7 ms·

Another example of tech "disruption", which typically just means siphoning money from an established system and adding little in return.

danenania 6y ago
The users apparently feel they are getting something in return. Otherwise why download and use the app (and pay extra for the food)?
- strictnein 6y ago
  Users get something, restaurants lose, delivery people are abused and underpaid, but the founders will be very rich. Looking at the entire system there was very little added, there's just a lot of money being shifted to a small group of people.
  - akarma 6y ago
    At least in DoorDash's YC application, they pitched that delivery drivers wanted to make more money. When the drivers worked for one restaurant only, they would be sitting around most of the time waiting for an order. By delivering for many restaurants at once on DoorDash, they would be able to make more money and have less idle time. I'd love to see data, but I can intuitively imagine this being true, and the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      > I'd love to see data, but I can intuitively imagine this being true, and the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space. Except, you know, the history of the space is consistent with delivery drivers being consistently underpaid, cheated out of tips and hazard pay etc. etc. With Doordash alone multiple lawsuits against it for payments alone. So far Doordash has been settling those for millions of dollars ($5 mln in California, $2.5 in Washington).
      - akarma 6y ago
        > the history of the space is consistent with delivery drivers being consistently underpaid If that's the case, how can one say that, for all of history, they have been underpaid? What is the standard that defines underpaid? If we agree that this is an issue that DoorDash has done better on than historical alternatives, should they receive as much flak as they do? > With Doordash alone multiple lawsuits against it for payments alone I would never argue that DoorDash isn't acting in its own self-interest and has been quite misleading when it comes to tips, to the point where they should be losing lawsuits. When we talk about delivery people being underpaid, though, that seems directly against the initial pitch of DoorDash, and it seems to have instead fulfilled its pitch to help drivers make more money than they did previously.
        dmitriid 6y ago
        > If that's the case, how can one say that, for all of history, they have been underpaid? What is the standard that defines underpaid? Your original statement was: "the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space." And this statement is false. Now you're trying to wiggle out of this by pretending that "being underpaid" is undefined because we haven't decided the concept of paid/underpaid and other demagoguery. 1) Delivery drivers are underpaid 2) Doordash and all the rest of gig economy businesses systematically underpay and make conditions even worse because they force people into becoming external contractors with zero rights and protections, and shift many additional costs to these contractors. > When we talk about delivery people being underpaid, though, that seems directly against the initial pitch The pitch doesn't matter in the least. Especially if you essentially argue that "Doordash's pitch is true because the common view of "underpaid" isn't consistent with the history of the space." 1) Delivery drivers are underpaid 2) Doordash and all the rest of gig economy businesses systematically underpay people who work for them
        akarma 6y ago
        > Your original statement was: "the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space." No wriggling. :) To me, that statement would be backed by evidence that DoorDash allows drivers to make more than they previously made as drivers for specific restaurants. To you, that wouldn’t satisfy the notion that they are fairly paid, because you believe they have always been underpaid. I’m looking at “underpaid” through a lens of historical data, but you’re looking at it through a different lens, so I asked how you define underpaid. Do you see what I mean?
    - 908B64B197 6y ago
      I like how the drivers are always depicted as underpaid yet... they flock to the app! If it paid more to have a minimum wage job, why are there so many drivers on the platform?
      - dmitriid 6y ago
        - Because the economy isn't doing that great - There are not that many jobs to go around - More and more companies force people into the gig economy
      - benlivengood 6y ago
        Drivers can easily put in consistent overtime which is harder to do at a traditional job. Removing some of the friction of overworking themselves while giving the illusion of choice. Migrant workers consistently show up at farms too; it doesn't mean they're paid well.
        strombofulous 6y ago
        The reason migrant workers pick ("pick") farms is because they legally can't work anywhere else. Uber/DD/Postmates/... all do citizen verification checks.
        benlivengood 6y ago
        That conflates undocumented workers with migrant workers when there is more like a ~50% overlap (at farms).
      - bsder 6y ago
