and as the writer, I do appreciate all of them.

One element of this story, which was hard to really spend the time on, is the public's difference in perception regarding disruption of other technology companies, compared to its perception of industrial and service based industries. The public doesn't seem to care when a company like Intel takes on a company like Fairchild Semiconductor. Part of the issue is a lack of technical sophistication, so it is difficult to separate competitors based on their products. The more important reason, though, is that technology devouring technology is easily understood as progress. 500 engineers lost their job at one firm, but a new firm is hiring 500.

Now take a look at the service disrupters like AirBnB, Uber, etc. First, unlike technical disruption, the public understands the businesses here very well. It's a hotel. It's a taxi. It's a laundromat. Second, there is a distinct feel that these new companies are not playing by the rules, whatever those rules might be (it doesn't help that these companies publicly flaunt the rules either). Third, and most importantly, there is far more perception of the people losing their jobs, rather than the gain these companies are making in terms of labor flexibility.

There are plenty of greenfield companies out there (Nest, DeepMind, Climate Corporation are acquisitions in the last month that come to mind). But the region is not exclusively doing that kind of progress anymore, and so we shouldn't be surprised when people aren't immediately positive about the changes taking place anymore.

[nostrademons]

I think that you're painting "the public" with a very broad brush. A more accurate model might be that people are happy when new options become available to them, ambivalent when stuff goes on that doesn't impact them, annoyed when people speak negatively about what's important to them, and angry when what is important to them is taken away from them. This is a pretty universal model, but the specifics differ depending on what is important to a person.

My girlfriend and I love AirBnB. It's allowed us to visit some pretty remote locations on very short notice at very reasonable prices. I have a friend who is surviving off the income from AirBnBing out her apartment. Probably, her neighbors don't like it. The hotel industry certainly doesn't like it.

I have friends in SF who similarly love having Uber available, because it's got them home late at night after a night at a few bars. As part of the yuppie tech demographic in the Mission, they are also hated by some of their neighbors.

What's changed isn't what's going on in the world, it's who is now angry enough to speak to the media. Somebody who finds a great weekend getaway on AirBnB isn't going to write a story about it or talk to a TechCrunch reporter; they will write a review on the site so that other people can have a similarly great experience. Somebody who loses their job because their hotel can't compete against AirBnB is both plenty angry and now has plenty of time to complain to the media.

I'm reminded here of reading Foucault in college, and specifically the role of the discourse in society. Foucault's central theory was that control of what can be said in the public sphere reflects power dynamics in a society. When public mindspace like the media starts leaning in a certain direction, it doesn't necessarily mean that reality has changed underneath. Rather, it means that certain interests have organized and care deeply enough about a certain issue that they're willing to spend time making sure that public belief swings a certain way on that issue.