Roald Coase's impact on the organisation of the firm is a big fan-topic of mine and (darn it) I'm actually writing a book on it and other changing aspects of the world. Darn, must write faster :-)
The one thing we must be careful of in idolising Uber and Airbnb is that they are lowering transaction costs so that existing capital can be utilised more efficiently - which is great. It's just that the owners of the capital and the law surrounding its control have yet to catch up. Look at AirBNb. The next logical step is for Hilton etc to put their rooms for rent on AirBnB. But I bet their rooms will be more expensive. Not for "brand defence" but because someone renting out their spare room or even whole house probably is not expert in costing the maintenance of physical rooms, or in some estimated 40% of cases the owner of the capital is not actually the rentee- making it free money effectively.
Add to that many hotel chains (Travelodge I know of but probably many others) are in this franchise relationship where the central company does not own the physical hotel but acts as ... Well, a branded ecommerce site. I bet the law preventing the owners of the hotel from renting their rooms on different sites will be challenged soon.
So as the law of contract catches up on these new franchises we shall see adjustments - so far it has all been one way, but it will rebalance. It's probably a good thing, but the magic of waving your phone to be whisked from your current sidewalk to a room overlooking the park will become more expensive, less magic. But I suspect it will take a generation to settle out properly.
The one thing we must be careful of in idolising Uber and Airbnb is that they are lowering transaction costs so that existing capital can be utilised more efficiently - which is great. It's just that the owners of the capital and the law surrounding its control have yet to catch up. Look at AirBNb. The next logical step is for Hilton etc to put their rooms for rent on AirBnB. But I bet their rooms will be more expensive. Not for "brand defence" but because someone renting out their spare room or even whole house probably is not expert in costing the maintenance of physical rooms, or in some estimated 40% of cases the owner of the capital is not actually the rentee- making it free money effectively.
Add to that many hotel chains (Travelodge I know of but probably many others) are in this franchise relationship where the central company does not own the physical hotel but acts as ... Well, a branded ecommerce site. I bet the law preventing the owners of the hotel from renting their rooms on different sites will be challenged soon.
So as the law of contract catches up on these new franchises we shall see adjustments - so far it has all been one way, but it will rebalance. It's probably a good thing, but the magic of waving your phone to be whisked from your current sidewalk to a room overlooking the park will become more expensive, less magic. But I suspect it will take a generation to settle out properly.