1) the process will likely be much better then texting a broker: virtual apartment layouts, ability to see profiles for roommates, no bait and switch of "that unit just got taken buuuuuuuuuuuttttt i have this crappy one that is still available just for you!"
2) the fee they charge will be less than brokers. no way would someone handover a month's rent to some company who's only interaction with you is via chatbot
---- edit ----
i have nothing against brokers. but if these companies innovate and force the brokers to actually provide value again in the internet age, then that's a win for everyone.
In Boston, I would've thought there's no way that someone would pay thousands of dollars of a broker fee for merely unlocking the door so you can see the place for literally a few minutes (and who expects you to bring your checkbook and write a deposit within 5 minutes, because they've scheduled another person to show up 5 minutes later)... but that's the setup, and many people have to play along with that.
You wouldn't think you'd pay 30% cut off the top to an app store, for the privilege of being in app search results, and also to be at the mercy of whatever backstabbing it might do to you in the future (e.g., when they decide to compete with your service, or a partner of theirs does), but that's the setup, and many people have to play along with that.
The difference isn't between brokers / tech companies, it's between a new market entrant (who is trying to convey a user-friendly atmosphere to attract userss/good press) vs an ossified market where brokers have no incentive to cater to renters, despite the fact that they're ostensibly working for them, since they're chosen exclusively by landlords.
Five years later, there's nothing preventing the tech companies from working in exactly the same way—the reality is that any company that's chosen exclusively by the landlord and not accountable to the tenants is going to face exactly the same set of incentives, since supply-side shortages dominate the urban housing market.
I wish to see that. It'll be 10 more years before the implementation won't be total garbage.
> ability to see profiles for roommates
Privacy concerns may prevent that. If not, it's a prime candidate for a paywall.
> no bait and switch of "that unit just got taken buuuuuuuuuuuttttt i have this crappy one that is still available just for you!
You're joking, right?
On-line services literally live by that. They've perfected it, refined it to the level of art. Only the best US used car salesmen can get close to pulling shenanigans the large on-line hotel and vacation booking services pull.
> the fee they charge will be less than brokers.
The fee will be whatever they say it will be. The more centralized the market will get - and this is what happens when things get handled by tech companies - the higher the fees are likely to be.
> no way would someone handover a month's rent to some company who's only interaction with you is via chatbot
People will pay if the service is good enough, for the same reason they pay brokers today. Many have more money than free time in their lives; one month's rent isn't much if it cuts out most of the bullshit that's involved in finding a place to rent.
>I wish to see that. It'll be 10 more years before the implementation won't be total garbage.
It exists today. I used it for all my apartments since 2018. Its great (enough). Mattermost is the biggest one i've seen. They even have a (mediocre) VR app. Its sufficiently good enough for the purpose. You can even (somewhat precisely) measure the apartment (great for furniture/etc).
They render a lot of value to the landlord, however. Taking nice photos, dealing with unqualified applicants, showing the property, etc.
This kind of lazy snark comment degrades this community.
It'd be different if said comment was deleted/removed but users downvoting it for not being conducive to conversation and calling it out as needless and low value isn't impeding the free speech by any means.
Free speech != speech free from criticism.
In fact it is your lazy finger wagging comment that degrades this community.
Consider that perhaps Caretaker is taking customers from brokers because they actually provide a better and/or cheaper service. Maybe the positive comments aren't a short term buzz but instead good reviews of a good product.
My comments describe the typical playbook for VC funded companies going into a market place with a well hated incumbent.
The cheaper services that Caretaker currently provide are subsidized by private capital and only will provide a positive return for that private capital once they have a dominant position in the market at which point they have the power dynamic to raise prices.
My comments look to the longer term future and take a quick look at whats getting replaced. There is no supposition that the broker solution is better - more that the Caretaker solution has a predictable playbook in which we will see if the long term solution is indeed better.
The value that was accrued across broker (As hated as they may be) provide some jobs, the value in caretaker accrues across some staff but mostly rolls up to the investors - providing it is a successful outcome.