A pizzeria owner made money buying his own $24 pizzas from DoorDash for $16 (2020)(theverge.com)
theverge.com
A pizzeria owner made money buying his own $24 pizzas from DoorDash for $16 (2020)
https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/18/21262316/doordash-pizza-profits-venture-capital-the-margins-ranjan-roy
361 comments
(2020), and discussed previously here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23216852
Also discussed a month ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32086170
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32086170
"It’s used to subsidize an untenable customer expectation. You leverage a broken workforce to minimize your genuine labor expenses."
With the steady erosion of the quality of the drivers, I don't even expect to receive my order in a timely fashion, in good condition, and without any drama from the drivers. I've essentially stopped getting delivery which is a bad sign since I'm basically the target audience: single, urban dweller, disposable income, willing to pay $5-10 premium to not have to pick it up from myself.
No particularly noteworthy stories, mostly just a series of odd encounters. Probably the funniest (in retrospect) was the taco order where I could see on the app the guy parked the next block over, and I get a call from him like 20 minutes later that he's "lost" my order and is going back to go replace it. Well he finally shows up at my place like an hour late with a fresh order of tacos reeking of weed. So he probably burned one down in the car and ate my tacos, but at least he made good. Why he couldn't deliver my original tacos and go get his own, I will never know.
With the steady erosion of the quality of the drivers, I don't even expect to receive my order in a timely fashion, in good condition, and without any drama from the drivers. I've essentially stopped getting delivery which is a bad sign since I'm basically the target audience: single, urban dweller, disposable income, willing to pay $5-10 premium to not have to pick it up from myself.
No particularly noteworthy stories, mostly just a series of odd encounters. Probably the funniest (in retrospect) was the taco order where I could see on the app the guy parked the next block over, and I get a call from him like 20 minutes later that he's "lost" my order and is going back to go replace it. Well he finally shows up at my place like an hour late with a fresh order of tacos reeking of weed. So he probably burned one down in the car and ate my tacos, but at least he made good. Why he couldn't deliver my original tacos and go get his own, I will never know.
Oh my god it's the drama I can't handle. A notable anecdote for me was when one randomly shone a strobe light at me. I'm epileptic.
It's a thankless job, most of the value is extracted by the middle men (who realistically should be getting the least since they can scale to thousands of transactions like it per hour).
I'd happily pay a premium if it went to the people doing the actual ground work, but that doesn't exist.
I'd happily pay a premium if it went to the people doing the actual ground work, but that doesn't exist.
https://delivery.coop/
https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2021/07/13/delivery-fee-...
https://www.marketplace.org/2021/08/18/why-are-some-restaura...
https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2021/07/13/delivery-fee-...
https://www.marketplace.org/2021/08/18/why-are-some-restaura...
0 restaurants delivering to downtown Chicago, the second largest central business district in the world after midtown Manhattan.
I’d be happy to pay extra for delivery and try out places outside of walking distance if I knew the money was going to restaurants and drivers. But for all their complaints about DoorDash, the restaurants aren’t making themselves accessible elsewhere. The delivery companies put in work that restaurants weren't, and aren't able or willing to do, and that's part of the reason they have such high revenue (all concerns about quality and sustainability aside).
I’d be happy to pay extra for delivery and try out places outside of walking distance if I knew the money was going to restaurants and drivers. But for all their complaints about DoorDash, the restaurants aren’t making themselves accessible elsewhere. The delivery companies put in work that restaurants weren't, and aren't able or willing to do, and that's part of the reason they have such high revenue (all concerns about quality and sustainability aside).
> But for all their complaints about DoorDash, the restaurants aren’t making themselves accessible elsewhere.
Isn't DoorDash's "growth hack" to fake cooperation with restaurants and have their drivers just pickup food and pay for it like an ordinary customer?
Isn't DoorDash's "growth hack" to fake cooperation with restaurants and have their drivers just pickup food and pay for it like an ordinary customer?
If I understand correctly, the delivery.coop site only seems to cover Lexington, Kentucky? It is a cool idea.
Unfortunately it seems that only the predatory delivery apps have spread nationwide.
Unfortunately it seems that only the predatory delivery apps have spread nationwide.
I'm in the same boat. I used to get food delivered often, but ever since the proliferation of "delivery fee is NOT a tip", I don't think delivery is worth it. Picking up my own food only takes a few minutes and is an excuse to go for a walk. Furthermore the timing is more reliable and I can count on my food actually being hot.
Delivery is only worth it if getting a DWI is on the table. Literally the only time I get DoorDash/GrubHub/etc is when I'm drunk and shouldn't drive. A DWI ticket and the expense that'll incur is well worth paying someone a delivery fee.
EDIT: I suppose I have to also mention that killing people by my drunk driving is also a good reason to use DoorDash. Just thought maybe that was obvious...
EDIT: I suppose I have to also mention that killing people by my drunk driving is also a good reason to use DoorDash. Just thought maybe that was obvious...
The only time I have recently used delivery is if I am sick and unable to go pick up the takeout. Otherwise it's too expensive and a $15 plate turns into a $29 total cost. I'll still get pizza delivered though from some places.
Oh absolutely makes sense when you're sick! Every time I get a COVID shot/booster, the next day without fail I'm sick as a dog. My go to has been Panera Bread's broccoli cheddar soup and bread. And it's definitely worth the delivery fees, and tip to not have to get dressed and drive to the local restaurant.
I just walk. Not an option for everybody I know, but the unwalkability of American cities is greatly exaggerated in my experience.
LA's walkability is terrible in a lot of places, but people also just refuse to walk distances that people regularly walk in NY or Chicago. There's just an attitude that everything starts by getting in the car.
Of course, there's also the risk of causing an accident...
I pretty much only use delivery for restaurants that have their own delivery service instead of through these apps. This does limit it to pizza places mostly but at least the owner/manager cares if you complain and actually does something to fix the issues.
Thankfully there is no tipping culture here so none of the drivers expect to get tips. Obviously the actual delivery fees are just higher instead but the drivers don’t have to rely on the altruism of the customers to make sensible money.
Thankfully there is no tipping culture here so none of the drivers expect to get tips. Obviously the actual delivery fees are just higher instead but the drivers don’t have to rely on the altruism of the customers to make sensible money.
For vehicle based delivery in cars...
Apps like these are relying on people who've already sunk some huge amount of money into a car and are not doing the fully loaded cost per mile calculation of operating a car in stop-and-go delivery service in an urban environment.
If you calculate the purchase cost of car, insurance, fuel, repairs/maintenance, tires, oil changes, depreciation etc, it's quite bad.
The actual amount of money earned by the delivery person after subtracting the fully loaded cost of the car is often near minimum wage in some states.
Much the same as Lyft and Uber actually.
Apps like these are relying on people who've already sunk some huge amount of money into a car and are not doing the fully loaded cost per mile calculation of operating a car in stop-and-go delivery service in an urban environment.
If you calculate the purchase cost of car, insurance, fuel, repairs/maintenance, tires, oil changes, depreciation etc, it's quite bad.
The actual amount of money earned by the delivery person after subtracting the fully loaded cost of the car is often near minimum wage in some states.
Much the same as Lyft and Uber actually.
The cost per mile for the class of people making these comments is not the same as the cost per mile for the guy doing delivery work.
You probably drive a nice new Camry or some other vehicle that is far from the "floor value for A to B transportation in a given mechanical condition" and will fall in value precipitously as it hits various milestones. The delivery driver has some 15yo car with over 150k on it where value is purely dependent on mechanical condition.
You probably replace your tires when your mechanic tells you. These delivery driver runs them until they're bald.
You take your car to the premium mechanic. The delivery driver has "a guy" who does 99% of his basic maintenance for cheap and only ever has big stuff done at the mechanic.
These people (the ones who understand the economics of what they do, which is most of them) don't maintain their cars like techies do. They take a page out of the age old "pizza delivery" playbook. With the highly variable nature of distance driven and compensation these people are generally well aware of operational costs vs gross income. You kind of have to be.
You probably drive a nice new Camry or some other vehicle that is far from the "floor value for A to B transportation in a given mechanical condition" and will fall in value precipitously as it hits various milestones. The delivery driver has some 15yo car with over 150k on it where value is purely dependent on mechanical condition.
You probably replace your tires when your mechanic tells you. These delivery driver runs them until they're bald.
You take your car to the premium mechanic. The delivery driver has "a guy" who does 99% of his basic maintenance for cheap and only ever has big stuff done at the mechanic.
