13 ms·

Because of covid, my wife and I have been using DoorDash probably twice a week. As others have mentioned, if you have a chase sapphire reserve card, they give y

by dchuk 6y ago

Because of covid, my wife and I have been using DoorDash probably twice a week. As others have mentioned, if you have a chase sapphire reserve card, they give you like $60 in credit this year and next, and free dash pass, so it makes it actually decently economical to use. Obviously if you do the math, this is just another VC Ponzi scheme with no real path to profit, but as a consumer who already had that credit card, might as well ride the wave and use some rich LPs subsidies to pay for the delivery of my cheeseburgers I suppose.

goatherders 6y ago
Very well said.
thesuitonym 6y ago
I see this sentiment a lot and I don't understand it. Why would you involve yet another human in your food purchase? I've never been a huge fan of delivery services like this anyway, but even if I had ever considered them before, now just seems like it's not the time to do so.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Well, going to the takeout place can expose you to more human beings. At least with delivery, you get just one person and a brief contact. And of course this plague is not carried in food.
  - jimz 6y ago
    And it's a real balancing act but having caught COVID and almost died at the age of 33 I'm simply not going to take any chances when since we have no solid proof that my antibodies are going to ensure from now until I am next in line for the vaccine. Having worked in NYC in the immigration law system a ton of my ex-colleagues caught it and some of my supervisors passed away from it right away and as much as I'd like to think of myself as a rationale person who evaluates th evidence, personal experiences are powerful and scary and it's hard to convey how unexpectedly agonizing a "mild" case felt to me. This isn't the difference between mild and spicy wings, it's less-spicy and qhost-pepper wings. And so them (and postmates, and instacart, and shipt, and local booze deliveries) have been extremely important because it reducecs the attack vector. Call me paranoid, but I can at least hae some control over the groceries sent to me, and for example. It's simply a tradeoff I'm willing to make. At once point, I couldn't even even properly update my will even though I'm a lawyer because I wanted to be prepared but not even my friends from school who are in the field were willing to come to my house, with the quarantine complicating things. since it was felt tha the 14 day window was arbitrary and I didn't get full blown symptoms until day 8-9.Under these cirucmstances every precaution, in my personal view, as long as it's a precaution that isn't conjured out of thin air and backed by some level of indication of efficacy that skews towards minimizing potential vectors of re-infection. It's not failsafe - my then-girlfriend, was asympomatic, gave mteh rvirus, and there wasn't any way in those days to even know or sure what do to, but as Don Draper said in Mad Men: "Limit your exposure".
  - xorcist 6y ago
    On the other hand this one person risks becoming a superspreader. It's not at all clear which is better from an epidemiological perspective.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      How is that different from the server/cashier who gives you your food at the store, from becoming a superspreader? I don't see it as very different, and in fact from a single customer point of view a delivery service isolates them best of all.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  It would be lower risk than going to the restaurant yourself.
  - kop316 6y ago
    To clarify, it is a lower risk for you. It is not a lower risk for the driver, who mingles with multiple restaurants and goes to multiple houses, and it is not a lower risk to the restaurant.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    wouldn't curbside pickup be essentially equivalent in risk profile? you're outside and you only have to interact with one person.
- Wheaties466 6y ago
  well I can speak from experience. Since i'm at home more. Not going to bars and restaurants. I make cocktails at home and then order food because I am not able to drive to pick up the food. This is the main reason why food delivery makes sense to my situation.
- xenocyon 6y ago
  Despite the communal nature of the pandemic, people are obsessed with an individualistic formulation of risk.
- kop316 6y ago
  I agree with your sentiment. In top of the fact that these apps in the past have ripped off the drivers: https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/20/20825937/doordash-tipping-policy-still-not-changed-food-delivery-app-gig-economy https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/20/20825937/doordash-tippi... https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesradclyffe/2018/10/16/tip-or-no-tip-deliveroo-riders-ripped-off-by-default/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesradclyffe/2018/10/16/tip... And have manipulated search rankings to force people to use their service when they think they are talking to the restaurant: https://www.wxyz.com/news/doordash-is-delivering-food-without-permission-restaurant-says https://www.wxyz.com/news/doordash-is-delivering-food-withou... Than bully restaurants: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/04/14/doordash-grubhub-uber-eats-postmates-lawsuit-fees/2987724001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/04/14/doordash-gru... I an good conscious can't use them. In addition, the argument that the customer is minimally exposed is, to me, an incredibly selfish argument. Yes you the customer may be less exposed, but at the expense of the driver (who now goes to multiple restaurants and multiple houses), and the restaurant (who also has to interact with those drivers). I personally do carry out from restaurants, and done properly, carry the same risk exposure as delivery to the customer (e.g. putting the food in the trunk of your car, placing the order in the front door and allowing you to get it at a safe distance).
