????現在至少有三家公司宣稱從優質投資者手里拿到了投資，用來發展P2P汽車分享模式。它們分別是RelayRides、GetAround和Wheelz。我想有人可能認為，這些公司是ZipCar模式的進一步演化。ZipCar模式已經存在很長時間了。不過它與P2P孰優孰劣，這是一個比較困擾我的問題，因為我認為P2P模式能夠提供的只是一個中期的解決方案，而ZipCar提供的才是一個長期解決方案。我的想法如下：

????1．無論是ZipCar也好，還是那三家公司也好，它們要解決的都是同一個問題——汽車是一種昂貴的資產，但是利用率卻較低。兩者采用的解決方案都是相同的：也就是將資產的成本分攤到多個用戶身上，同時提高這項資產的利用率。讓我們大膽設想一下，在最理想的情況下，這一理念的未來會是什么情形：人們是否還會買車，自己仍舊很少使用，然后把它租出去？抑或人們不再自行買車，因為大部分時間都用不著，而是轉而與很多人共同使用共享的汽車資源？我認為后者更有可能，而這也正是ZipCar努力的方向。

????2．P2P模式會不會被自身的成功所累？（如果它成功了的話）我們再來分析一下：如果這種模式成功了，那么下次消費者在考慮購買新車的時候，由于現在有了別的用車來源，他們就可能選擇放棄買車。不過如果很多人都這樣想的話，那么社會上共享的車源就會越來越少，而且可使用的車源也大都是年久失修的老爺車。服務的質量必然會下降，除非這些公司開始擁有和投放自己的戰略儲備車源。那時，這些做P2P的公司就變成ZipCar了。

????3．我認為房屋分享公司AirBnB的成功促成了汽車P2P的興起。不過我認為兩者存在很大區別。原因如下：首先，我認為AirBnB的用戶更容易感受到安全感和掌控感（盡管最近媒體也報道了一些諸如租客將房屋洗劫一空的慘劇）。房主可以直接與租客見面，甚至如果租客租用的是閑置的單間，租客入住后，房主還可以繼續待在自己的房子里。而汽車就不同了，只要讓別人開了你的車，你就會覺得存在一定風險。車主對租客篩選得越嚴格，潛在的租客就越少，汽車資源的使用率就會降低。

????4．另外，這些P2P的汽車公司還得算一本與AirBnB不同的經濟賬：如果車主把車分享出去，每年可以賺到多少錢？值不值得費這個事？比方說某人每年把車出租100次，每次出租3小時，每小時租金7美元（假設車主自己可以拿到6美元），那么車主一年可以獲得1,800美元的租車。也不算很少了，但值不值得？而且這個利用率已經算很高了。我想，對于資產的所有人來說，按15到20美元的價格把自己的愛車出租一次，和以100多美元的價格把房間出租一晚，感覺是非常不同的。另外，房屋和汽車各有各的租金上限，這是它們的屬性決定的。比如對于短租來說，ZipCar的10美元/小時就是最高的了。如果長租的話，就是Hotwire公司等租車機構給出的價格。而如果房主在AirBnb上出租房屋，長租房的最高租金上限可能達到每周5,000美元以上。也就是說房屋的租價上限遠遠高于汽車。

????5．也許P2P模式在某些小眾市場上的確是行得通——比如專用車輛或者豪華車，此外它還可以滿足部分地區的需要，它們因為人口密度不足，無法支撐ZipCar等公司的服務。或許這個市場空間已經足以容納汽車P2P的發展和擴張。此外，我們也得承認，P2P業務的資產成本的確要低得多。因此，在某些ZipCar因成本問題而難以開拓的地區，P2P模式可能的確會有市場。

