I really like the concept and I'm glad someone managed to try it out. I also immediately thought of Airbnb (good job on ramming your brand into my brain guys!), but there seems to be something missing that even Airbnb doesn't quite cover: standardisation, perhaps?
If you're extending the parallel to cloud storage, sure, you can spin up and spin down as required - but you (generally) stay within the same provider to do so. So you know what your costs are going to be, you know what's available, you trust it to be there when needed, and so on.
When it comes to living, everyone's their own provider. As the OP found out, people have stupid bills; people change their schedules; people can be fundamentally dishonest toward strangers; people aren't a consistent platform. It's peer-to-peer, so it's like - instead of using Amazon to run your website, and spinning up instances, you're relying on Joe Bloggs's spare server space in Watford. What if Joe Bloggs changes his mind?
Would a solution look like a compromise between the standardisation of hotel chains and the flexibility of crowdsourced space? Perhaps. You'd need a trusted third party who could guarantee stuff. Guarantee that the living space is fairly represented and scale costs depending on facilities and features (location being a feature) - just as you pay more for 2 CPUs in the cloud, you pay more for 2 bedrooms on the earth. Guarantee that the overhead costs are totally consistent, broadband, cleaning, etc. Guarantee that if someone changes their mind you still have somewhere to stay the night. And, you know, that's starting to look an awful lot like an aparthotel chain.
I guess the difference is you could have one mega 'cloud' landlord who, instead of building custom aparthotel buildings, leases apartments from private landlords. The cloud-landlord sorts out checkin and checkout cleaning, services, etc; it's kinda a distributed aparthotel. Hell, it's starting to look a lot like the way some universities do accommodation now. Is it a step beyond Airbnb's self-managed approach? Yes. Would it allow variable cost living? Yes. Would it work as a business? Nobody's done it yet, so who knows. I'd guess not, though. Costs and overheads and stuff.
There are places like that. It's called "corporate housing". take a look at oakwood.com. They have apartments in lots of cities around the world. A company would contract with them then on short notice could say "I need an apartment in London for a month". The company only deals with the corporate housing place, not the building owners and the buildings aren't dedicated to corporate housing, most are leased in the traditional way.
Lots of companies use these services for when they hire someone new who needs a place to stay until they move, or if they have locations in multiple cities and have an employee on a short term assignment away from home.
What about something straight out of Snow Crash? Take one of those storage space rental places, and rent out something like that on a daily basis. You might have to do some work on getting things like plumbing,etc in there, but it would be cheap space that could be rented quickly and for variable amounts of time.
Of course, it would be relatively low-quality... but in Snow Crash he wasn't living in a 'high-class' neighborhood.
I remember reading somewhere that there are hourly hotels in Japan, because of the extreme hours many "salarymen" work. You pay by the hour, just for the time you're there, for a shoebox barely bigger than the bed.
In countries like the U.S. with rigid building codes, it could take quite a lot of work to turn a storage locker into something that you could (legally) rent as living space.
If you're extending the parallel to cloud storage, sure, you can spin up and spin down as required - but you (generally) stay within the same provider to do so. So you know what your costs are going to be, you know what's available, you trust it to be there when needed, and so on.
When it comes to living, everyone's their own provider. As the OP found out, people have stupid bills; people change their schedules; people can be fundamentally dishonest toward strangers; people aren't a consistent platform. It's peer-to-peer, so it's like - instead of using Amazon to run your website, and spinning up instances, you're relying on Joe Bloggs's spare server space in Watford. What if Joe Bloggs changes his mind?
Would a solution look like a compromise between the standardisation of hotel chains and the flexibility of crowdsourced space? Perhaps. You'd need a trusted third party who could guarantee stuff. Guarantee that the living space is fairly represented and scale costs depending on facilities and features (location being a feature) - just as you pay more for 2 CPUs in the cloud, you pay more for 2 bedrooms on the earth. Guarantee that the overhead costs are totally consistent, broadband, cleaning, etc. Guarantee that if someone changes their mind you still have somewhere to stay the night. And, you know, that's starting to look an awful lot like an aparthotel chain.
I guess the difference is you could have one mega 'cloud' landlord who, instead of building custom aparthotel buildings, leases apartments from private landlords. The cloud-landlord sorts out checkin and checkout cleaning, services, etc; it's kinda a distributed aparthotel. Hell, it's starting to look a lot like the way some universities do accommodation now. Is it a step beyond Airbnb's self-managed approach? Yes. Would it allow variable cost living? Yes. Would it work as a business? Nobody's done it yet, so who knows. I'd guess not, though. Costs and overheads and stuff.