b3kart 6y ago
> but as a consumer, might as well ride the wave I am mostly doing the same: I understand what Uber is doing, but it's just so much more convenient than your old-school taxi company. However, to play the devil's advocate, this strategy could be a myopic one. As a consumer you should be supporting competition. Such VC Ponzi schemes are ultimately about demolishing competition, and then leveraging the achieved dominance on the market at consumer's expense. Should we be more careful about jumping into these, and sacrifice short-term convenience for longer-term interests if we can?
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Taxis and in house restaurant delivery schemes are the equivalent of using Netscape Navigator to oppose Google Chrome in the modern age. The competition comes from the battle between the VCs, not what they are replacing.
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    I agree, especially the biggest problems I had with Uber hasn't changed for years: drivers either cancelling on me because they don't like where I go and Uber shows it to them only after they finished the last ride, or waiting for me to cancel because they have time and want me to pay cancellation fee. I don't know what Uber software engineers are doing, but it doesn't seem to me that they really care about user experience (not UI, which I don't care about, as that doesn't make me late for a hospital appointment).
  - b3kart 6y ago
    Does it really come from the battle between VCs though? My understanding is that these VC-backed companies of Uber type are designed to run at a loss until a) the market dominance is achieved, at which point the prices are raised to get to profitability; b) it's clear that the market dominance won't be achieved any time soon, at which point the funding is pulled and VCs leave for greener pastures. Such companies aren't designed to compete in your typical sense, i.e. by improving service or reducing operating costs. Instead it's about which VC is ready to lose more money before their competitors go bust. Am I being too cynical here?
save_ferris 6y ago
It goes without saying, but if you're gonna use those apps, please please please tip your drivers. These apps make it so hard to discern how much they make, especially when "free money" for customers is involved. Personally, I think companies like DoorDash set a really dark precedent for the future of work in the US. Their primary value as a company is their ability to manipulate how thousands of people get paid, not to ensure top quality service.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  To add: Tip cash! Never tip in app! EDIT: To those who ask why, you cannot trust the app to disburse the "tip" to the worker.
  - elefanten 6y ago
    That's a crazy ask and defeats at least some of the purpose of using these apps
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      I would also support tipping via Venmo, Cash App, or Zelle for those who aren't willing to keep cash on hand. The goal is to tip out of band to prevent the usual gig app shenanigans, further harming gig workers beyond the usual gig work transactional arrangement.
      - xorcist 6y ago
        If you don't want to support the "gig economy" then it is better not to use the apps. Cash payments will never lead to improvements in working conditions, pensions or health insurance.
    - hansjorg 6y ago
      DoorDash will steal from their workers tips if you pay it in-app. The societally disruptive idea of not paying your workers is the great "innovation" of the gig economy. The oldest grift there ever was.
albroland 6y ago
Out of curiosity, how is the fee structure of DoorDash compared to something like Seamless? A few years ago I would routinely use Seamless to order delivery or carry out 3-4x a week, but in the past year or so I noticed enormous service fees added onto transactions (making a $12 burger cost more like $22 all in). As such, I've pivoted away from using these apps and try to order directly from restaurants websites, usually via ChowNow.
sschueller 6y ago
Even thought you are taking money from the VCs you are also supporting the systematic exploitation of the working poor. These companies do everything they can to go around what little protection these people have e.g. minimum wage. Do not use or support these pretatory businesses even if you get freebies. By using them you turn them into something people can't do without and laws get changed to make the exploitation permanently legal.
- dchuk 6y ago
  As far as I'm aware, no one is forced to drive for these companies. I very much get your point, but in a fully opt-in scenario, it's hard to feel like I'm compromising my ethics by ordering cheeseburgers in an app.
  - sschueller 6y ago
    Not really opt-in if all other opportunities cease to exist.
    - dchuk 6y ago
      You definitely are being hyperbolic here. There's no world where the only jobs available are food delivery, even in the fucked up world of Covid.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by dchuk 6y ago

goatherders 6y ago

Very well said.