????總之，我的上述論斷也可能全然錯了，完全看走了眼。汽車P2P可能會在低端市場形成某種顛覆。但是與傳統的買車相比，ZipCar的租車成本已經低到了讓人難以置信的地步。我并不確定這種顛覆是否會改變汽車分享業的發展方向，我這里不敢妄下斷言，不過我正在試圖更深入地理解這個商機。當年Netflix公司剛剛起步時，我覺得他們簡直是瘋了；此外，我還認為教科書租賃網站Chegg也只是一項中期創新（但是現在看來，他們在數字化轉型的道路上走得都很成功）。所以請大家各抒己見，以便我可以深化對這個問題的思考。

????本文作者Rob Go是投資公司NextView Ventures的共同創始人，該公司是一家種子投資公司，主要關注互聯網創新。他曾供職于星火投資公司（Spark Capital），博客地址是www.robgo.org。

????譯者：樸成奎

????There are now at least three companies that have announced funding from excellent investors pursuing a P2P car sharing model: RelayRides, GetAround and Wheelz. I think there is a sense that these companies are the next evolution of ZipCar (ZIP), which has been around for a long time. But, this is a confusing case for me because I actually think that what P2P models propose to do is much more of an intermediate solution vs. a long term solution. And the long term solution already exists in ZipCar. Couple streams of thought on this:

????1. The problem both companies are solving is that cars are expensive and under-utilized assets. The solutions are the same: Spread the capital expense across multiple users, and increase the utilization of the asset. Let's fast forward to the "ideal" future of this vision. Is it one where people still buy cars that they rarely use and rent it out? Or is it a world where no one really buys a car they don't need, and just utilize shared resources with lots of people? I think it's the latter, and that's what ZipCar is trying to do.

????2. Doesn't the P2P model become a victim of its success (if it is successful)? Again, if it works, then the next time consumers are thinking of buying a new car, they will decide not to because other options are available. But if that's the case for lots of people, then there will be fewer and fewer shared options available, and the ones that are available will be older clunkers. The service will inherently degrade, unless the companies start owning and operating their own strategically placed vehicles. And then, presto! You have ZipCar.

????3. I have to imagine that the rise in these models is brought on by the success of AirBnB. But I think it's very different for a couple reasons. First, I think there is a bit more perceived safety and control with AirBnB (even after some of the disasters that have been reported). You can actually meet the person you are going to be renting to, or you may even still be in your apartment while they are sharing the spare room. It feels like a bit more risk to give someone the ability to just drive off with your car. The more screening that you enable, the smaller the pool of potential drivers, which will reduce utlization.

????4. The economics are pretty different from AirBnB. How much money can you really make sharing your car, and would that be enough to make it worth your while? If someone rents our their car 100x per year, 3 hours per time, $7/hour (assuming the owner keeps $6), that equals: $1800. Not nothing, but is it really worth it? And that is very high utilization. I think it's very different to assume people will rent their cars for what might be $15-$20/session vs. renting out a spare bedroom for $100+/night. There is also a pretty natural price ceiling on these rentals. For short-term rentals, it's ZipCar's $10/hour prices. With long-term rentals, it's what you can Hotwire with the rental agencies. With AirBnB, you have the potential for long term rentals that can be $5000+ per week. The price ceiling is just much higher.

????5. Maybe there are niches where this makes sense – like renting specialty/luxury vehicles, serving geographies that aren't dense enough for services like ZipCar to exist. And maybe that's enough to get scale and expand. Also, it's true that the capital expenditure is much much less in a P2P business, so again, maybe there are areas where this model will work that are cost prohibitive for ZipCar.

????Anyway, I could certainly be wrong here and just missing it. Maybe it is a low-end disruption of some sort. But the total cost of utilizing a ZipCar is already ridiculously low compared to the cost of owning a car. Not sure if this disruption is really going to move the needle. I'm not placing a stake in the ground, but I'm trying to understand this opportunity better. I thought Netflix was crazy when it started, and I also think Chegg is a intermediate innovation as well ( but they seem to be transitioning to digital pretty well). So please discuss so I can further my thinking on this.

????Rob Go is co-founder of NextView Ventures, a seed-stage investment firm focused on Internet-enabled innovation. He previously was with Spark Capital, and blogs over at www.robgo.org