5 ms·

I don't understand why this isn't treated like domain name hijacking, though. Suppose you want to go to McDonald's. I buy the McDonald's domain name. I put a c

I don't understand why this isn't treated like domain name hijacking, though. Suppose you want to go to McDonald's. I buy the McDonald's domain name. I put a credit card form on my site, and I "deliver" McDonald's to you. I charge a $40 surcharge for the privilege. There is no way in hell that McDonald's would have to go begging at realmcdonald's.com because of my shenanigans. They'd have no patience for this bullshit. In real life they'd sicc a DMCA notice and a ton of lawyers on this and I'd lose my webhost and the sheriff would come visit me and who knows what else. They'd get McDonald's.com fast enough to make your head spin, and I'd be pushed out of that business. Why is it different for restaurants? Same problem: instead of me it's a company, and instead of McDonald's it's a small restaurant. But the principle is the same. In domain name hijacking, it's presumed wrong because customers think they're reaching McDonald's when they're really calling me. In the GrubHub case it's exactly the same thing. I don't understand why it's wrong when I do it, but it's not a problem GrubHub does. After all, McDonald's doesn't deliver, and I may own a very fine delivery business, but I'm still not allowed to coast off their name for my own business.

tick_tock_tick 6y ago
I mean you can absolutely do your first businesses model as long as you don't claim to actually be McDonald's your fine. The issue here is they agreed to allow GrubHub to pretend to be them. You'd never get that deal with McDonald's since they'd just not agree to it since they know it's a horrible idea but tons of people running restaurants don't understand they are getting a raw deal.
- CharlesW 6y ago
  > The issue here is they agreed to allow GrubHub to pretend to be them. Sadly, that's false. GrubHub is a bad actor. https://www.eater.com/2019/10/30/20940107/grubhub-to-add-restaurants-without-permission-like-postmates https://www.eater.com/2019/10/30/20940107/grubhub-to-add-res...
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Those aren't the restaurants paying a fee. Non-partner restaurants are going to get full menu price.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
MattGaiser 6y ago
The Grubhubs and DoorDashes are not logistic services but also marketing services. Most companies sign a marketing agreement with them.
- mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
  I think I remember reading that they often set all of this up prior to speaking with the owner / without getting their approval and then basically go to them after the fact and say "look how much traffic we've been bringing in for you" Edit: Ah, yup - see link to eater.com post elsewhere in the thread
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    In that case the owner is then getting the full price for the food though.
    - Retric 6y ago
      It’s still destroying their reputation by charging more than the food is ‘worth’. Aka the expectation is higher for an 8$ burger than a 5$ one.
    - throwaway2048 6y ago
      Except now grubhub et all basically controls their web presence through vastly superior SEO, and if they don't agree to grubhub's terms, they basically disappear off the internet.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - ddalex 6y ago
        Except it would cost grubhub money to run an uncooperative client, so why would they ?
        6y ago
chongli 6y ago
They'd get McDonald's.com fast enough to make your head spin, and I'd be pushed out of that business. If McDonald's were a mom & pop restaurant and you were a multi-billion dollar, VC-backed startup, then you can be sure McDonald's would not be able to do this so easily. That's the difference.
- izzydata 6y ago
  That is specifically what he is alluding to.
heavyset_go 6y ago
> I don't understand why it's wrong when I do it, but it's not a problem GrubHub does. The same reason that you'd be arrested for running an illegal taxi, but when Uber does it, it's fine. And the same reason that you'd be arrested for running an illegal hotel, but when AirBnB does it, it's okay. Uber and AiBnb spend a lot of money lobbying governments at every level, and on marketing to make what they do seem acceptable.
- xupybd 6y ago
  Not to mention Spotify or the early days of YouTube. Money is power, with enough of it you can bend the law.
  - rightbyte 6y ago
    Spotify didn't have any fuckoff money in the start and the streamed stuff they got from the Piratebay. The authorities in Sweden didn't notice since they Spotify also tried at the same time to get proper contracts I guess and the music industry seemed to look through their fingers. Youtube is more strange since they illegally hosted IP for a long while.
    - catalogia 6y ago
      > Youtube is more strange since they illegally hosted IP for a long while. They still do, their ContentID system has a lot of holes.
    - Abdulozovehe 6y ago
      Yes
- Can_Not 6y ago
  I dont find this convincing, taxis are mad because it's competition, the restaurants are mad because its impersonation. The restaurants should be entitled to civil suits to reclaim damages while in the Uber/AirBnB situation its more about regulations that the government failed to enforce.