These people (the ones who understand the economics of what they do, which is most of them) don't maintain their cars like techies do. They take a page out of the age old "pizza delivery" playbook. With the highly variable nature of distance driven and compensation these people are generally well aware of operational costs vs gross income. You kind of have to be.
when I say that a delivery driver has sunk some huge amount of money into a car, relative to their annual income, it's probably proportional to what I pay for a modern japanese car.
if you make $32k a year, a $4000 corolla is a lot of money.
it is not at all the same economics as the actual historical method of pizza delivery by cheap crappy car, because of the greatly increased cost of fuel (while delivery driver wages are nearly the same now as they were 20 years ago), and the fact that the traditional delivery driver is paid almost entirely in cash.
if you make $32k a year, a $4000 corolla is a lot of money.
it is not at all the same economics as the actual historical method of pizza delivery by cheap crappy car, because of the greatly increased cost of fuel (while delivery driver wages are nearly the same now as they were 20 years ago), and the fact that the traditional delivery driver is paid almost entirely in cash.
It's a car. Not a semi truck. The delivery driver isn't treating the car as a capital investment that is used to make money delivering stuff. The overwhelming of them are just taking advantage of a car they already have.
that's exactly what I'm saying, they're effectively using up the fractional lifespan of the car they already have sunk money into, and already possess, without doing the fully informed calculation on what it's actually costing them.
taking advantage of a car you already have still has a calculable financial cost in how much fuel and wear/tear you put on a car doing a theoretical 8 hour delivery shift.
app based delivery service things are relying upon the delivery people not calculating the fully loaded cost of their time and vehicle together to determine their own real net wage.
taking advantage of a car you already have still has a calculable financial cost in how much fuel and wear/tear you put on a car doing a theoretical 8 hour delivery shift.
app based delivery service things are relying upon the delivery people not calculating the fully loaded cost of their time and vehicle together to determine their own real net wage.
You just don't get it. Even after amortized maintenance you're making money doing delivery. Not much, but you are. Certainly on the order of min-wage on a bad day and much better on a busy day.
If you want more money you have the choice between picking up an inflexible 2nd or 3rd low hour job vs filling that time doing gig economy crap using stuff you already own (a car). Gig economy crap might not pay well after expenses, but is still very much net positive after expenses.
They know that cars cost money per mile to run. They might not know exactly how much but they have a pretty good idea on an annual basis. If picking up a crappy min-wage job that requires you to keep to their schedule is the alternative then gig economy crap is often the least worst option.
These people aren't idiots. Stop acting like they are. This is one of the things HN does that really pisses me off. As a rule poor people are much, much, much better at tracking cumulative expenses than the kind of people who shop at whole foods and only have a vague idea of what things cost because they can afford it either way and don't actually need to hone that skillset.
If you want more money you have the choice between picking up an inflexible 2nd or 3rd low hour job vs filling that time doing gig economy crap using stuff you already own (a car). Gig economy crap might not pay well after expenses, but is still very much net positive after expenses.
They know that cars cost money per mile to run. They might not know exactly how much but they have a pretty good idea on an annual basis. If picking up a crappy min-wage job that requires you to keep to their schedule is the alternative then gig economy crap is often the least worst option.
These people aren't idiots. Stop acting like they are. This is one of the things HN does that really pisses me off. As a rule poor people are much, much, much better at tracking cumulative expenses than the kind of people who shop at whole foods and only have a vague idea of what things cost because they can afford it either way and don't actually need to hone that skillset.
All of your comment reads like some excuse why VC funded food delivery app companies should continue to abuse low wage workers, because of course they're fully informed and know what they're getting into. These are the people who ultimately often end up with something like the WA state minimum wage after all expenses are subtracted.
I didn't say that they're idiots, my point was that they're being taken advantage of in the current economic situation that they exist in.
Maybe you should question why these people are apparently forced to pick between nothing other than an effectively-minimum-wage gig economy job with no benefits or job security, or a minimum wage job assembling food at taco bell or something and nothing better, effectively operating as a permanent underclass. From the way you describe it you seem to be totally okay with that situation in the economy. I'm not.
> If you want more money you have the choice between picking up an inflexible 2nd or 3rd low hour job
oh for fuck's sake, why don't you just tell people that they should lick the boots of their gig economy no-benefits "employer" some more? get a 2nd or 3rd job just to exist in this late stage capitalist hellscape with 4 roommates in any major city.
I didn't say that they're idiots, my point was that they're being taken advantage of in the current economic situation that they exist in.
Maybe you should question why these people are apparently forced to pick between nothing other than an effectively-minimum-wage gig economy job with no benefits or job security, or a minimum wage job assembling food at taco bell or something and nothing better, effectively operating as a permanent underclass. From the way you describe it you seem to be totally okay with that situation in the economy. I'm not.
> If you want more money you have the choice between picking up an inflexible 2nd or 3rd low hour job
oh for fuck's sake, why don't you just tell people that they should lick the boots of their gig economy no-benefits "employer" some more? get a 2nd or 3rd job just to exist in this late stage capitalist hellscape with 4 roommates in any major city.
IDK what your dumb deal is here.
The gig economy crap isn't bad. It's just another set of options in the sea of crap jobs. If anything it puts pressure on jobs that pay a little better to be more flexible.
If these people really thought they were getting the shaft they'd have gone and got other equally crap jobs. We're leaving what was probably one of the lowest unemployment periods in US history. It's not like the bulk of these people couldn't have been mixing paint at Lowes, pushing a broom, manning a cash register at Walmart, schlepping boxes around a warehouse or stripping drain plugs at Jiffy Lube had they felt so inclined to. But instead they took these gig jobs? Why? Because all things considered it was less crappy than the next best also crappy option.
>oh for fuck's sake, why don't you just tell people that they should lick the boots of their gig economy no-benefits "employer" some more? get a 2nd or 3rd job just to exist in this late stage capitalist hellscape with 4 roommates in any major city.
Stop being dense. Nobody is falling for it. These gig jobs are not typically primary jobs. They make shit primary jobs because the income is variable week to week. They're typically people's 2nd or 3rd job that they can schedule around their primary one.
The gig economy crap isn't bad. It's just another set of options in the sea of crap jobs. If anything it puts pressure on jobs that pay a little better to be more flexible.
If these people really thought they were getting the shaft they'd have gone and got other equally crap jobs. We're leaving what was probably one of the lowest unemployment periods in US history. It's not like the bulk of these people couldn't have been mixing paint at Lowes, pushing a broom, manning a cash register at Walmart, schlepping boxes around a warehouse or stripping drain plugs at Jiffy Lube had they felt so inclined to. But instead they took these gig jobs? Why? Because all things considered it was less crappy than the next best also crappy option.
>oh for fuck's sake, why don't you just tell people that they should lick the boots of their gig economy no-benefits "employer" some more? get a 2nd or 3rd job just to exist in this late stage capitalist hellscape with 4 roommates in any major city.
Stop being dense. Nobody is falling for it. These gig jobs are not typically primary jobs. They make shit primary jobs because the income is variable week to week. They're typically people's 2nd or 3rd job that they can schedule around their primary one.
Your disdain and callous disregard for the rights of low wage earners living paycheck-to-paycheck or worse is clearly evident in your classist comments on "pushing brooms", "schlepping boxes" or "stripping drain plugs", I will not engage further.
I used to push brooms, schlepp boxes and strip drain plugs. And I'd go right back to that last one if it paid what tech does (actually I lied, I'd go work in a junkyard, can't strip the drain plug if you never put it back and better work atmosphere).
If you want to sugar coat the reality of these jobs you're doing it for yourself, not for them. These jobs are low skill, low pay and low status and the people doing them know it. They have bigger problems then whether specific language choices do or don't offend the sensibilities of the ivory tower crowd.
If you want to sugar coat the reality of these jobs you're doing it for yourself, not for them. These jobs are low skill, low pay and low status and the people doing them know it. They have bigger problems then whether specific language choices do or don't offend the sensibilities of the ivory tower crowd.
Put another way, the cost of operating a car that involves any significant amount of mileage over time--especially in areas that don't see a lot of corrosion due to salted road roads in winter--is mostly per-mile costs not time-based. If you drive your car a lot, there's very little free money that you're tapping into.
But pizza places have been doing delivery for decades with employee cars. Why is it now "bad" when a tech company does it? The scale?
Pizza packs well, is ordered in large quantities, is easy to store on the seat, is fairly high margin, stacks, and the stores doing this delivery have dedicated drivers with good estimates for how much volume they'll be doing in a night and a fixed supply of drivers with guaranteed wages. They also didn't deliver as far.