thesuitonym 6y ago

I see this sentiment a lot and I don't understand it. Why would you involve yet another human in your food purchase? I've never been a huge fan of delivery services like this anyway, but even if I had ever considered them before, now just seems like it's not the time to do so.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Well, going to the takeout place can expose you to more human beings. At least with delivery, you get just one person and a brief contact. And of course this plague is not carried in food.
- jimz 6y ago
  And it's a real balancing act but having caught COVID and almost died at the age of 33 I'm simply not going to take any chances when since we have no solid proof that my antibodies are going to ensure from now until I am next in line for the vaccine. Having worked in NYC in the immigration law system a ton of my ex-colleagues caught it and some of my supervisors passed away from it right away and as much as I'd like to think of myself as a rationale person who evaluates th evidence, personal experiences are powerful and scary and it's hard to convey how unexpectedly agonizing a "mild" case felt to me. This isn't the difference between mild and spicy wings, it's less-spicy and qhost-pepper wings. And so them (and postmates, and instacart, and shipt, and local booze deliveries) have been extremely important because it reducecs the attack vector. Call me paranoid, but I can at least hae some control over the groceries sent to me, and for example. It's simply a tradeoff I'm willing to make. At once point, I couldn't even even properly update my will even though I'm a lawyer because I wanted to be prepared but not even my friends from school who are in the field were willing to come to my house, with the quarantine complicating things. since it was felt tha the 14 day window was arbitrary and I didn't get full blown symptoms until day 8-9.Under these cirucmstances every precaution, in my personal view, as long as it's a precaution that isn't conjured out of thin air and backed by some level of indication of efficacy that skews towards minimizing potential vectors of re-infection. It's not failsafe - my then-girlfriend, was asympomatic, gave mteh rvirus, and there wasn't any way in those days to even know or sure what do to, but as Don Draper said in Mad Men: "Limit your exposure".
- xorcist 6y ago
  On the other hand this one person risks becoming a superspreader. It's not at all clear which is better from an epidemiological perspective.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    How is that different from the server/cashier who gives you your food at the store, from becoming a superspreader? I don't see it as very different, and in fact from a single customer point of view a delivery service isolates them best of all.
MattGaiser 6y ago
It would be lower risk than going to the restaurant yourself.
- kop316 6y ago
  To clarify, it is a lower risk for you. It is not a lower risk for the driver, who mingles with multiple restaurants and goes to multiple houses, and it is not a lower risk to the restaurant.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  wouldn't curbside pickup be essentially equivalent in risk profile? you're outside and you only have to interact with one person.
Wheaties466 6y ago
well I can speak from experience. Since i'm at home more. Not going to bars and restaurants. I make cocktails at home and then order food because I am not able to drive to pick up the food. This is the main reason why food delivery makes sense to my situation.
xenocyon 6y ago
Despite the communal nature of the pandemic, people are obsessed with an individualistic formulation of risk.
kop316 6y ago
I agree with your sentiment. In top of the fact that these apps in the past have ripped off the drivers: https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/20/20825937/doordash-tipping-policy-still-not-changed-food-delivery-app-gig-economy https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/20/20825937/doordash-tippi... https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesradclyffe/2018/10/16/tip-or-no-tip-deliveroo-riders-ripped-off-by-default/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlesradclyffe/2018/10/16/tip... And have manipulated search rankings to force people to use their service when they think they are talking to the restaurant: https://www.wxyz.com/news/doordash-is-delivering-food-without-permission-restaurant-says https://www.wxyz.com/news/doordash-is-delivering-food-withou... Than bully restaurants: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/04/14/doordash-grubhub-uber-eats-postmates-lawsuit-fees/2987724001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/04/14/doordash-gru... I an good conscious can't use them. In addition, the argument that the customer is minimally exposed is, to me, an incredibly selfish argument. Yes you the customer may be less exposed, but at the expense of the driver (who now goes to multiple restaurants and multiple houses), and the restaurant (who also has to interact with those drivers). I personally do carry out from restaurants, and done properly, carry the same risk exposure as delivery to the customer (e.g. putting the food in the trunk of your car, placing the order in the front door and allowing you to get it at a safe distance).

