peer-to-peer rental

back to index

10 results

Lonely Planet Pocket Hong Kong

by Lonely Planet

Tipping isn’t expected in Hong Kong and is usually reserved for particularly good service. DAILY BUDGET Budget: Less than HK$1000 • Dorm bed or peer-to-peer rental: from HK$150 • Bowl of noodles: HK$40–150 • Beer: HK$50–100 per pint • Public transport 24-hour ticket: HK$65 Midrange: HK$1000

5 Day Weekend: Freedom to Make Your Life and Work Rich With Purpose

by Nik Halik and Garrett B. Gunderson  · 5 Mar 2018  · 290pp  · 72,046 words

allows anyone to become a retailer, sharing services lets people act as a taxi service or hotel. At the time of this writing, the consumer peer-to-peer rental market is valued at $26 billion.10 Harvard Business Review argues that the term “sharing economy” is a misnomer and that a more accurate term

European Spring: Why Our Economies and Politics Are in a Mess - and How to Put Them Right

by Philippe Legrain  · 22 Apr 2014  · 497pp  · 150,205 words

additional drivers at peak times. In France, La Machine du Voisin even allows people to rent out the use of their washing machine.555 Such peer-to-peer rental schemes make better use of an economy’s assets, provide extra income for their owners and are often cheaper and more convenient for borrowers. Just

Pocket Berlin

by Andrea Schulte-Peevers  · 15 Mar 2023  · 157pp  · 37,509 words

€1 to €2 per bag, room cleaners €1 to €2 per day, toilet attendants €0.50. Daily Budget Budget: Less than €125 Dorm bed or peer-to-peer rental: from €25 Doner kebab: €5–6 Club cover: €10–25 Public transport 24-hour ticket: €8.80 Midrange: €125–250 Private apartment or double room

What's Mine Is Yours: How Collaborative Consumption Is Changing the Way We Live

by Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers  · 2 Jan 2010  · 411pp  · 80,925 words

form of transportation in the world, with the number of programs expected to increase by 200 percent in 2010.2 Zilok, a leader in the peer-to-peer rental market, has grown at a rate of around 25 percent since it was founded in October 2007.3 Two billion dollars worth of goods and

the likes of Zopa and Prosper is estimated to soar by 66 percent to reach $5 billion by the end of 2013.10 The consumer peer-to-peer rental market for everything from drills to cameras is estimated to be a $26 billion market sector. The swap market just for used children’s clothing

share, clothing swaps, toy sharing, shared workspaces, cohousing, coworking, CouchSurfing, car sharing, crowdfunding, bike sharing, ride sharing, food co-ops, walking school buses, shared microcrèches, peer-to-peer rental—the list goes on—are all examples of Collaborative Consumption. Some of these may be familiar already, some not, but all are experiencing a significant

sewing machines to Chassis the Drink Serving Robot are being rented out. You can even rent out artwork for as little as $2 per day. Peer-to-peer rental marketplaces are useful for people such as independent film producer Kestrin Pantera. Her high-definition camera is just one piece of equipment, alongside others such

the culturally entrenched cult of possessions, we have to get to a point where sharing is convenient, secure, and more cost-effective than ownership. These peer-to-peer rental sites use digital platforms to solve two critical hurdles. They create a centralized hub for sharing, reaching a “critical mass of goods” with consumer choice

spending from purchasing to renting would cut emissions by about 2 percent—or 13 million tons—of CO2 a year.16 The second hurdle facing peer-to-peer rental is security and trust. Do you want to rent out your Nintendo Wii to someone you don’t know, even if it earns you, say

, $25? Peer-to-peer rental sites have several layers of security. Every transaction is backed up by a contract that lays out the legal terms. Renters are also required to

eBay and Airbnb, review and ratings tools enable the community to self-regulate who can be lent to in good faith. For these services, the peer-to-peer rental companies charge about a 6 percent commission on every transaction. If you need to trim a hedge, do you buy a trimmer from Home Depot