App drivers are constantly playing this game of guessing where the next order will come from and where they'll end up.
App drivers are constantly playing this game of guessing where the next order will come from and where they'll end up.
Also Pizza companies doing their own delivery may be happy with the delivery fee being less than their cost of delivery if it gets them more orders than they would otherwise as long as the order is profitable. e.g. $10 pizza with $2 delivery and $8 cost of production and $3 cost of delivery in range. Each hand picked up pizza makes $2 profit, each pizza delivered makes $1, but if the amount of net new orders from doing delivery is >2x the amount of people that switch from pickup to delivery then the business profits.
In the app case, the business may still benefit (except now the apps have pressure to try extract discounts from the business), but that -$1 for delivery is either being subsidised by VC funding which won't last, or by paying the delivery staff less than their real costs.
In the app case, the business may still benefit (except now the apps have pressure to try extract discounts from the business), but that -$1 for delivery is either being subsidised by VC funding which won't last, or by paying the delivery staff less than their real costs.
a) traditionally, the delivery driver keeps the entire tip in cash. there's no bullshit "delivery fees" added to an order which actually don't go to the driver.
b) it used to be a lot less costly to operate a basic car in the US/Canada on a dollar per mile or km basis
b) it used to be a lot less costly to operate a basic car in the US/Canada on a dollar per mile or km basis
To point A, delivery fees have been around for a while and have never gone to the driver. Is there some app or scenario in which the driver doesn't keep the entire tip? Because I'm not aware of any.
To point B, how is this tech-specific? The question was about why someone driving their car to deliver for Domino's is OK but driving their car to deliver for DoorDash is exploitation.
To point B, how is this tech-specific? The question was about why someone driving their car to deliver for Domino's is OK but driving their car to deliver for DoorDash is exploitation.
point A, app based food delivery services with "delivery fee" charged to the customer and not passed on to the driver is a new thing.
15 or 20 years ago if you order a pizza from your local pizza place, the price you pay for the pizza is fixed and known, and you tip the driver in cash. there's no extra 3rd charge line item for "delivery" anywhere.
point B, the advent of app based food delivery in the past 8 years happens to coincide with greatly increased cost of operating the car. I was explaining why traditional method of delivery used to be much more economically viable. Two things happening simultaneously, increase in cost of fuel and operating cars and the increased popularity of app based food delivery does not mean correlation equals causation.
15 or 20 years ago if you order a pizza from your local pizza place, the price you pay for the pizza is fixed and known, and you tip the driver in cash. there's no extra 3rd charge line item for "delivery" anywhere.
point B, the advent of app based food delivery in the past 8 years happens to coincide with greatly increased cost of operating the car. I was explaining why traditional method of delivery used to be much more economically viable. Two things happening simultaneously, increase in cost of fuel and operating cars and the increased popularity of app based food delivery does not mean correlation equals causation.
tips weren't that good back in the older days. most people only tipped a $1 if anything and thought the delivery fee went to the driver which in a way it did because they usually got paid hourly plus a small fee.
I'm guessing at least part of the reason is that old school delivery driving doesn't have to be profitable, only the whole business does. If you have a healthy margin per pizza, that margin can subsidise the loss made per delivery. You just have to make sure that the profit from the increased number of pizzas sold makes up for the cost of delivery and you're good.
Food delivery services, on the other hand, have to make the delivery itself not only profitable, but profitable enough to produce a somewhat livable wage for the driver once expenses like gas and car wear are accounted for, and the whole company has to live off of whatever it can siphon off from what the drivers get.
Food delivery services, on the other hand, have to make the delivery itself not only profitable, but profitable enough to produce a somewhat livable wage for the driver once expenses like gas and car wear are accounted for, and the whole company has to live off of whatever it can siphon off from what the drivers get.
$300,000,000 in investor money to earn back, software people earning $300,000/year, managers for them, etc. Divided amongst a lot of premises, yes, but still expensive. Instead of just a couple guys answering a phone.
There weren't any significant problems with the legacy model. Pizza delivery staff didn't try to talk you into accepting a cheese pizza instead of pepperoni. They didn't lie about their credit card machine not working. They showed up just like the new services, and specifying the order in English usually also worked well. Which were all problems with taxis pre-Uber.
Pickup customers subsidized the cost of delivery. drivers earned money folding boxes, delivering flyers other prep work. and drivers would take upto 4 orders at a time.
> Why is it now "bad" when a tech company does it? The scale?
I think it's because of how badly they're doing it. They're operating at a significant loss, with unhappy customers, unhappy drivers, unhappy restaurants, and poor service.
I think it's because of how badly they're doing it. They're operating at a significant loss, with unhappy customers, unhappy drivers, unhappy restaurants, and poor service.
Every time I've gotten food delivery, I regretted it. Late, cold and expensive. It's usually faster if I pick it up myself.
> willing to pay $5-10 premium to not have to pick it up from myself
You're going to have to pay a lot more. The model can't be sustained at this price. Once the driver pays for gas and (over time) wear and tear on the car, even with healthy tips this ends up being sub-minimum wage. We got used to that price when VC money was subsidizing it and gas was half the price it is now.
Yeah you can read someone's personal account on how they are able to clear $20 an hour regularly doing delivery, but they have to employ all kinds of strategies to do so, including taking multiple orders at once, purposely ignoring orders that are unlikely to have significant tips, and completely ignoring entire sections of the city that aren't "hotspots" with tons of restaurants cranking through orders. Not to mention they are still probably undercounting the cost of wear on their car, and most people touting their delivery driver profitability are probably exaggerating.
You're going to have to pay a lot more. The model can't be sustained at this price. Once the driver pays for gas and (over time) wear and tear on the car, even with healthy tips this ends up being sub-minimum wage. We got used to that price when VC money was subsidizing it and gas was half the price it is now.
Yeah you can read someone's personal account on how they are able to clear $20 an hour regularly doing delivery, but they have to employ all kinds of strategies to do so, including taking multiple orders at once, purposely ignoring orders that are unlikely to have significant tips, and completely ignoring entire sections of the city that aren't "hotspots" with tons of restaurants cranking through orders. Not to mention they are still probably undercounting the cost of wear on their car, and most people touting their delivery driver profitability are probably exaggerating.
What if we factor in multiple deliveries per trip, and ghost kitchens?
For the former, I wish there was an app that notified me when a neighbor orders from a restaurant I’ve frequented, near a time of day I’ve ordered. They could offer a discount for piggyback orders, since the cost to the driver is negligible and they can convince the restaurant that they provided the value-add of the additional revenue.
For the former, I wish there was an app that notified me when a neighbor orders from a restaurant I’ve frequented, near a time of day I’ve ordered. They could offer a discount for piggyback orders, since the cost to the driver is negligible and they can convince the restaurant that they provided the value-add of the additional revenue.
“ wish there was an app that notified me when a neighbor orders from a restaurant I’ve frequented, near a time of day I’ve ordered.”
That’s a privacy nightmare.
That’s a privacy nightmare.
The messaging from the app wouldnt/shouldn't be about what your neighbor did, just that you have a limited time offer for a discount.
That they take the data gathering and analytics they already do to provide some customer benefit?
Let's be clear, this will happen regardless if you get the notification or not. Your purchases are going to be analyzed down to the second you made the purchase.
Let's be clear, this will happen regardless if you get the notification or not. Your purchases are going to be analyzed down to the second you made the purchase.
Yes, but the metadata that is analyzed is not something that is being pushed to your neighbor's phone.
> ... when a neighbor orders from a restaurant ...
More to the point, it stays "safe" until (let's be real) there is a data breach. That's less of a privacy nightmare when you consider there's a much smaller range of actors that will use the data from a breach. Contrariwise, the ability to just query their API for some of that data gets turned into an app that someone's stalker ex downloads so they can proceed with stalking.
Privacy nightmare indeed.
> ... when a neighbor orders from a restaurant ...
More to the point, it stays "safe" until (let's be real) there is a data breach. That's less of a privacy nightmare when you consider there's a much smaller range of actors that will use the data from a breach. Contrariwise, the ability to just query their API for some of that data gets turned into an app that someone's stalker ex downloads so they can proceed with stalking.
Privacy nightmare indeed.
I would say that there is a massive leap to go from "an app will occasionally tell you someone in your general area ordered from X" to "stalkers download this so they can stalk someone".
