3 ms·

Did you ever try getting groceries/food (other than pizza) delivered before the apps? Uber didn’t replace a better option, they made it literally possible to ge

by bgun 3y ago

Did you ever try getting groceries/food (other than pizza) delivered before the apps? Uber didn’t replace a better option, they made it literally possible to get these services in many places where it wasn’t an option at all. And in areas like Manhattan, where city cabs and delivery options abound - the the fact that many (most?) people still use UberEats/DD is instructive. The value of convenience is significant. I happily pay to avoid the mental overhead of shitty restaurant websites or repeating a paragraph-long group order back and forth across a poor kitchen speakerphone call. Yes the current system has many flaws but let’s not pretend it was utopia before.

close04 3y ago
> they made it literally possible to get these services These companies also made it possible for restaurants to be taken hostage and be registered for delivery services or marked as closed/unavailable on those platforms against their wishes, or pay even 60+% commission on an order for the service. Once only a couple of these companies are left standing and have all restaurants in a chokehold I'm convinced the situation will be even "better". > the the fact that many (most?) people still use UberEats/DD is instructive Yes, it says that too many people do what's best for them and them alone. It's not as instructive as you think. Many people had slaves because it was good for the owner. What did you learn from that case of "many people do it"? > I happily pay You don't and don't even realize that. You get an overall cheaper service but someone pays. Usually the restaurant owner, employees, and delivery people. Maybe some VCs too, for now, while they don't completely own the market. Just like Amazon's same day delivery means some driver has to pee in a bottle for close to minimum wage but otherwise it's absolutely a huge win for everyone who is you, needing the delivery now.
skywhopper 3y ago
UberEats and DoorDash are still money-losing operations that subsidize the actual cost of the service, despite rising prices, barely paying their workers, and abusing their relationship with restaurants.
ryukoposting 3y ago
> before the apps You're right, it sucked. Here's the thing: we can have the shiny, sleek ordering system without the stupid parts of the Uber/GrubHub/whatever business model. You've probably used Toast before. > in areas like Manhattan, where city cabs and delivery options abound - the the fact that many (most?) people still use UberEats/DD is instructive I would have leaned towards "destructive" but I get your point.
morpheos137 3y ago
The value of convenience may be significant but is it really great enough to find the cost of providing that convenience without external subsidy over the long run. To me it is ridiculous that anybody thought local personal services like food delivery, dog walking, and taxi driving could ever be converted into durable, efficient, profitable national or global monopolies. In the absence of monopoly power such low barrier to entry commodity services invariably see their profit margins squeezed to cost from competition. All this is freshman or highschool level economics.

by bgun 3y ago

close04 3y ago

> they made it literally possible to get these services These companies also made it possible for restaurants to be taken hostage and be registered for delivery services or marked as closed/unavailable on those platforms against their wishes, or pay even 60+% commission on an order for the service. Once only a couple of these companies are left standing and have all restaurants in a chokehold I'm convinced the situation will be even "better". > the the fact that many (most?) people still use UberEats/DD is instructive Yes, it says that too many people do what's best for them and them alone. It's not as instructive as you think. Many people had slaves because it was good for the owner. What did you learn from that case of "many people do it"? > I happily pay You don't and don't even realize that. You get an overall cheaper service but someone pays. Usually the restaurant owner, employees, and delivery people. Maybe some VCs too, for now, while they don't completely own the market. Just like Amazon's same day delivery means some driver has to pee in a bottle for close to minimum wage but otherwise it's absolutely a huge win for everyone who is you, needing the delivery now.

skywhopper 3y ago

UberEats and DoorDash are still money-losing operations that subsidize the actual cost of the service, despite rising prices, barely paying their workers, and abusing their relationship with restaurants.

ryukoposting 3y ago

> before the apps You're right, it sucked. Here's the thing: we can have the shiny, sleek ordering system without the stupid parts of the Uber/GrubHub/whatever business model. You've probably used Toast before. > in areas like Manhattan, where city cabs and delivery options abound - the the fact that many (most?) people still use UberEats/DD is instructive I would have leaned towards "destructive" but I get your point.

morpheos137 3y ago

The value of convenience may be significant but is it really great enough to find the cost of providing that convenience without external subsidy over the long run. To me it is ridiculous that anybody thought local personal services like food delivery, dog walking, and taxi driving could ever be converted into durable, efficient, profitable national or global monopolies. In the absence of monopoly power such low barrier to entry commodity services invariably see their profit margins squeezed to cost from competition. All this is freshman or highschool level economics.