Not to rain on your parade, but isn't it a bit disingenuous to compare your cost with living in NY or SF? I mean, of course it's much cheaper to live in Lisbon or Mexico City, regardless of the particular accommodation.
Yeah, anyone considering a digital nomad lifestyle isn't typically looking at NYC or London; the most popular destination of Chiang Mai is rated at $638/month all-in[1], and most have rent $300-$500 /month, not $1500.
I really love the concept but as presented it isn't appealing. The idea of not having to deal with all the hassle of finding and organising accommodation is great.. but they only have (and not even that yet) 3 locations. "hey you can travel the world (3 locations)" doesn't have so much appeal. Obviously they plan on expanding but the price is for now, not the future.
I suspect that if someone decides to stay for more than a couple of months they will often splinter off into cheaper accommodation. Having the fixed fee also makes it difficult to set up in the most sensible (cheapest) areas.. because the attraction of going it alone in those areas will be higher the better value the area is.
It strikes me they would have been better off setting up a handful of these locations first as individual nomad/co-habitation accommodation, ironing out all the issues, and then introducing the go-anywhere subscription idea. They've left themselves an awful lot to deal with in one go.
Yeah, I didn't understand why they would compare cost of living between different cities. You could compare San Francisco with some random Midwest city and get even higher savings. I would like to see how the price of this setup compares to other options in those cities like typical apartments, private hostel rooms, etc.
Agreed - frankly, I'm not sure if the convenience of having the location set up with reliable internet access and furnished on arrival is worth the price, compared to other properties in the same locations.