"Neighbors" is a loose term. It doesn't literally mean only the people you live immediately next to. Aside from the fact that the person receiving the notification has no information about the radius this notification was triggered by, there would also not be identifying information in the notification. You're not being told "That person across the hall, John Smith, bought a large pizza from ABC pizza ten minutes ago and is on his way to pick it up now".
A stalker would get no actionable information from "Someone in your area ordered sushi from XYZ".
There is also no indication that this would be available in any sort of publicly scrapable API, I really don't know where you pulled that from. Push notifications, by definition, are not queried for.
"Neighbors" is a loose term. It doesn't literally mean only the people you live immediately next to. Aside from the fact that the person receiving the notification has no information about the radius this notification was triggered by, there would also not be identifying information in the notification. You're not being told "That person across the hall, John Smith, bought a large pizza from ABC pizza ten minutes ago and is on his way to pick it up now".
A stalker would get no actionable information from "Someone in your area ordered sushi from XYZ".
There is also no indication that this would be available in any sort of publicly scrapable API, I really don't know where you pulled that from. Push notifications, by definition, are not queried for.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t suggesting that anyone outside the company get any information about you or your order. They would just find out that a neighbor (loosely defined) has placed an order from a restaurant you like. That’s it.
If a platform created this feature I imagine they would also prime the pump with dishonest notifications about “a neighbor ordered from X restaurant”, with the expectation that they could parlay a single fake order into many real ones.
If a platform created this feature I imagine they would also prime the pump with dishonest notifications about “a neighbor ordered from X restaurant”, with the expectation that they could parlay a single fake order into many real ones.
I didn't even want to go into pumping notifications, but my mind also went there.
[deleted]
Postmates actually had this feature, called "party orders" where you can latch onto an existing order for no delivery fee (just your standard platform fees+tip). It'd show a rotating list of places you could order from, updating every five minutes.
Incredibly US-centric comment and responses.
If you think delivery is unsustainable because cars cost money, I got news for you: You live in a bubble, and it's the cars that are unsustainable.
Outside of the car-centric world of US suburbia, most of the western world is actually doing deliveries on scooters and ebikes, which are very quick to navigate medium-to-high-density cities and can do several deliveries per trip.
I've ordered a lot on Takeaway, at least once a week on average. The last time I saw somebody pull up in a car was during the COVID lockdowns, and I suspect it's because there was basically nobody on the streets.
The business model is broken, because car-centrism is broken. In the civilized world, things are ok.
Either way, fuck Uber. There's better alternatives.
If you think delivery is unsustainable because cars cost money, I got news for you: You live in a bubble, and it's the cars that are unsustainable.
Outside of the car-centric world of US suburbia, most of the western world is actually doing deliveries on scooters and ebikes, which are very quick to navigate medium-to-high-density cities and can do several deliveries per trip.
I've ordered a lot on Takeaway, at least once a week on average. The last time I saw somebody pull up in a car was during the COVID lockdowns, and I suspect it's because there was basically nobody on the streets.
The business model is broken, because car-centrism is broken. In the civilized world, things are ok.
Either way, fuck Uber. There's better alternatives.
> Incredibly US-centric comment and responses.
Just because you might have a different experience doesn't mean this is US centric. The same happens across Canada and in several big cities in South America.
Just because you might have a different experience doesn't mean this is US centric. The same happens across Canada and in several big cities in South America.
If you can demonstrate that the comment I was replying to was talking about South America, give me your address and I will snail mail you a cookie.
Are food deliveries in densely populated US cities really done using cars? Why? All e-bikes/scooters here (city of >5 mil in Aus).
> densely populated US cities
Many big US cities really aren't densely populated. e,g, including 2 of the 4 largest: LA & Houston.
Many big US cities really aren't densely populated. e,g, including 2 of the 4 largest: LA & Houston.
Which is why I specified that. Outside of the inner 15km radius big cities in Australia aren't at all densely populated either, and cars probably are used for delivery there. But 90% of the deliveries I observe are in that radius!
In Seattle, all of my DoorDash deliveries were people using cars.
Having spent a few days in downtown seattle that surprises me, I can't think why a delivery driver would choose to use a car over something smaller.
Might be because I was specifically ordering from places that _weren't_ downtown. Like many others on the thread, I don't particularly care for the delivery services so I really only use them to grab things where it's infeasible for me to go get them myself. With public transit, getting food downtown was easy so I was ordering from places out to the east.
They probably already have a car.
I'm sure plenty of food delivery drivers have cars here too, but the cost/ parking/traffic issues involved in using one for such deliveries in a higher density metropolis make them kind of impractical...
To your point about US suburbia, I'm not sure how it is in other big cities but I was blown away my first visit to Manhattan from suburbia when I realized that almost all the bikes parked on sidewalks were for delivery drivers. There were some amazing rigs. They'd tape over any identifying characteristic of the bike and fasten all sorts of hand warmers to the handle bars (everything from oven mitts to plastic bags). I got to travel to Manhattan for work for several years and it was neat watching the transition from bike, to retro-fitted e-bike, etc.
I ... think I'm calling NYC part of the "civilized world" and I'm not sure how to feel.
I ... think I'm calling NYC part of the "civilized world" and I'm not sure how to feel.
I agree with your comment, NYC is quite special (Manhattan at any rate).
I remember seeing a map of the US denoting whether the majority of commute was done by personal car vs public transport. The entirety of the US was by personal car… except for NYC. It had a bit of an Astérix feel to it.
I remember seeing a map of the US denoting whether the majority of commute was done by personal car vs public transport. The entirety of the US was by personal car… except for NYC. It had a bit of an Astérix feel to it.
Are the other companies better? Which ones have you used?
I used UberEats once (in Sydney) because I had one of those coupons. UberEats was garbage. Cost too much and I could have gone to the place myself and returned in half the time.
I used UberEats once (in Sydney) because I had one of those coupons. UberEats was garbage. Cost too much and I could have gone to the place myself and returned in half the time.
Takeaway is really nice in Europe IMO. I’ve also used Deliveroo and they are okay but less popular where I live.
I can’t advice beyond that but Uber is awful awful awful. Every time I give them a chance I regret it, be it on price, support, ethics, quality …
I can’t advice beyond that but Uber is awful awful awful. Every time I give them a chance I regret it, be it on price, support, ethics, quality …
Shockingly, most food delivery people don’t use cars…
This is the weirdest straw man. Scooters are cheaper to operate and faster if there’s any traffic.
This is the weirdest straw man. Scooters are cheaper to operate and faster if there’s any traffic.
Why do you claim “most”? Are you certain? Do you have data? I saw a lot of delivery scooters in California, but they seem far less common in other cities. Lane splitting also isn’t legal everywhere either, so scooters aren’t necessarily faster. What cities & countries are you referring to?
Scooters are very limited in cargo capacity are not particularly viable in rainy or winter weather, not to mention just statistically increased injuries and danger for riders, which eventually translates into liability with scale. If you have to make multiple trips when one car trip would have sufficed, that completely undermines the cheap & fast argument. If you have to have cars around for bad weather days or bad weather seasons anyway…
Scooters are very limited in cargo capacity are not particularly viable in rainy or winter weather, not to mention just statistically increased injuries and danger for riders, which eventually translates into liability with scale. If you have to make multiple trips when one car trip would have sufficed, that completely undermines the cheap & fast argument. If you have to have cars around for bad weather days or bad weather seasons anyway…
Did you know that there are places outside of the US?
> Scooters are very limited in cargo capacity
Only Americans would be regularly ordering so much takeout as to worry about scooters not being able to transport it. You really need to reconsider your dietary choices if this is a serious concern.
> Scooters […] are not particularly viable in rainy or winter weather
Scooters are perfectly viable in rainy weather. Nobody does food deliveries with a car in London.
> Scooters are very limited in cargo capacity
Only Americans would be regularly ordering so much takeout as to worry about scooters not being able to transport it. You really need to reconsider your dietary choices if this is a serious concern.
> Scooters […] are not particularly viable in rainy or winter weather
Scooters are perfectly viable in rainy weather. Nobody does food deliveries with a car in London.
> Only Americans would be regularly ordering so much takeout as to worry about scooters not being able to transport it. You really need to reconsider your dietary choices if this is a serious concern.
I’m sorry you felt the need to get snarky. Making assumptions undermines your argument. It’s not hard for the orders for 2 families of light eaters to not fit in a single scooter.
I’m sorry you felt the need to get snarky. Making assumptions undermines your argument. It’s not hard for the orders for 2 families of light eaters to not fit in a single scooter.
You can easily carry food for 10 people on a scooter unless the packaging is crazy.