        Drivers were so underpaid they were stealing food. Many of the restaurants had to repackage their food in such a way that it could be sealed so that they could deny claims for theft. That's not the sign of well-paid employees.
        strombofulous 6y ago
        I mean, there's a lot of reasons they might have been stealing food. To presume it must have been because they were so poor and not because they had delicious smelling food in their car and a near-guarantee that theft wouldn't be noticed is, imo, disingenuous To say that the only reason someone steals food is for hunger is to say that nobody has ever stolen food for any reason other than hunger. Otherwise, there would necessarily be multiple reasons to steal food. I don't think that could possibly be true.
  - jnwatson 6y ago
    yet all are willing participants...
  - umeshunni 6y ago
    > restaurants lose I don't know if you've noticed, but we're in the middle of a pandemic and something like 85%[1] of restaurants have closed in some areas. For most restaurants, something like Doordash is the only way they're actually staying alive at this time. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/It-s-decimated-down-here-About-85-of-San-15774680.php https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/It-s-decimated-down-here...
- ProAm 6y ago
  It's the restaurants and drivers that are losing out. Small local businesses that are eating this loss in profits.
- treis 6y ago
  At the moment Doordash is an elaborate scheme to funnel VC money to the restaurant/grocery business. So yes, it's good for customers and those businesses now. But their valuation implies that at some point that's going to change and they're going to start extracting ~$10 billion a year in value. It's hard to see how they're going to do that in a way that ultimately is good for customers.
jeff18 6y ago
You were able to get sushi, dim sum, boba, bagels, or even steaks promptly delivered in a few clicks before 2013? DoorDash is an easy example of a startup that has made my life better, especially during a pandemic.
- jannotti 6y ago
  Grubbhub, Seamless, Eat24, Foodler, DiningIn. They were all around and fairly large by then. But they didn't go big on spending VC money, so over time DoorDash wins. Pretty interesting, however it turns out.
  - rkho 6y ago
    Sorry I'm going to have to call on this. Until on-demand delivery companies like Doordash/Postmates came onto the scene, the vast majority of places I could have ordered delivery from were the standard fare of pizza, Chinese, Indian, and Thai food within a half mile radius from my home. What this generation unlocked was the ability to pay someone to grab you House of Prime Rib on Van Ness and deliver it halfway across the city. The value add here was "quality from halfway across the city, not just restaurants within a tiny radius who had large enough margins to afford to keep a driver on payroll". This also resulted in what we now see as the normalization of national fast food brands having a coordinated delivery offering.
    - jxramos 6y ago
      Thank you, this does well to answer the "compared to what" question--compared to a former world where these things did not exist.
    - throwdbaaway 6y ago
      I think the problem is that this achievement is unlocked mostly by subsidy. Without subsidy, many would just go back to the standard fare of pizza, Chinese, Indian, and Thai food within a half mile radius. We will first have to wait and see whether the on-demand delivery business model will work out in a cheaper country, e.g. GrabFood in Indonesia. Even in such country, my sense is that the restaurants are still getting charged too much to cover for the subsidy given the customers, while the delivery riders are still being paid too little and have to rely on infrequent big tips.
twelfthnight 6y ago
Agreed. This is everything wrong with the tech industry. This company isn't profitable, so this IPO is effectively a way for the shareholders to offload their bad stock to the public [0]. And if that's not bad enough, the company itself is using dubious tactics [1] which in the short run appeal to customers but in the long run may drive many restaurants out of business [2]. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2020/12/08/doordashs-new-valuation-is-even-more-ridiculous/?sh=5029d7b63b34 https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2020/12/08/do... [1] https://www.saddlebackbbq.com/how-google-doordash-grubhub-conspire-screw-local-restaurants https://www.saddlebackbbq.com/how-google-doordash-grubhub-co... [2] https://laist.com/2020/08/10/why_so_many_restaurants_hate_food_delivery_apps.php https://laist.com/2020/08/10/why_so_many_restaurants_hate_fo...
graaben 6y ago
What I just can't understand about companies like DoorDash, Uber Eats etc. is that it seems to be a lose-lose-lose proposition. It's more expensive for the consumer with restaurants often raising prices and delivery fees etc; the restaurants make less money per order; and the delivery drivers are often making less than minimum wage and rapidly depreciating their cars. And on top of that, these companies themselves are mostly unprofitable! So who is benefiting here? Where is the true value for society being created? Yes I can get any restaurant meal delivered to my home in 30-45 min, but is that one small benefit really enough to sustain a $60bn market cap?