b3kart 6y ago

> but as a consumer, might as well ride the wave I am mostly doing the same: I understand what Uber is doing, but it's just so much more convenient than your old-school taxi company. However, to play the devil's advocate, this strategy could be a myopic one. As a consumer you should be supporting competition. Such VC Ponzi schemes are ultimately about demolishing competition, and then leveraging the achieved dominance on the market at consumer's expense. Should we be more careful about jumping into these, and sacrifice short-term convenience for longer-term interests if we can?

MattGaiser 6y ago
Taxis and in house restaurant delivery schemes are the equivalent of using Netscape Navigator to oppose Google Chrome in the modern age. The competition comes from the battle between the VCs, not what they are replacing.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  I agree, especially the biggest problems I had with Uber hasn't changed for years: drivers either cancelling on me because they don't like where I go and Uber shows it to them only after they finished the last ride, or waiting for me to cancel because they have time and want me to pay cancellation fee. I don't know what Uber software engineers are doing, but it doesn't seem to me that they really care about user experience (not UI, which I don't care about, as that doesn't make me late for a hospital appointment).
- b3kart 6y ago
  Does it really come from the battle between VCs though? My understanding is that these VC-backed companies of Uber type are designed to run at a loss until a) the market dominance is achieved, at which point the prices are raised to get to profitability; b) it's clear that the market dominance won't be achieved any time soon, at which point the funding is pulled and VCs leave for greener pastures. Such companies aren't designed to compete in your typical sense, i.e. by improving service or reducing operating costs. Instead it's about which VC is ready to lose more money before their competitors go bust. Am I being too cynical here?

save_ferris 6y ago

It goes without saying, but if you're gonna use those apps, please please please tip your drivers. These apps make it so hard to discern how much they make, especially when "free money" for customers is involved. Personally, I think companies like DoorDash set a really dark precedent for the future of work in the US. Their primary value as a company is their ability to manipulate how thousands of people get paid, not to ensure top quality service.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
To add: Tip cash! Never tip in app! EDIT: To those who ask why, you cannot trust the app to disburse the "tip" to the worker.
- elefanten 6y ago
  That's a crazy ask and defeats at least some of the purpose of using these apps
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    I would also support tipping via Venmo, Cash App, or Zelle for those who aren't willing to keep cash on hand. The goal is to tip out of band to prevent the usual gig app shenanigans, further harming gig workers beyond the usual gig work transactional arrangement.
    - xorcist 6y ago
      If you don't want to support the "gig economy" then it is better not to use the apps. Cash payments will never lead to improvements in working conditions, pensions or health insurance.
  - hansjorg 6y ago
    DoorDash will steal from their workers tips if you pay it in-app. The societally disruptive idea of not paying your workers is the great "innovation" of the gig economy. The oldest grift there ever was.

albroland 6y ago

Out of curiosity, how is the fee structure of DoorDash compared to something like Seamless? A few years ago I would routinely use Seamless to order delivery or carry out 3-4x a week, but in the past year or so I noticed enormous service fees added onto transactions (making a $12 burger cost more like $22 all in). As such, I've pivoted away from using these apps and try to order directly from restaurants websites, usually via ChowNow.

sschueller 6y ago

Even thought you are taking money from the VCs you are also supporting the systematic exploitation of the working poor. These companies do everything they can to go around what little protection these people have e.g. minimum wage. Do not use or support these pretatory businesses even if you get freebies. By using them you turn them into something people can't do without and laws get changed to make the exploitation permanently legal.

dchuk 6y ago
As far as I'm aware, no one is forced to drive for these companies. I very much get your point, but in a fully opt-in scenario, it's hard to feel like I'm compromising my ethics by ordering cheeseburgers in an app.
- sschueller 6y ago
  Not really opt-in if all other opportunities cease to exist.
  - dchuk 6y ago
    You definitely are being hyperbolic here. There's no world where the only jobs available are food delivery, even in the fucked up world of Covid.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]