This, again, is the norm in Europe.
Why should the average delivery guy be driving a car to be able to accept big orders that probably make up less than 1% of all deliveries?
This, again, is the norm in Europe.
Why should the average delivery guy be driving a car to be able to accept big orders that probably make up less than 1% of all deliveries?
Actually most of the delivery people here are on bikes, scooters (the motor ones) or electric scooters, I've never seen a car delivery. They are carrying big backpacks like this one https://search.brave.com/images?q=deliveroo+driver+backpack&...
Now I still dislike the services and it's really annoying that they caused this revival of motorscooters who are now driving recklessly on the bike paths, but transport volume is really not an issue.
Now I still dislike the services and it's really annoying that they caused this revival of motorscooters who are now driving recklessly on the bike paths, but transport volume is really not an issue.
Where’s “here”? What justifies claiming “most”? I’ve seen lots and lots of car delivery in the US. I’ve seen car delivery in China too. Also Iceland, Mexico and Spain. And I’ve seen scooters in all of those countries. I have no problem with people saying there’s a “lot” of scooters/motorcycles/bikes/whatever, relatively. It might be most, but “most” is a specific and strong claim that may not be true and can’t be backed up, and should be stated as such.
How about you present some evidence to the contrary? I get that you’re probably just trolling, but what you’re doing here is akin to asking for proof that the sky is blue or that most humans have two hands.
I wasn’t talking you to here, and in this case parent was (I assume) talking about scooter usage in the US, so you may in fact be wrong here, according to you (“US and Canada are probably the only places where scooters aren't the norm.”).
I don’t need to present any evidence to the contrary because I didn’t make any claims to the contrary. I’m not claiming scooter usage isn’t high, I didn’t say it’s not more than cars or bikes. I was more careful than that.
You made a strong claim that you can’t back up, and you’ve already admitted that you’re just making up. That’s on you, not me. I’m simply sensitive to people making assumptions and insisting on calling them facts, and that is what you did.
Just like your unfortunate and unnecessary anti-American comments that got you downvoted, you could have ended this by simply acknowledging gracefully that it’s your opinion, and you believe it’s most, rather than continuing to add hyperbole after hyperbole, exaggeration after exaggeration on top. Claiming scooter usage of scooters for food delivery is the same as the sky being blue is a pretty bad analogy, and weakens your point.
Adding an ad-hominem on top accusing me of trolling just becuase you can’t answer my question also reflects poorly on you and tends to undermine what you’re trying to say. It would be so much stronger if you simply qualified your claim as your own belief and left it at that, or did some Googling to find stats. I’m sorry that asking for evidence of what you said upset you so much.
I don’t need to present any evidence to the contrary because I didn’t make any claims to the contrary. I’m not claiming scooter usage isn’t high, I didn’t say it’s not more than cars or bikes. I was more careful than that.
You made a strong claim that you can’t back up, and you’ve already admitted that you’re just making up. That’s on you, not me. I’m simply sensitive to people making assumptions and insisting on calling them facts, and that is what you did.
Just like your unfortunate and unnecessary anti-American comments that got you downvoted, you could have ended this by simply acknowledging gracefully that it’s your opinion, and you believe it’s most, rather than continuing to add hyperbole after hyperbole, exaggeration after exaggeration on top. Claiming scooter usage of scooters for food delivery is the same as the sky being blue is a pretty bad analogy, and weakens your point.
Adding an ad-hominem on top accusing me of trolling just becuase you can’t answer my question also reflects poorly on you and tends to undermine what you’re trying to say. It would be so much stronger if you simply qualified your claim as your own belief and left it at that, or did some Googling to find stats. I’m sorry that asking for evidence of what you said upset you so much.
> Just like your unfortunate and unnecessary anti-American comments that got you downvoted
anti-American? Seek help buddy.
> It would be so much stronger if you simply qualified your claim as your own belief and left it at that, or did some Googling to find stats.
Look, my claim is obvious to anyone who isn’t completely out of touch with the world outside of North America.
“Googling to find stats”? There obviously isn’t going to be any meaningful numbers to be found on Google wrt this.
Using cars for food deliveries is a completely ridiculous idea in most cities of the world. There’s no parking! How are you going to deliver food with a car when there’s no free parking?
Shit, what do you think are the odds that a food delivery guy can even afford a car in most of the world? There’s something like 1 billion passenger cars in the world, that leaves you with something like 1 8th of a car per person.
This really is as obvious as “the sky is blue”.
To suggest that you’re trolling is simply the most charitable way to interpret your comment.
anti-American? Seek help buddy.
> It would be so much stronger if you simply qualified your claim as your own belief and left it at that, or did some Googling to find stats.
Look, my claim is obvious to anyone who isn’t completely out of touch with the world outside of North America.
“Googling to find stats”? There obviously isn’t going to be any meaningful numbers to be found on Google wrt this.
Using cars for food deliveries is a completely ridiculous idea in most cities of the world. There’s no parking! How are you going to deliver food with a car when there’s no free parking?
Shit, what do you think are the odds that a food delivery guy can even afford a car in most of the world? There’s something like 1 billion passenger cars in the world, that leaves you with something like 1 8th of a car per person.
This really is as obvious as “the sky is blue”.
To suggest that you’re trolling is simply the most charitable way to interpret your comment.
That’s an unusually small one too. On scooters you tend to see much bigger rigid boxes, like this https://i.pinimg.com/736x/13/e1/1a/13e11aab642c5589b92ae570f...
By here I mean a large city in Sweden and by most I mean >90%. If you would be here you would see how completely obvious it that scooters and bikes are the majority. My reply was to someone who said that large deliveries could not be done with scooters or bikes. My experience here definitely falsified such a claim.
Sure I do, that’s part of my point. That doesn’t answer the question. Why do you claim “most”?
Because it’s the norm in Europe, in Asia and Africa. Probably Latin America too.
Do you have any data or other backup for your claim besides opinion? You might be right, I’m just curious. Do you know where scooters aren’t the norm? Do you know how often alternatives are used and for what reasons?
US and Canada are probably the only places where scooters aren't the norm. I guess in Kyiv and Bucharest you see a decent amount of deliveries with cars, but those people are mostly driving super cheap LPG vehicles.
Even in Dubai scooters are the norm, despite the city embracing a very American take on urban design.
No, I don't have data to back this up. I don't need to, this is obvious to anyone who has traveled the world. If you read this thread, you will only see Americans talking about food delivered by car.
Even in Dubai scooters are the norm, despite the city embracing a very American take on urban design.
No, I don't have data to back this up. I don't need to, this is obvious to anyone who has traveled the world. If you read this thread, you will only see Americans talking about food delivered by car.
Not a single delivery driver from any service has shown up at my home in a major city in the US southwest using a scooter. Every single one drives a car (I see them pull up on our cameras). You would die of heat stroke pretty quickly delivering food on a scooter in the middle of summer out here.
Every single order (bar one) I ever got was delivered on a scooter.
The exception was riding a standard bicycle.
Sure, I live in mainland Europe, but you talk as if you talk for everywhere.
The exception was riding a standard bicycle.
Sure, I live in mainland Europe, but you talk as if you talk for everywhere.
Meanwhile in my major european city, I'd say bikes have a 70% share among delivery drivers. (Although some of those bikes may have cost more than the cars the other 30% are driving, which is a bit of a "uber tesla driver" situation).
>You would die of heat stroke pretty quickly delivering food on a scooter in the middle of summer out here.
Scooter deliveries are the norm even in the warmest areas of Europe.
Same goes for places like Tehran, in fact almost all of Asia.
Scooter deliveries are the norm even in the warmest areas of Europe.
Same goes for places like Tehran, in fact almost all of Asia.
>Shockingly, most food delivery people don’t use cars…
Depending on geographic location, no doubt. Can you imagine risking your life on a scooter weaving through idiots in their lifted pickups in any American metro?
Depending on geographic location, no doubt. Can you imagine risking your life on a scooter weaving through idiots in their lifted pickups in any American metro?
Istanbul has a thriving delivery ecosystem that appears to be mainly mopeds. I think what really makes it work for them is how densely populated it is so drivers really don't need to go far, there's plenty of orders coming in from nearby. And Istanbuls traffic is way crazier than any I've seen in the US.
Pickups are more of a rural thing. They're hardly normative in urban areas.
You'd think, right? Because very few people in urban areas have a real need for a pickup. But I live in a large city in the US, and I'd estimate that 20-40% of the vehicles I see on the road are enormous pickups like this one [1]. And I think this is fairly typical in most US cities.
