> Uber, AirBnB, Amazon
Amazon, sure, but Uber & AirBnB? Wasn't their "innovation" flaunting the law to gain a temporary advantage before regulation leveled the field again?
Amazon, sure, but Uber & AirBnB? Wasn't their "innovation" flaunting the law to gain a temporary advantage before regulation leveled the field again?
AirBnB disrupted the hotel industry.
Both used technology to get there (there were no apps to hail taxis anywhere near feature parity with Uber for instance). They also leveraged the distribution mechanisms of the app store to reach scale.
> Wasn't their "innovation" flaunting the law to gain a temporary advantage before regulation leveled the field again?
Whether you view it that way or not (I don't) it doesn't change the fact that these companies successfully disrupted established players. It doesn't matter if it was "innovative" (again I think it was), the end result was textbook disruption.
That's disruption?
Cellphones in general mean hosts don't have to provide TVs, landline phones, alarm clocks, paper maps, newspapers, etc. that were traditionally in hotel rooms.
Before regulation locked out any possibility of long term successful competition.
I read this three times before I understood what you were saying. At first I read it as "If you have to break the rules to succeed against competition, that is playing by the rules" as if to justify breaking the rules. English is a lovingly ambiguous language sometimes.
from companies willing to exploit loopholes in hard won labour laws whilst putting the health of the general public in danger by exploiting the slow moving mechanism of governance for profit