danenania 6y ago

The users apparently feel they are getting something in return. Otherwise why download and use the app (and pay extra for the food)?

strictnein 6y ago
Users get something, restaurants lose, delivery people are abused and underpaid, but the founders will be very rich. Looking at the entire system there was very little added, there's just a lot of money being shifted to a small group of people.
- akarma 6y ago
  At least in DoorDash's YC application, they pitched that delivery drivers wanted to make more money. When the drivers worked for one restaurant only, they would be sitting around most of the time waiting for an order. By delivering for many restaurants at once on DoorDash, they would be able to make more money and have less idle time. I'd love to see data, but I can intuitively imagine this being true, and the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    > I'd love to see data, but I can intuitively imagine this being true, and the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space. Except, you know, the history of the space is consistent with delivery drivers being consistently underpaid, cheated out of tips and hazard pay etc. etc. With Doordash alone multiple lawsuits against it for payments alone. So far Doordash has been settling those for millions of dollars ($5 mln in California, $2.5 in Washington).
    - akarma 6y ago
      > the history of the space is consistent with delivery drivers being consistently underpaid If that's the case, how can one say that, for all of history, they have been underpaid? What is the standard that defines underpaid? If we agree that this is an issue that DoorDash has done better on than historical alternatives, should they receive as much flak as they do? > With Doordash alone multiple lawsuits against it for payments alone I would never argue that DoorDash isn't acting in its own self-interest and has been quite misleading when it comes to tips, to the point where they should be losing lawsuits. When we talk about delivery people being underpaid, though, that seems directly against the initial pitch of DoorDash, and it seems to have instead fulfilled its pitch to help drivers make more money than they did previously.
      - dmitriid 6y ago
        > If that's the case, how can one say that, for all of history, they have been underpaid? What is the standard that defines underpaid? Your original statement was: "the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space." And this statement is false. Now you're trying to wiggle out of this by pretending that "being underpaid" is undefined because we haven't decided the concept of paid/underpaid and other demagoguery. 1) Delivery drivers are underpaid 2) Doordash and all the rest of gig economy businesses systematically underpay and make conditions even worse because they force people into becoming external contractors with zero rights and protections, and shift many additional costs to these contractors. > When we talk about delivery people being underpaid, though, that seems directly against the initial pitch The pitch doesn't matter in the least. Especially if you essentially argue that "Doordash's pitch is true because the common view of "underpaid" isn't consistent with the history of the space." 1) Delivery drivers are underpaid 2) Doordash and all the rest of gig economy businesses systematically underpay people who work for them
        akarma 6y ago
        > Your original statement was: "the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space." No wriggling. :) To me, that statement would be backed by evidence that DoorDash allows drivers to make more than they previously made as drivers for specific restaurants. To you, that wouldn’t satisfy the notion that they are fairly paid, because you believe they have always been underpaid. I’m looking at “underpaid” through a lens of historical data, but you’re looking at it through a different lens, so I asked how you define underpaid. Do you see what I mean?
  - 908B64B197 6y ago
    I like how the drivers are always depicted as underpaid yet... they flock to the app! If it paid more to have a minimum wage job, why are there so many drivers on the platform?
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      - Because the economy isn't doing that great - There are not that many jobs to go around - More and more companies force people into the gig economy
    - benlivengood 6y ago
      Drivers can easily put in consistent overtime which is harder to do at a traditional job. Removing some of the friction of overworking themselves while giving the illusion of choice. Migrant workers consistently show up at farms too; it doesn't mean they're paid well.
      - strombofulous 6y ago
        The reason migrant workers pick ("pick") farms is because they legally can't work anywhere else. Uber/DD/Postmates/... all do citizen verification checks.
        benlivengood 6y ago
        That conflates undocumented workers with migrant workers when there is more like a ~50% overlap (at farms).
    - bsder 6y ago
      Drivers were so underpaid they were stealing food. Many of the restaurants had to repackage their food in such a way that it could be sealed so that they could deny claims for theft. That's not the sign of well-paid employees.
      - strombofulous 6y ago
        I mean, there's a lot of reasons they might have been stealing food. To presume it must have been because they were so poor and not because they had delicious smelling food in their car and a near-guarantee that theft wouldn't be noticed is, imo, disingenuous To say that the only reason someone steals food is for hunger is to say that nobody has ever stolen food for any reason other than hunger. Otherwise, there would necessarily be multiple reasons to steal food. I don't think that could possibly be true.
- jnwatson 6y ago
  yet all are willing participants...
- umeshunni 6y ago
  > restaurants lose I don't know if you've noticed, but we're in the middle of a pandemic and something like 85%[1] of restaurants have closed in some areas. For most restaurants, something like Doordash is the only way they're actually staying alive at this time. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/It-s-decimated-down-here-About-85-of-San-15774680.php https://www.sfgate.com/food/article/It-s-decimated-down-here...
ProAm 6y ago
It's the restaurants and drivers that are losing out. Small local businesses that are eating this loss in profits.
treis 6y ago
At the moment Doordash is an elaborate scheme to funnel VC money to the restaurant/grocery business. So yes, it's good for customers and those businesses now. But their valuation implies that at some point that's going to change and they're going to start extracting ~$10 billion a year in value. It's hard to see how they're going to do that in a way that ultimately is good for customers.