[1] https://www.ramtrucks.com/ram-2500.html
[1] https://www.ramtrucks.com/ram-2500.html
It depends on where you go. I tend to see more pickups in cities in the U.S. South (dualies on the freeway with no trailer? Really?). More people with something to prove down there I guess.
Maybe where your familiar with?
Last I lived in Calgary, trucks were absolutely the norm.
>That's especially true in Alberta, where 89 per cent of spending on new vehicles this year has gone to trucks, vans and SUVs. That compares to about 80 per cent, nationwide.
>"We're basically a truck market," said Denis Ducharme, president of the Motor Dealers Association of Alberta.
Last I lived in Calgary, trucks were absolutely the norm.
>That's especially true in Alberta, where 89 per cent of spending on new vehicles this year has gone to trucks, vans and SUVs. That compares to about 80 per cent, nationwide.
>"We're basically a truck market," said Denis Ducharme, president of the Motor Dealers Association of Alberta.
SUVs and vans are very different from trucks
Not when you're on a scooter, I would think.
Having been to both (but not having driven a scooter in Atlanta) I'd suggest scooting around Paris is very different than scooting around Atlanta.
Having been to both (but not having driven a scooter in Atlanta) I'd suggest scooting around Paris is very different than scooting around Atlanta.
In the past 20 years or so we’ve seen the emergence of car-based SUVs and minivans, but large (and at one time, all) SUVs and vans are trucks with modified bodies.
They're a long shot from the big lifted pickups though
Car-based SUVs are not like trucks. All of the full size trucks sold in NA have SUV counterparts also on the road, and they are exactly like trucks.
For example, the Wagoneer is the SUV version of the RAM.
The Suburban and Tahoe are the SUV versions of GM trucks.
The Land Cruiser, Sequoia, and Lexus LX are the same platform as the Tundra.
Etc.
Automakers don’t do one-off light trucks. They are all shared platforms.
For example, the Wagoneer is the SUV version of the RAM.
The Suburban and Tahoe are the SUV versions of GM trucks.
The Land Cruiser, Sequoia, and Lexus LX are the same platform as the Tundra.
Etc.
Automakers don’t do one-off light trucks. They are all shared platforms.
>"We're basically a truck market," said Denis Ducharme,
And, I mean... I lived there. Saw many more trucks than anything else on the road.
And, I mean... I lived there. Saw many more trucks than anything else on the road.
https://www.calgary.ca/roads/conditions/traffic-cameras.html
Traffic camera feeds suggest this is not the case by a long shot? I don't have a particular stake in this race though.
Traffic camera feeds suggest this is not the case by a long shot? I don't have a particular stake in this race though.
Not if you also moonlight as an Uber/Lyft driver
Anywhere you have snow is going to have to have deliveries done by car.
No? That’s definitely not the norm in places like Finland.
Sure, in the winter the proportion of couriers driving cars increases. You also see tons of people on fatbikes and similar.
Sure, in the winter the proportion of couriers driving cars increases. You also see tons of people on fatbikes and similar.
You think "the norm" in Finland is for people to drive scooters through snow for delivery? Can you show a link that explains why you think that?
I’m not sure how you could take that away from my comment which did not mention scooters at all.
Maybe most in large urban areas, but everywhere else 99.9% of delivery is happening in an automobile.
This is a very US-centric view. In most of the world, poor people (who are delivery drivers) don't own cars.
Here in NL 99.9% of delivery is not happening by automobile haha
There’s also fuck all food deliveries happening outside urban areas.
What are you classing as "urban" ?
My town has just under 120k people and the majority of deliveries are done by car.
My town has just under 120k people and the majority of deliveries are done by car.
Wow, breaking news! Americans refuse to drive two wheeled vehicles for no particular reason!
Truly, a shocking new development.
Truly, a shocking new development.
Maybe you should consider weather, families and highways.
Yes, because they don’t have weather or families in London.
They also have public transportation so you can get by without a car and have a scooter for when it works. In the US most people need a car anyway so they have it already and anything with two wheels is there for fun and not neccesity.
So, what you’re saying is that two wheeled vehicles are equally unnecessary in both contexts?
I have no idea how you got there from what I said.
You said "americans avoid two wheeled vehicles for no reason".
They have cars anyway so they use them.
The reason they need cars is because it gets cold, there are highways that go fast and it's dangerous and illegal to take young kids or more than one kid on a scooter. This is not complicated.
You said "americans avoid two wheeled vehicles for no reason".
They have cars anyway so they use them.
The reason they need cars is because it gets cold, there are highways that go fast and it's dangerous and illegal to take young kids or more than one kid on a scooter. This is not complicated.
You should go on holiday in Vietnam and see how entire families ride on a single scooter, on the highway, in weather.
I've lived in Vietnam for multiple years and drove scooters around all the time. That doesn't have anything to do with the claim that "americans avoid two wheel vehicles for no reason".
Also the honda scoopy and yamaha scooters are 115cc and can't get up to american highway speeds. In Thailand it isn't even legal to drive scooters or even motorcycles on their highways.
Maybe you should go on holiday to Vietnam in the winter, you might realize there is no snow in Vietnam.
Americans usually need a car anyway so they already have one.
Also the honda scoopy and yamaha scooters are 115cc and can't get up to american highway speeds. In Thailand it isn't even legal to drive scooters or even motorcycles on their highways.
Maybe you should go on holiday to Vietnam in the winter, you might realize there is no snow in Vietnam.
Americans usually need a car anyway so they already have one.
> That doesn't have anything to do with the claim that "americans avoid two wheel vehicles for no reason".
It has everything to do with your refutation of that claim, however.
My actual implicit claim is that there appears to be a degree of truth in the idea that US residents have a cultural aversion to two-wheeled transport that extends beyond the justifications you proffered to dismiss the claim.
It has everything to do with your refutation of that claim, however.
My actual implicit claim is that there appears to be a degree of truth in the idea that US residents have a cultural aversion to two-wheeled transport that extends beyond the justifications you proffered to dismiss the claim.
appears to be a degree of truth in the idea that US residents have a cultural aversion to two-wheeled transport
No there isn't. People have jobs to go to and there isn't much public transportation, it gets cold, snows and people need to use the highways. People need to have a car so they already have a car and that's why scooters are usually something people buy for fun and not neccesity.
No there isn't. People have jobs to go to and there isn't much public transportation, it gets cold, snows and people need to use the highways. People need to have a car so they already have a car and that's why scooters are usually something people buy for fun and not neccesity.
That sounds extremely dangerous. Sure it’s do-able and normalized for them, but I don’t want to expect that sort of thing where I live because it is now trendy to hate everything about cars.
It is extremely dangerous. But there surely must be a middle ground between cultural norms in USA and Vietnam.
People in developed economies shouldn't be carrying around sofas on the backs of mopeds as they do in Vietnam, but it should be reasonable enough to deliver a pizza on one where the weather allows in the USA.
FWIW: I'm very much a car guy.
People in developed economies shouldn't be carrying around sofas on the backs of mopeds as they do in Vietnam, but it should be reasonable enough to deliver a pizza on one where the weather allows in the USA.
FWIW: I'm very much a car guy.
Indeed, nobody is carrying their family on a scooter in London, but at the same time pretty much nobody is delivering food with a car either.
Not true at all. It's stupid expensive in most suburbs but its definitely there.
Suburbs are urban.
The 'sub' is a reference to the proximity to the (likely denser) city, not a step between urban and rural.
So for instance, the small town I live in is also considered urban (but is located in a rural county).
The 'sub' is a reference to the proximity to the (likely denser) city, not a step between urban and rural.
So for instance, the small town I live in is also considered urban (but is located in a rural county).
Yeah, it’s true. The amount of restaurants and amount of deliveries they make to suburbs is negligible when compared with urban areas.
That is a very different claim
No it’s not. It’s exactly the same claim. “fuck all” means nothing or very little, in this context it’s obviously “very little”.
In any case, we’re discussing the sustainability of delivery services. Most of the world lives in cities, it really doesn’t matter if they’re unsustainable in rural areas.
In any case, we’re discussing the sustainability of delivery services. Most of the world lives in cities, it really doesn’t matter if they’re unsustainable in rural areas.
you changed your claim again. Suburbs app delivery is negligible compared to urban, but its still pretty hot. My area has farms but you can still see delivery pickups running constantly at popular restaurants.
Go on, explain how and where I changed my claim.
While you’re at it, maybe also explain how this has anything to do with the subject at hand?
