Why “Uber for X” companies are struggling even as Uber thrives

What are the essential differences? Uber delivers a simple product, a car ride, that even a minimally skilled contractor can complete. SpoonRocket delivers pre-made meals. Complication is added in having to design, cook, and package pre-made meals.

For SpoonRocket, overhead costs exist in the forms of delivery fees: for Uber, no such fees exist. The delivery itself is the product. For SpoonRocket, the real product is the (instant) meal, not the delivery. SpoonRocket had so many costs that in order to turn a profit, they ended up trying to save on meal quality -- and in turn promptly lost their userbase.

SpoonRocket cannot meaningfully differentiate itself from its competitors: who really wants to try another service for delivery meals when you could just order GrubHub or Seamless? The folks at SpoonRocket were effectively trying to start a restaurant, which is a hard business with tons of near-equivalent competition. On the other hand, Uber clearly and meaningfully beats taxis, both in terms of price and experience.

We know that on-demand businesses are hard. We know that food businesses are hard. Combining them, guess what? Not easy.

Let's talk about an actual "Uber for X" companies that is doing well: take Airbnb. Airbnb allows you to take your existing property (spare room, couch, whatever) and with extremely little effort begin renting out access to that property, but only when you want. This is similar to Uber, which allows you to take your existing property (car) and make some extra money by driving every now and again.

The conclusion here is that Uber is an on-demand service from the customer side only. From the service-providing side, Uber is among the very first of its kind (you can tell that from the fact that Uber has completely subverted the employee/contractor distinction -- there's extremely little legal precedent for a business like Uber).

Thus, it is a severe mistake to look at other businesses that provide on-demand services from the customer side, and to conclude that such a business is "Uber for X". It's only "Uber for X" if it's similar from the service-providing side, which very few businesses are.

1. The preexisting regulatory capture that is mentioned in the article.

2. The service they provide is commoditized making customer to employee relationships irrelevant.

3. They connect people who are looking for a service with unskilled contractors who can provide that service.

Ideas like Uber for food or Uber for housecleaning don't work because they fail all three of those conditions. Companies that meet multiple conditions tend to be more successful. Postmates for example meets 2 and 3. Airbnb meets all three of the conditions (depending on user preferences) which is why it is the most successful Uber for X (or is Uber the Airbnb for X).

I really really dislike, the taxi industry. I have ridden a cab at 2am, and paid 4x what I regularly do, in cash, because 'the machine is broken'. I hate running after them. Finding cabs after hours is _hell_.

But I find Uber super-duper scummy. It's just the general...everything about it. That when you need it the most, it jacks up its prices, breaks laws like it's no one's business, and then spends SHIT TONS of money in lobbying to change them. Etcetera. But I do like the much improved transportation system it's led to. It's like day and night.

So... why doesn't anyone (or even a regulatory agency!!!) create an open marketplace for transportation services, where riders and drivers can bid, and all the 'services' are just middlemen between the marketplace and individual agents? Sort of like... email, but for Uber?

The main reason - I can't remember the source where I read it, somebody please share it if you know it - is that Uber exploited the decentralized regulation of taxi companies.

Other companies - like Theranos, regardless of their actual efficacy in what they do - had to fight against centralized, national regulations in their specific industries and regulated statewide, therefore making them effortless against the entire country as opposed to Uber, fighting against local municipalities.

edit: typos

Airbnb: a clever hack. That people loved. Using new tech.

Sprig, munchery, doordash, postmates, spoonrocket etc don't feel like a clever hack. Just a business.

Both hacks were tricks to get around regulation put in place long ago to protect various financial interests. Once the people have spoken about what they love, it all topples down.

What other regulation / situation seems "dumb" at the moment (but is being held in place by $/power protecting it) ?

Data download limits, speeds, etc, i.e. consumer fixed and mobile internet seems like a big one.

The other huge one is the SF housing supply market. Heavily restricted because of various interests protecting value. Once a group figures a clever hack around not being able to supply more units of housing, and people LOVE it, and tech scales it, it all topples down.