2 ms·
Like all food delivery, which has existed for a long time, normal people use food delivery apps occasionally when they want to feed a group, can't leave (in col
by superuser2 11y ago
Like all food delivery, which has existed for a long time, normal people use food delivery apps occasionally when they want to feed a group, can't leave (in college I worked in tech theater and Grubhub was a godsend for short dinner breaks), or don't feel like cooking today.
You may as well be amused that sit-down restaurants exist.
- nugget 11y agoSure, my point is just that food delivery is one of the most expensive options for feeding oneself (compared to cooking at home or take out). People order food a few times a week, but it seems unlikely for them to redesign their lives around it long-term (in the rest of the world outside San Francisco/NYC that is not populated by wealthy single folks). Unlike other services like Uber, which can save $ by allowing you to ditch the car and have allowed people to permanently alter their lifestyles. I assume that there is some thesis baked into these business plans that food delivery will become more wide spread, and more frequent. Perhaps that people actually prefer to be served at home instead of going out, and that the savings from rent and waiters can be captured by these services instead.
- superuser2 11y agoI think of food delivery apps as an incremental efficiency. Rather than restaurants needing to maintain their own staff, you can take advantage of a collective network of drivers with an optimized central route planner. This should be successful for the simple reason that it's better for restaurant owners and consumers of restaurants that do not (or will no longer) have their own fleet. I don't think it's going to "revolutionize" anyone's lifestyle the way Uber did. They might say so, but that's because no one wants to talk to you in the Bay Area if you're not disrupting something.