While you’re at it, maybe also explain how this has anything to do with the subject at hand?
(x < urban) != (x <= small)
When I used to deliver pizza, I received minimum wage, and tips, and 75 cents per delivery.
This was in 1990.
When I wasn't driving, I was grating cheese, or folding boxes, or cleaning. There were always slow times during the shift for this work.
I had a used car, and as a teenager, and later as an adult in college, the job paid quite well at the time.
Tips on busy nights would double or triple my wage.
Drivers can very much make a good wage delivering pizza! This is because a traditional pizza place only delivers within a certain range, has its own drivers, and each driver(when busy) can take 2 to 5 orders, and deliver them in an optimal route.
As a driver, you get very, very good at driving your neighborhood, knowing all the slow and fast spots, and the best route to deliver 4 orders in one trip optimally.
I'd often deliver 20 pizzas an hour on Friday nights, all hot, all fresh!
Yet an uber driver delivers for a dozen companies, each to different places, may drive miles to get to each company, then drive that single order to the customer. Uber drivers cannot optimize the same way.
Just the fact that when idle, I did work (so not a loss for the company), yet when a pizza popped out I was there, ready!.. is an optimization uber eats loses at. Idle for them is a loss.
Uber eats, all external delivery services are the worst. If your main business is delivery(pizza), you are nuts to even allow them to pick up at your establishment.
This was in 1990.
When I wasn't driving, I was grating cheese, or folding boxes, or cleaning. There were always slow times during the shift for this work.
I had a used car, and as a teenager, and later as an adult in college, the job paid quite well at the time.
Tips on busy nights would double or triple my wage.
Drivers can very much make a good wage delivering pizza! This is because a traditional pizza place only delivers within a certain range, has its own drivers, and each driver(when busy) can take 2 to 5 orders, and deliver them in an optimal route.
As a driver, you get very, very good at driving your neighborhood, knowing all the slow and fast spots, and the best route to deliver 4 orders in one trip optimally.
I'd often deliver 20 pizzas an hour on Friday nights, all hot, all fresh!
Yet an uber driver delivers for a dozen companies, each to different places, may drive miles to get to each company, then drive that single order to the customer. Uber drivers cannot optimize the same way.
Just the fact that when idle, I did work (so not a loss for the company), yet when a pizza popped out I was there, ready!.. is an optimization uber eats loses at. Idle for them is a loss.
Uber eats, all external delivery services are the worst. If your main business is delivery(pizza), you are nuts to even allow them to pick up at your establishment.
I wonder if the holy grail of food delivery is then is actually like a supply chain/transportation algorithm - instead of point-to-point deliveries, you could have order pickup and delivery distributed within an area and have drivers handoff as needed. If I can think of it, then I'm sure someone in the companies already has looked into it and has a reason why they can't, but I'm still proud of the insight at least.
I suspect the avg take from an order is at least $10.
Grubhub, for example, will charge you an 18% service fee, a $1 "big/expensive city" fee, a tip (for the driver), and then also a delivery fee on top of that.
That's before the inflated menu prices and price gouging they do to the businesses.
Still, it's a lot more economical for reasonably busy delivery places to just employ their own drivers that can take care of a few deliveries in one shot.
Grubhub, for example, will charge you an 18% service fee, a $1 "big/expensive city" fee, a tip (for the driver), and then also a delivery fee on top of that.
That's before the inflated menu prices and price gouging they do to the businesses.
Still, it's a lot more economical for reasonably busy delivery places to just employ their own drivers that can take care of a few deliveries in one shot.
How come that many chains are able to employ (moped) delivery drivers above minimum wage, without surcharging the customer as much? Speaking of Europe.
They aren't paying thousands of software engineers for the work of a few dozen software engineers.
Isn't that because there is a significant fee going to the delivery service in the DoorDash/UberEats/etc model? The chain doesn't need to pay for as much additional marketing/sales/support costs for their delivery service, its baked into their operating costs. Also there is a centralized hub for the drivers where they are going back and forth between a single chain location rather than driving around to many different restaurants. I would assume there are efficiencies in having a tighter loop like that.
I think the model is only really sustainable at "affordable prices" in high density areas. New York is a good example. You can watch videos following e-bike delivery drivers in these high density areas. They're sometimes retrieving and delivering multiple orders within a 15 minute period. Unfortunately New York isn't the greatest example because the high wages are offset by the extreme housing costs.
It feels incredibly wasteful to send someone driving around to pick up some tacos, but as long as I can get it fairly cheaply, I'll continue to do it.
>You're going to have to pay a lot more. The model can't be sustained at this price.
It will be much cheaper once there are self-driving cars. You don't have to pay for the drive, just for somebody doing the final delivery from the car to the door.
It will be even cheaper, if customers are willing to leave their house and fetch the food from the car at the street. Then you don't have to pay anybody, just some cents per mile for the vehicle.
It will be much cheaper once there are self-driving cars. You don't have to pay for the drive, just for somebody doing the final delivery from the car to the door.
It will be even cheaper, if customers are willing to leave their house and fetch the food from the car at the street. Then you don't have to pay anybody, just some cents per mile for the vehicle.
Labour costs would be cheaper with self-driving cars, UberEats/SkipTheDishes/Arbritrary Food Delivery App would most likely own the cars. They would definitely factor the vehicle depreciation cost into delivery fees. If the gig worker provides the car, I'm not even sure if it would be that much cheaper to pay someone to sit in a self-driving car for the car to door delivery.
where I live, some restaurant's don't use cars, they use remote controlled robots. They are also extremely cute.
Yeah you can read someone's personal account on how they are able to clear $20 an hour regularly doing delivery, but they have to employ all kinds of strategies to do so,
So if they have the skills and tenacity to consistently make slightly better than a living wage (probably for only a few hours a day) they probably have what it takes to get and keep a regular job paying notably better?
So if they have the skills and tenacity to consistently make slightly better than a living wage (probably for only a few hours a day) they probably have what it takes to get and keep a regular job paying notably better?
30 years ago or so, I made roughly 14 an hour driving pizzas part time, 3x minimum wage at the time. The strategy was basically go fast, know where you’re going (no cell/ google maps), don’t get stuck with single pie runs to the end of the earth.
To see that 20/hr requires all kinds of strategies now — it’s a different world.
To see that 20/hr requires all kinds of strategies now — it’s a different world.
Whenever I saw "9735 Birchwood Ave"* pop up in the order queue, I would suddenly get inspired to go wash dishes or fold boxes or pop dough bubbles. Sometimes that inspiration would strike 2 or 3 of us at once!
Let the poor rookie go get stiffed on a tip.
* Address changed, but 25 year later I actually still remember the real address.
Let the poor rookie go get stiffed on a tip.
* Address changed, but 25 year later I actually still remember the real address.
It might pay less than minimum wage - but will the drivers actually do the math?
I think that a solid portion of workers will accept significantly higher costs in exchange for slightly higher income, even if they come out worse. Lots of people will just look at the paycheck and won't think about their gas bill or how much time they actually spent.
Plus, one hour making $30 lets people rationalize 20 hours making $5/hr. That's how gambling works.
Add on the ability to "be your own boss," work when you want and start earning immediately, and I think people will keep doing delivery work even if the pay is shit.
I think that a solid portion of workers will accept significantly higher costs in exchange for slightly higher income, even if they come out worse. Lots of people will just look at the paycheck and won't think about their gas bill or how much time they actually spent.
Plus, one hour making $30 lets people rationalize 20 hours making $5/hr. That's how gambling works.
Add on the ability to "be your own boss," work when you want and start earning immediately, and I think people will keep doing delivery work even if the pay is shit.
I stopped ordering from any delivery service that isn't directly the restaurant itself. Half my orders were wrong. I had one where the driver dropped off an order with a different name on it; clearly visible. I called out to him saying such, and he yelled back that it wasn't his problem, call the restaurant (clearly, it _was_ his fault, he grabbed the wrong bag).
Nowadays, I just order for pickup and go get it most of the time. None of the delivery services care about quality _at all_.
Nowadays, I just order for pickup and go get it most of the time. None of the delivery services care about quality _at all_.
That's a hilarious anecdote. I kinda wish when he called you, he was staring right at your window where you were observing his bald faced lie through your binoculars.
I might watch a short series based on food delivery folks, customers, and the dystopian/ dehumanizing tech algorithms that set the stage for the context. Maybe it'd be wacky. Maybe it might just end up feeling like HBO's High Maintenance.