The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism

by Arun Sundararajan  · 12 May 2016  · 375pp  · 88,306 words

using the Ola platform in India. You can get access to someone else’s car for a few hours or a few days through the peer-to-peer rental platforms Getaround and Turo (formerly RelayRides) in the United States, Drivy in France and Germany, SnappCar in the Netherlands, EasyCar Club in the UK, and

you can get a car as soon as you book it without owner approval—is what will really shift behavior from buying to sharing. Its peer-to-peer rental model is a central part of the sharing-economy narrative, the perfect confluence of two ideas: access without ownership and networks replace hierarchies. But there

haven’t yet been any large-scale, digital, peer-to-peer rental marketplaces for assets other than automobiles. Snapgoods was an early effort at creating a peer-to-peer rental marketplace for everything from power saws to Roombas, but it couldn’t find a profitable business model. Marketplaces

very wealthy might represent a new pocket of opportunity. For example, KitSplit, funded in 2014 by NYU students Lisbeth Kaufman and Katrina Budelis, is a peer-to-peer rental marketplace for independent filmmakers to get cameras, lenses, Oculus Rift headsets, and other professional equipment from each other. But as of late 2015, other success

stories that have scaled are hard to find, and peer-to-peer rental activity is often conducted through bulletin-board-esque services like Alan Berger’s NeighborGoods. Many others have successfully facilitated household asset rental using a different

is co-working spaces and makerspaces that are adding lending libraries. It’s a natural evolution in both directions.”17 A seemingly unrelated opportunity for peer-to-peer rental seems to be in high-end apparel and accessories. Following the runaway success of Rent the Runway, a business that lets you rent expensive outfits

, the founder of RentezVous, further highlighted the value of this business model to smaller, niche designers in a 2014 conversation we had, noting that the peer-to-peer rental activity increases visibility for fashion lines with new potential buyers, builds community between users who share similar tastes, gives the designer a conduit to feedback

in the tool libraries described by Homicki. And yet, a central question remains. While there’s clearly tremendous potential efficiency from “access over ownership,” are peer-to-peer rental markets viable at scale for anything other than really expensive assets like homes and cars? Is their long-run value tied to this connection between

“Meshy-ness” Grid In her book The Mesh, Lisa Gansky lays out two dimensions along which one might evaluate a product before determining whether a peer-to-peer rental platform for it might emerge: how valuable the product is (cost), and how intensively the product is used by an owner (frequency of use). In

is sufficiently valuable, the coordination costs associated with a rental market become too high relative to the value gained from renting (or renting out). Thus, peer-to-peer rental of $30,000 cars makes sense, and of $100 vacuum cleaners less so. Gansky’s framework provides an elegant starting point for assessing how likely

it is to see crowd-based capitalism emerge for different product categories. As I discussed in the introduction, we have seen peer-to-peer rental markets emerge for cars in several countries, such as the United States (Getaround), France (Drivy), and the Netherlands (SnappCar). By Gansky’s logic, we might

that have a high latent rental value (“idling capacity value” in Botsman’s lingo, or those “more sharable” in Benkler’s) are ones for which peer-to-peer rental markets will emerge. Thus, even though personal residences are used intensively, even a small fraction of spare capacity leads to a high latent rental value

corresponding asset specificity that determines the value a customer gets from a product—and the higher this specificity, the less likely we are to see peer-to-peer rental markets. For example, at the same intensity of usage, the more highly customized a product is to a user (for example, a tailored bridesmaid dress

correspondingly, the fewer customer-specific investments associated with an asset (for example, a ski suit or a tent), the more likely we are to see peer-to-peer rental markets emerge. Similarly, the greater the level of product-specific learning necessary to derive value from a product, the more likely it is to remain

of their money on new and “cool” products may purchase products like the 2013 Oculus Rift. As I discussed in the introduction, KitSplit is a peer-to-peer rental market for this kind of equipment. Additionally, most items, even those with status appeal, transmit worth through what I refer to as “consumption value”—you

example, although identity might just as well be tied to the car one owns). A product with low ownership value is especially well suited for peer-to-peer rental. The rate of depreciation of an asset has a complicated relationship with its rentability. On the one hand, owners of rapidly depreciating assets (like high

