????我對其他服務還不怎么熟悉，所以決定先試幾個。我對Prim已經死心，他家收第一個洗衣包裹就要收我25美元，以后每個包裹15美元——最快也要將近一周的時間。Homejoy也不對我的胃口。從某種程度上講，我在Exec消費的運氣甚至更好一些，花了187美元的高價才艱難地訂到第二天的預約上門服務，比Homejoy的預估報價高了近40美元。女工們不僅把我住的地方擦得纖塵不染，還給我留了個意外的驚喜：室友的唱片機被她們弄壞了，修的話得話70美元。（Exec答應會賠償這筆損失。）至于TaskRabbit，我花了至少50美元雇人洗衣服。結果衣服是洗好了，不過比我規定的時間晚了兩個半小時。（作為補償，對方少收了我10美元。）

????短暫的服務體驗也給我帶來了揮之不去的負罪感。在趕著赴約的情況下使用Uber，或者在Instacart網站上訂購5包食品雜貨送上家門，這我還可以接受。但是花上50美元把應該分開兩、三次洗的衣服一次性洗完，或者出100多美元讓別人替自己排隊買iPhone，這種消費行為就突破了我的心里底線——畢竟，哪有那么多錢燒呀！我懷疑有的公司會發展的比較好，因為他們解決的是廣泛存在的需求問題——城市里打車用Uber；病人的病情太重沒法離開家，就用Medicast；而想找更便宜的清潔服務，就選Homejoy這樣的公司。更多的公司把他們的目標客戶定位在那些錢多到用不完的人。雖然在硅谷，紐約或是其他一些地方也有成功的可能，但這類公司大部分是做不下去的。（財富中文網）

????譯者：Nasca?

????Less familiar with other services, I decided to test several out. I gave up on having Prim, which charges $25 for the first laundry bag and $15 for each one after -- the earliest they could do was almost a week out. The same was true for Homejoy. I had more luck with Exec somewhat, snagging a next-day appointment for a pricey $187, nearly $40 more than Homejoy's estimate. While the maids rendered the place near-spotless, they left an unexpected souvenir: $70 worth of damage to my roommate's turntable. (Exec promises to cover repair costs.) And with TaskRabbit, I hired someone to do my laundry for no less than $50. He did it, but missed my deadline by 2.5 hours. (In return, he knocked $10 off the total cost.)

????With these brief flirtations also came persistent guilt. Using Uber to make a meeting and Instacart to bring five bags of groceries to my door felt acceptable, but ponying up $50 for two or three laundry loads? Paying someone $100-plus to stand in line for an iPhone 5? Those crossed a psychological line into inexplicable opulence. I suspect some services will scale better because they're addressing a wide-enough need -- Uber in some cities, Medicast for patients too sick to leave the home, cheaper cleaning services like Homejoy -- but many more others will flounder, serving as reminders that what may fly in places like the Valley, New York, and elsewhere are clearly aimed at those with large disposable incomes to burn.