Personnel costs and marketing costs as they expand to new markets.

Further experimentation with vertical integration (Airbnb owning room servicing teams, or Airbnb owning actual apartments/hotels).

> Airbnb owning actual apartments/hotels

Wouldn't that just make them literally a hotel chain, with no disrupting difference to any any other? I'm fairly sure I can book a room online at the Hilton.

Even funnier, because most of the brands don't even own most of their branded hotels, they're usually franchised. Hilton/Marriott/Starwood/Choice/Wyndham/Accor collecting 5% to 15% is basically the same thing as AirBnB is if you're not using someone who actually rents out part of their home.

Concur with imjared -- Uber likewise went "full circle" and started adopting more "cab company functions" once they reached the appropriate scale: "Oh, hey, we might as well make money leasing the cars too!" "Oh hey, there's money to be made in payday advances!" [1]

With that said, (per imjared) Airbnb may have some comparative advantage in the ease with which they bring this spare capacity online via a nice interface; it could become a useful platform for allowing hotels to dump extra rooms for sale, in a way that's more pleasant for users to find.

[1] Lyft lets you get paid earlier for 50 cents IIRC.

AirBnB already owns the touch-point with customers who are looking for non-traditional places to stay. Some portion of those customers would also be open to normal hotels, and AirBnB could serve them by doing something as simple as adding another check-box in the "home type" interface. Once word got out that you can do both things in one place, there would be little reason to go through any other service and they would take an ever-larger share of all bookings. Of course, this is won't happen, because hotel operators, seeing this danger, will refuse to integrate with them. But that huge market opportunity is still there, they "just" have to build their own hotel capacity to realize it.

and you could call a cab too but you might use Uber if their booking process is better.

Correct but hotel booking process is quite diverse and all the means I have tried are fairly painless. You can call the hotel directly and book a room. You can check one of many online sites and book through them.

That diversity is exactly why a uniform offering from AirBnB would be so compelling.

Massive legal and lobbyist fees?

Yes, they also need the money to fund their lobbying and fake grassroots.

One campaign cost 8 million.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3059975/how-airbnb-turned-its-ho...

> ... and fake grassroots

Indeed.

Btw, funny thing: fake grassroots is called "astroturfing".

wow, I never actually thought about why it's called astroturfing

The article states that around $200 million is expected to go to a repurchase or secondary sale from current employees. This seems like a nice thing that airbnb might have to regularly do from here on out.

But yeah, the core of your question still stands.

Better to raise when you can rather than when you need to.

I suspect the question was asking why they would need more money? At some point you have to stop raising money, start making a profit and stop diluting shares by taking on more investment money.

Is it expensive to sue various states? I saw this in the news: http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/7/12834606/airbnb-threatens-l... "Airbnb threatens to sue New York if governor signs new law curtailing its service"

Self driving RVs. It's the future of the hospitality industry.

Not just the future of hospitality... it's the future alternative to home ownership.

Think about it: You could literally wake up, do your morning routine, and then step out of the RV and into your workplace. You come back that night... and the next morning you step out into Yosemite Valley for some hiking. You just rent RV berths -- everything from campgrounds (Yosemite) to high-rises (in major cities).

Perhaps self driving might change this, but currently it's illegal to ride in the "home" part of an RV while moving. Seat belts and all that.

> it's illegal to ride in the "home" part of an RV while moving

Two minutes Googling shows this isn't true in 28 US states, which only require seat belts for the front seat passengers:

http://blog.rvshare.com/things-need-know-rv-seat-belt-laws/

My dream is that this gets built in a different setting: offices. Imagine self-driving desks in a giant flat warehouse without a single wall. You could pick a travel program where your desk would slowly roll around the perimeter, or just hang out in the middle. You could program it to maximize distance from any other desk if you wanted privacy. And of course the desks would be networked and their position could be overriden by a master controller that had access to the company calendar, so when it's time for the mandatory standup meeting your team's desks would automatically get together in a single spot.

> You come back that night...

... to a different RV. There's no reason for RV ownership; a self-driving RV can fulfill the sleeping / transportation roles for at least two people/families on different working schedules.

As someone who lives in an Airstream and works from home, I would have to disagree. In the context of this idea of 'the future of home ownership', the RV becomes the 'place for my stuff' in the George Carlin sense. Having my house (RV) drive itself to the next beautiful state park or national forest I want to camp in while I work or sleep or watch a movie would be amazing.

I disagree with myself too :). I was going for dystopia on purpose here, as a way to criticize the whole trend. ;).

> There's no reason for RV ownership

Beyond storing your clothes, trinkets, computer gear, etc? Maybe we'll all end up renting permanent storage lockers instead, then.

> Self-driving RVs

That is actually not a terrible idea!

This is actually an insanely good idea, since it allows you to maximize your awake time, for enjoyment. When you are sleeping, the RV can take you to your holiday destination. Since we sleep about 8 hours a day, you can use that to gauge how far you can travel.

The only issue would be road infrastructures. Road maintenance would become a serious issue, due to the extra strain of having potentially 10s of millions of RVs on the road.

Last time I looked into RV cost of ownership numbers--which was probably when that blog post hit HN from the guy who converted a van into a RV--the RVs are really expensive to move due to fuel and wear-and-tear on the drivetrain. So even if self driving, it's probably not going to be Grand Canyon one day and Florida the next any significant fraction of the time.

Not sure if this is a serious reply.

It's an Uber joke.

...right?