I have used their WeWork, for what that's worth. There's a good amount of tech in managing badges, their website, allocating rooms and IT. (Though, TBH, it's not exactly stellar web design.) The team that manages the buildings does a good bit more than a typical landlord.

I think many landlords would make awful clones and lose a lot of money, at least at first.

There's a business right there, selling white label office management software direct to landlords.

Which in turn raises the question: Why do WeWork bother with renting the properties? Uber doesn't rent cars, they just provide software and a network to drivers and riders, and something similar might work for renters and property owners (AirBnB for offices, essentially).

UK serviced office provider Regus offers "franchise opportunities" [1] if you know any landlords who'd like to turn their offices into a wework-like-business.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=19783108&goto=item%3Fi...

They want control over the look and feel of the buildings; it's all part of a brand identity.

(Of working in a panopticon, but that's popular, I guess.)

They could, but WeWork has a nice network of spaces. We have seamlessly moved from one WeWork building to another in the same city, opened up satellite offices in other cities, etc. It's also nice to be able to reserve a workspace or conference room in other cities when I'm traveling.

Yeah, they have had competitors offering similar things longer than they have existed. Their main advantage is VC funding making them able to operate at a loss so they can undercut the competition.

well, i guess they're the starbucks of office rentals. anybody can sell coffee, but starbucks gets all the little things right.