jeff18 6y ago

You were able to get sushi, dim sum, boba, bagels, or even steaks promptly delivered in a few clicks before 2013? DoorDash is an easy example of a startup that has made my life better, especially during a pandemic.

jannotti 6y ago
Grubbhub, Seamless, Eat24, Foodler, DiningIn. They were all around and fairly large by then. But they didn't go big on spending VC money, so over time DoorDash wins. Pretty interesting, however it turns out.
- rkho 6y ago
  Sorry I'm going to have to call on this. Until on-demand delivery companies like Doordash/Postmates came onto the scene, the vast majority of places I could have ordered delivery from were the standard fare of pizza, Chinese, Indian, and Thai food within a half mile radius from my home. What this generation unlocked was the ability to pay someone to grab you House of Prime Rib on Van Ness and deliver it halfway across the city. The value add here was "quality from halfway across the city, not just restaurants within a tiny radius who had large enough margins to afford to keep a driver on payroll". This also resulted in what we now see as the normalization of national fast food brands having a coordinated delivery offering.
  - jxramos 6y ago
    Thank you, this does well to answer the "compared to what" question--compared to a former world where these things did not exist.
  - throwdbaaway 6y ago
    I think the problem is that this achievement is unlocked mostly by subsidy. Without subsidy, many would just go back to the standard fare of pizza, Chinese, Indian, and Thai food within a half mile radius. We will first have to wait and see whether the on-demand delivery business model will work out in a cheaper country, e.g. GrabFood in Indonesia. Even in such country, my sense is that the restaurants are still getting charged too much to cover for the subsidy given the customers, while the delivery riders are still being paid too little and have to rely on infrequent big tips.

twelfthnight 6y ago

Agreed. This is everything wrong with the tech industry. This company isn't profitable, so this IPO is effectively a way for the shareholders to offload their bad stock to the public [0]. And if that's not bad enough, the company itself is using dubious tactics [1] which in the short run appeal to customers but in the long run may drive many restaurants out of business [2]. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2020/12/08/doordashs-new-valuation-is-even-more-ridiculous/?sh=5029d7b63b34 https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2020/12/08/do... [1] https://www.saddlebackbbq.com/how-google-doordash-grubhub-conspire-screw-local-restaurants https://www.saddlebackbbq.com/how-google-doordash-grubhub-co... [2] https://laist.com/2020/08/10/why_so_many_restaurants_hate_food_delivery_apps.php https://laist.com/2020/08/10/why_so_many_restaurants_hate_fo...

graaben 6y ago

What I just can't understand about companies like DoorDash, Uber Eats etc. is that it seems to be a lose-lose-lose proposition. It's more expensive for the consumer with restaurants often raising prices and delivery fees etc; the restaurants make less money per order; and the delivery drivers are often making less than minimum wage and rapidly depreciating their cars. And on top of that, these companies themselves are mostly unprofitable! So who is benefiting here? Where is the true value for society being created? Yes I can get any restaurant meal delivered to my home in 30-45 min, but is that one small benefit really enough to sustain a $60bn market cap?