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 ob

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.)