. On the other hand, items that retain their value over time have a higher lifetime “idling capacity” and are better suited for peer-to-peer rental. I return to the economics of peer-to-peer rental markets in further depth in chapter 5. Botsman’s Four Quadrants In 2013, Rachel Botsman proposed a framework for organizing the “collaborative

of inclusive growth—in the broad context of crowd-based capitalism. I conclude with a deep dive into one specific slice of the sharing economy—peer-to-peer rental markets—and, based on the research I have done with a former NYU doctoral student, Samuel Fraiberger, provide a template for how one might rigorously

, I outline four of the most notable impacts that I anticipate. Altering Capital “Impact” Whether it is the asset capacity (Botsman’s “idling capacity”) from peer-to-peer rental markets, labor supplied through markets like TaskRabbit, Handy and Spare5, or financial capital through a lending platform like Funding Circle—everything else being equal—tapping

blur, it certainly seems clear that great potential exists to expand the fraction of the population that owns wealth-producing assets. A Deep Dive into Peer-to-Peer Rental Markets The economy is a complex system with many moving parts. I have outlined four broad anticipated impacts, but we need a more careful analysis

like? To shed light on some of the more “micro” effects of crowd-based capitalism, I now turn to one specific segment of this economy—peer-to-peer rental markets—and specifically, to the analysis and results of research I have done with my colleague Samuel Fraiberger developing a new dynamic economic model of

in the summer, but the rest of the time, the equipment is lying around, idling capacity in your storage unit or garage. The introduction of peer-to-peer rental markets changes things to some extent. Now you have simultaneous access to products of differing kinds and ages for short periods of time. In other

words, if peer-to-peer rental markets become more ubiquitous, you can rent a tent and other camping equipment rather than own the equipment, and you’ll be able to choose

and go and pick it up from someone—but these are far lower than the costs associated with buying and selling. Another change caused by peer-to-peer rental markets is induced in part by differences in what we earn, as well as what we like, across the population, and across time. When people

everyone can afford to own a car, and only a smaller fraction can afford a good car), a peer-to-peer rental market increases the population that has access to any form of “car usage.” Analogously, peer-to-peer rental markets introduce new levels of adaptability and flexibility that enable people to take new economic risks. If that

owners, these owners will be buying more frequently because, in a sense, they are “spending” the capacity of their asset more rapidly. This effect of peer-to-peer rental is exacerbated by what economists call “moral hazard.” While it may be a stereotype, there’s some truth to the fact that renters don’t

, despite a variety of technological advances for monitoring and the emergence of sophisticated online reputation systems, moral hazard cannot be fully mitigated. As a consequence, peer-to-peer rental markets will affect the expected lifetime of an asset and increase transaction costs incurred during resale, both from increased usage and potentially less careful use

, when you rent through a peer-to-peer market, you sometimes can’t access what you want when you want it. Although the popularity of peer-to-peer rental platforms has been growing rapidly, their reach and liquidity are still limited. There are still barriers to access. A car may not be available for

us to create the virtual laboratory of sorts that we use to make projections about the future. So what did our analysis reveal? How will peer-to-peer rental markets impact the economy over time? Well, we found that ownership and consumption patterns change quite significantly, shifting the population significantly away from ownership. However

, even when everyone in the economy has access to peer-to-peer rental markets, the shift away from ownership is gradual. As I noted earlier in this chapter, it seems likely that different existing markets will be differently

discussion earlier in the chapter, this projection of inclusive growth seems natural. But it helps to understand why a little more precisely. First, as anticipated, peer-to-peer rental markets “include” lower-income consumers who were unable to drive cars because they couldn’t afford to own them. Second, the consumers who switch from