tick_tock_tick 6y ago

I mean you can absolutely do your first businesses model as long as you don't claim to actually be McDonald's your fine. The issue here is they agreed to allow GrubHub to pretend to be them. You'd never get that deal with McDonald's since they'd just not agree to it since they know it's a horrible idea but tons of people running restaurants don't understand they are getting a raw deal.

CharlesW 6y ago
> The issue here is they agreed to allow GrubHub to pretend to be them. Sadly, that's false. GrubHub is a bad actor. https://www.eater.com/2019/10/30/20940107/grubhub-to-add-restaurants-without-permission-like-postmates https://www.eater.com/2019/10/30/20940107/grubhub-to-add-res...
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Those aren't the restaurants paying a fee. Non-partner restaurants are going to get full menu price.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

MattGaiser 6y ago

The Grubhubs and DoorDashes are not logistic services but also marketing services. Most companies sign a marketing agreement with them.

mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
I think I remember reading that they often set all of this up prior to speaking with the owner / without getting their approval and then basically go to them after the fact and say "look how much traffic we've been bringing in for you" Edit: Ah, yup - see link to eater.com post elsewhere in the thread
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  In that case the owner is then getting the full price for the food though.
  - Retric 6y ago
    It’s still destroying their reputation by charging more than the food is ‘worth’. Aka the expectation is higher for an 8$ burger than a 5$ one.
  - throwaway2048 6y ago
    Except now grubhub et all basically controls their web presence through vastly superior SEO, and if they don't agree to grubhub's terms, they basically disappear off the internet.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ddalex 6y ago
      Except it would cost grubhub money to run an uncooperative client, so why would they ?
      - 6y ago

chongli 6y ago

They'd get McDonald's.com fast enough to make your head spin, and I'd be pushed out of that business. If McDonald's were a mom & pop restaurant and you were a multi-billion dollar, VC-backed startup, then you can be sure McDonald's would not be able to do this so easily. That's the difference.

izzydata 6y ago
That is specifically what he is alluding to.

heavyset_go 6y ago

> I don't understand why it's wrong when I do it, but it's not a problem GrubHub does. The same reason that you'd be arrested for running an illegal taxi, but when Uber does it, it's fine. And the same reason that you'd be arrested for running an illegal hotel, but when AirBnB does it, it's okay. Uber and AiBnb spend a lot of money lobbying governments at every level, and on marketing to make what they do seem acceptable.

xupybd 6y ago
Not to mention Spotify or the early days of YouTube. Money is power, with enough of it you can bend the law.
- rightbyte 6y ago
  Spotify didn't have any fuckoff money in the start and the streamed stuff they got from the Piratebay. The authorities in Sweden didn't notice since they Spotify also tried at the same time to get proper contracts I guess and the music industry seemed to look through their fingers. Youtube is more strange since they illegally hosted IP for a long while.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    > Youtube is more strange since they illegally hosted IP for a long while. They still do, their ContentID system has a lot of holes.
  - Abdulozovehe 6y ago
    Yes
Can_Not 6y ago
I dont find this convincing, taxis are mad because it's competition, the restaurants are mad because its impersonation. The restaurants should be entitled to civil suits to reclaim damages while in the Uber/AirBnB situation its more about regulations that the government failed to enforce.