初创公司帮你忙，总有一款适合你

    我对其他服务还不怎么熟悉，所以决定先试几个。我对Prim已经死心，他家收第一个洗衣包裹就要收我25美元，以后每个包裹15美元——最快也要将近一周的时间。Homejoy也不对我的胃口。从某种程度上讲，我在Exec消费的运气甚至更好一些，花了187美元的高价才艰难地订到第二天的预约上门服务，比Homejoy的预估报价高了近40美元。女工们不仅把我住的地方擦得纤尘不染，还给我留了个意外的惊喜：室友的唱片机被她们弄坏了，修的话得话70美元。（Exec答应会赔偿这笔损失。）至于TaskRabbit，我花了至少50美元雇人洗衣服。结果衣服是洗好了，不过比我规定的时间晚了两个半小时。（作为补偿，对方少收了我10美元。）

    短暂的服务体验也给我带来了挥之不去的负罪感。在赶着赴约的情况下使用Uber，或者在Instacart网站上订购5包食品杂货送上家门，这我还可以接受。但是花上50美元把应该分开两、三次洗的衣服一次性洗完，或者出100多美元让别人替自己排队买iPhone，这种消费行为就突破了我的心里底线——毕竟，哪有那么多钱烧呀！我怀疑有的公司会发展的比较好，因为他们解决的是广泛存在的需求问题——城市里打车用Uber；病人的病情太重没法离开家，就用Medicast；而想找更便宜的清洁服务，就选Homejoy这样的公司。更多的公司把他们的目标客户定位在那些钱多到用不完的人。虽然在硅谷，纽约或是其他一些地方也有成功的可能，但这类公司大部分是做不下去的。（财富中文网）

    译者：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.