3 ms·

I'm sympathetic to the plight of long-standing restaurant owners, who signed up for a different role in a different environment and didn't get a say in how the

I'm sympathetic to the plight of long-standing restaurant owners, who signed up for a different role in a different environment and didn't get a say in how the ecosystem evolved. But "parasitic" doesn't seem like a reasonable analysis. Food delivery apps offer a wide selection of choices that consumers find valuable. Valuable enough that, as the article describes, they're often willing to pay more than they would if they had ordered directly. Why is it parasitic for delivery apps to satisfy this demand at prevailing market prices? An argument that this is socially bad would be another thing. I could imagine a convincing article describing how restaurants are in a more precarious state than they used to be, and this has non-obvious second order effects on the quality of food or the general quality of life in a city. I don't understand the idea that there's a general moral obligation for delivery apps to charge their business partners less money.

sharemywin 3y ago
One problem is they aren't very transparent on fees. They charge both the business and the consumer. Probably offer the driver the minimum amount possible to entice them to do the delivery. And the business fees eat up much of the profit in the transaction. Also, this whole thing was built on free investor money in a wildly growling economy. What happens if demand sinks because consumers have to be more diligent with their money and 20% business fee + >$10 consumer fees + 20% tip isn't a good value anymore. it also drive up the prices on the rest customers because the business needs to raise prices across the board to survive.
- SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
  For most consumer products there's no fee transparency at all. When I buy a cabbage, I just get a price, not a detailed breakdown of how much money goes to the farmer, delivery truck driver, and grocery store. It might be higher or lower depending on where I shop, and I might be willing to pay more if the store is nicer or more convenient or I think they're more socially responsible. But I don't get the idea that transparency as such is an imperative here. If market conditions change and consumers have to be more diligent with their money, or funding conditions change and the delivery apps all discover that their business models are unsustainable, presumably customers can simply start ordering directly from restaurants again if that's the best way to get the food they want. It doesn't seem like there are any structural barriers to that.
Zanfa 3y ago
Not sure if parasitic is the correct term, but there's little to do with market prices when it comes to food delivery apps. They're all basically dumping with VC money, burning billions, driving out legitimate competitors.
wwweston 3y ago
I think you just made the argument, more or less -- there's an implicit moral obligation in noting that there are negative social impacts. As for whether the term parasite applies: - They move in and take over the channel for demand, often burning VC cash to do it - But they can't meet that demand for the product themselves, and therefore can't survive on their own - Once they sit in between those who can meet demand and the market, they mess with the cost structure without apparent consideration for whether or not they kill any given host One can imagine a more symbiotic relationship but if the restaurant owners are basically tell us that it's already reaching the point where they die if they go off the apps and they die if they stay on, it's pretty clear that something is wrong.
- namaria 3y ago
  Makes me think of the pizza app in Silicon Valley. I just realized they were likely satirizing this very model. Who knew it could become so entrenched...
- SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
  Any restaurant that finds itself in financial trouble can point to delivery apps and say, well, if they charged me less money I'd have more money. What's not obvious to me that this is any different from saying that they'd have more money if their landlord charged less money or their suppliers charged less money. It'd be one thing if delivery apps were "taking over" the demand channel in the sense that they're preventing customers from ordering directly. But that doesn't generally seem to be the case. As the article covers, it's not like delivery apps are even cheaper. (There was a story a while back where Grubhub was creating websites which looked like direct orders but weren't - I have no qualms about calling that parasitic.)

sharemywin 3y ago

One problem is they aren't very transparent on fees. They charge both the business and the consumer. Probably offer the driver the minimum amount possible to entice them to do the delivery. And the business fees eat up much of the profit in the transaction. Also, this whole thing was built on free investor money in a wildly growling economy. What happens if demand sinks because consumers have to be more diligent with their money and 20% business fee + >$10 consumer fees + 20% tip isn't a good value anymore. it also drive up the prices on the rest customers because the business needs to raise prices across the board to survive.

SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
For most consumer products there's no fee transparency at all. When I buy a cabbage, I just get a price, not a detailed breakdown of how much money goes to the farmer, delivery truck driver, and grocery store. It might be higher or lower depending on where I shop, and I might be willing to pay more if the store is nicer or more convenient or I think they're more socially responsible. But I don't get the idea that transparency as such is an imperative here. If market conditions change and consumers have to be more diligent with their money, or funding conditions change and the delivery apps all discover that their business models are unsustainable, presumably customers can simply start ordering directly from restaurants again if that's the best way to get the food they want. It doesn't seem like there are any structural barriers to that.

Zanfa 3y ago

Not sure if parasitic is the correct term, but there's little to do with market prices when it comes to food delivery apps. They're all basically dumping with VC money, burning billions, driving out legitimate competitors.

wwweston 3y ago

I think you just made the argument, more or less -- there's an implicit moral obligation in noting that there are negative social impacts. As for whether the term parasite applies: - They move in and take over the channel for demand, often burning VC cash to do it - But they can't meet that demand for the product themselves, and therefore can't survive on their own - Once they sit in between those who can meet demand and the market, they mess with the cost structure without apparent consideration for whether or not they kill any given host One can imagine a more symbiotic relationship but if the restaurant owners are basically tell us that it's already reaching the point where they die if they go off the apps and they die if they stay on, it's pretty clear that something is wrong.

namaria 3y ago
Makes me think of the pizza app in Silicon Valley. I just realized they were likely satirizing this very model. Who knew it could become so entrenched...
SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
Any restaurant that finds itself in financial trouble can point to delivery apps and say, well, if they charged me less money I'd have more money. What's not obvious to me that this is any different from saying that they'd have more money if their landlord charged less money or their suppliers charged less money. It'd be one thing if delivery apps were "taking over" the demand channel in the sense that they're preventing customers from ordering directly. But that doesn't generally seem to be the case. As the article covers, it's not like delivery apps are even cheaper. (There was a story a while back where Grubhub was creating websites which looked like direct orders but weren't - I have no qualms about calling that parasitic.)