. 33. Thomas Piketty, Capital in the 21st Century (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 571. 34. Ibid., 471. 35. Samuel P. Fraiberger and Arun Sundararajan, “Peer-to-Peer Rental Markets in the Sharing Economy,” NYU Stern School of Business Research Paper, March 6, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2574337. 36. We

, 147 Economic impact capital impact, 114–117 democratization of opportunity, 123–125 economies of scale and local “network effects increased variety and consumption, 121–123 peer-to-peer rental market analysis of, 125–130 Economic institutions and brand-based trust, 144–146 Economies of scale, 101, 108, 117–120 Edelman, Benjamin, 156 Eden, 183

Managerial capitalism, 69–70 Mancini, Pia, 23 Mandated transparency, 157 Mantena, Ravi, 57 Manufacturing, additive, 57–58 Markets and hierarchies, 70–72 hybrid, 77–84 peer-to-peer rental market analysis, 125 Martín, Borja, 65 Mashable, 3 Mauss, Marcel, 35 Mazzella, Frédéric, 12–13, 47, 204 McAfee, Andrew, 165–166 McKinsey and Company, 165

AngelList, 42–43 Funding Circle, 3, 42, 82, 105, 109–110, 114, 124, 207n4 Kickstarter, 41 Kiva, 41–42 venture capital, 25–26, 42–43 Peer-to-peer rental market, 14–16, 79–82, 125–130. See also Airbnb; Drivy; Getaround; RentezVous; SnapGoods, SnappCar; Stylelend; Turo Perez, Tom, 179 Permissionless innovation, 146 Petersmeyer, Wrede

, 124, 197. See also Car sharing Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (Lessig), 33, 36 Rental markets, peer-to-peer. See Peer-to-peer rental markets RentezVous, 15, 16 Rent My Wardrobe, 15 Rent the Runway, 15–16, 30, 44 Reviews, user-generated, 147–148 Rheingold, Howard, 47 Rhue, Lauren

After the Gig: How the Sharing Economy Got Hijacked and How to Win It Back

by Juliet Schor, William Attwood-Charles and Mehmet Cansoy  · 15 Mar 2020  · 296pp  · 83,254 words

were making trips for their own purposes rather than to earn), jitney services, and apps that promised to treat drivers better than Uber and Lyft. Peer-to-peer rental schemes emerged for boats, airplanes, bicycles, and cars left at airports while their owners were traveling. In lodging, the offerings were less varied, perhaps because

: Design Principles for the Urban Commons.” www.thenatureofcities.com/2017/08/20/ostrom-city-design-principles-urban-commons. Fraiberger, Samuel P., and Arun Sundararajan. 2017. “Peer-to-Peer Rental Markets in the Sharing Economy.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2574337. Frank, Thomas. 1997. The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture

The Internet Is Not the Answer

by Andrew Keen  · 5 Jan 2015  · 361pp  · 81,068 words

is setting on the wild west” of ride- and apartment-sharing networks.44 Tax collectors and municipalities from Cleveland to Hamburg are recognizing that many peer-to-peer rentals and ride-sharing apps are breaking both local and national housing and transportation laws. What the Financial Times calls a “regulatory backlash”45 has pushed

Autonomous Driving: How the Driverless Revolution Will Change the World

by Andreas Herrmann, Walter Brenner and Rupert Stadler  · 25 Mar 2018

of sharing providers are making their customers a free-floating offer (A-to-B); recent examples are Car2Go and DriveNow [131, 1, 90]. The consumer peer-to-peer rental market alone is valued at $26 billion, with new services and platforms popping up all the time. It has disrupted mature industries such as hotels

The Misfit Economy: Lessons in Creativity From Pirates, Hackers, Gangsters and Other Informal Entrepreneurs

by Alexa Clay and Kyra Maya Phillips  · 23 Jun 2015  · 210pp  · 56,667 words

businesses can be cloned and copied with ease. The Berlin-based company Wimdu, for example, is an exact replica of the successful platform Airbnb, a peer-to-peer rental market that provides an alternative to hotels. Wimdu was built by reverse-engineering Airbnb’s functions and borrowing from the site’s look and feel