I might watch a short series based on food delivery folks, customers, and the dystopian/ dehumanizing tech algorithms that set the stage for the context. Maybe it'd be wacky. Maybe it might just end up feeling like HBO's High Maintenance.
Same here. I only get delivery if the restaurant has their own delivery operation. Never had a good experience with any of the delivery apps, to the extent that I've been wondering who the hell is using them and how are they still operating.
> I've essentially stopped getting delivery which is a bad sign since I'm basically the target audience
Same, rarely ordered delivery pre-pandemic but then was ordering two or three times a month but eventually got sick of food taking over an hour to arrive from places only a mile or two away so stopped entirely (until discovering a nearby restaurant that does their own delivery and it's great - arrives within 20 or 30 mins and the food is always piping hot).
Same, rarely ordered delivery pre-pandemic but then was ordering two or three times a month but eventually got sick of food taking over an hour to arrive from places only a mile or two away so stopped entirely (until discovering a nearby restaurant that does their own delivery and it's great - arrives within 20 or 30 mins and the food is always piping hot).
I used to use DoorDash heavily, I have since given up on all food delivery services. They are incredibly unreliable, overpriced, and it takes too long. I recently tried delivery after moving to a new place and it took 75 minutes to get a beef & rice bowl delivered from a restaurant that was 2.3 miles away, and cost $26 for what was a $12 product. When it arrived it was cold and I had to immediately microwave it.
At that point, why would you even bother? I could have /walked/ 2.3 miles there and back, sat down for dinner in the restaurant, and still done it in less than 75 minutes while saving $14.
The "gig economy" is driving everything to the lowest common denominator /and/ exploiting workers at the same time. I don't want somebody who can barely fog a mirror and is desperate delivering my food, I want somebody that gives a damn and is compensated well enough they can afford to give a damn. I don't mind paying a premium for delivery, but I do mind paying a premium and getting nothing in return. The reality is that the economics just probably don't support delivery even being a thing unless it's a very large order because of the increased cost of fuel and maintenance.
At that point, why would you even bother? I could have /walked/ 2.3 miles there and back, sat down for dinner in the restaurant, and still done it in less than 75 minutes while saving $14.
The "gig economy" is driving everything to the lowest common denominator /and/ exploiting workers at the same time. I don't want somebody who can barely fog a mirror and is desperate delivering my food, I want somebody that gives a damn and is compensated well enough they can afford to give a damn. I don't mind paying a premium for delivery, but I do mind paying a premium and getting nothing in return. The reality is that the economics just probably don't support delivery even being a thing unless it's a very large order because of the increased cost of fuel and maintenance.
I'd just like to add my own anecdote in here. Delivering food for Doordash/Uber Eats is the reason I was able to stave off homelessness last year. By adhering to a strict schedule, I was able to make ~$1000/week in a moderately populated area (~180k pop) where the average rent for a 1 bedroom apartment is $800-$1000/month. The reasons I stopped was
1. Their "automated" systems are trash. I was supposed to receive some perks for being one of the better drivers (higher ratings, consistently accept offers, etc.). And I did receive them. Then I didn't. Then I did. Then I didn't. Over and over again over the course of a day, and none of their support staff could speak proper English, so trying to communicate that problem was absolutely miserable. Over all it was such an awful experience that I just gave up on delivery all together.
2. Hours were long. 12-14 hour days, 6-7 days per week. Great for learning discipline. Not so great for enjoying life.
1. Their "automated" systems are trash. I was supposed to receive some perks for being one of the better drivers (higher ratings, consistently accept offers, etc.). And I did receive them. Then I didn't. Then I did. Then I didn't. Over and over again over the course of a day, and none of their support staff could speak proper English, so trying to communicate that problem was absolutely miserable. Over all it was such an awful experience that I just gave up on delivery all together.
2. Hours were long. 12-14 hour days, 6-7 days per week. Great for learning discipline. Not so great for enjoying life.
> ~$1000/week
Does that include car-related expenses? If not, what did they amount to?
Does that include car-related expenses? If not, what did they amount to?
On the high end, gas was ~$200/week. I was getting a $70 oil change every 1.5 months. I can't think of anything else off the top of my head (I only delivered for 7 months with a much slower pace at the beginning, from about January to the beginning of August of last year). So nearly 25% of my income was going to just maintenance, but the miles from driving as well as all expenses to maintain my car could be written off on my taxes. I think with everything involved I only paid something stupid low like a couple hundred in taxes.
That's a good point, and it's still probably higher than average, but one should also consider what car-related expenses someone has at a 52k/year salary job commuting 1 hour to and from work each day. (I imagine the delivery driver used their car cumulatively more than 2 hours per day, but how much more, I don't know.)
My car was sitting in parking lots, being turned on and turned off, and driven around for about 12-14 hours per day towards the end there. That only happened for maybe 2 months. After I was finished and managed to land a better paying job, I ended up getting some much needed repairs on my car that would have not been fun to make up the cost of while I was delivering.
Absolutely. I was at a kids' birthday party. The pizza arrived 90 minutes after it was supposed to. It took 2+ hours to deliver it. The pizzeria claimed they had nothing to do with it. It was all UberEats. What a bogus product. They have no control over their drivers.
That’s an unfortunate situation, but I’m not surprised to hear this.
I worked in a single-location pizza shop when I was in high school and there is a lot more customer-benefitting coordination going on between the inside and the drivers than may be obvious. (These applied to my shop; I’m not sure if the big chains actually do this kind of stuff.)
* Most shops have a delivery radius of less than 10 miles and it’s pretty impressive how detailed a driver’s address knowledge of the area can get after just a few months.
* The people taking orders over the phone were often delivery drivers waiting between runs and will clarify addresses and locations as well as delivery instructions (drop off locations, gate codes, etc.).
* The inside crew will typically batch deliveries headed for the same area and time the oven to get all the food out around the same time.
* If for any reason a delivery can’t be made (car accident, flat tire, made a wrong delivery and no longer have the right food for the order, etc.) the driver will call the shop which will remake the order and send it with either another driver or an inside crew member.
I worked in a single-location pizza shop when I was in high school and there is a lot more customer-benefitting coordination going on between the inside and the drivers than may be obvious. (These applied to my shop; I’m not sure if the big chains actually do this kind of stuff.)
* Most shops have a delivery radius of less than 10 miles and it’s pretty impressive how detailed a driver’s address knowledge of the area can get after just a few months.
* The people taking orders over the phone were often delivery drivers waiting between runs and will clarify addresses and locations as well as delivery instructions (drop off locations, gate codes, etc.).
* The inside crew will typically batch deliveries headed for the same area and time the oven to get all the food out around the same time.
* If for any reason a delivery can’t be made (car accident, flat tire, made a wrong delivery and no longer have the right food for the order, etc.) the driver will call the shop which will remake the order and send it with either another driver or an inside crew member.
> Most shops have a delivery radius of less than 10 miles and it’s pretty impressive how detailed a driver’s address knowledge of the area can get after just a few months.
I delivered pizzas back in the day as well. One night as I was headed out to my car, a woman asked me if I could help her find an address. I said sure, I'll give it a shot. With just a street name and number I was able to rattle off turn-by-turn directions, ending with, "It'll be the third house on your left. Maybe the fourth".
My delivery area wasn't a grid or anything. The house numbers didn't neatly align with streets. It was a typical suburban area with random bendy streets and addressing that didn't correlate with a central "State and Main" center.
But after a year or so of passing damn near every house in the area, I had fantastic intuition about these things. I had a knockoff, generic, store-brand version of The Knowledge. :)
I delivered pizzas back in the day as well. One night as I was headed out to my car, a woman asked me if I could help her find an address. I said sure, I'll give it a shot. With just a street name and number I was able to rattle off turn-by-turn directions, ending with, "It'll be the third house on your left. Maybe the fourth".
My delivery area wasn't a grid or anything. The house numbers didn't neatly align with streets. It was a typical suburban area with random bendy streets and addressing that didn't correlate with a central "State and Main" center.
But after a year or so of passing damn near every house in the area, I had fantastic intuition about these things. I had a knockoff, generic, store-brand version of The Knowledge. :)
I've never understood the food delivery services at all. Maybe it's a different experience in the Valley. I would gladly pay for delivery to try a new restaurant that's across town. But instead all the offerings that I can choose are within 4-5 miles of my house. I could literally walk to some restaurants much quicker than I could get a delivery. Locally its mostly college kids using the food delivery services.
I can provide a few use cases:
1. Too lazy to drive 2. Too drunk to drive 3. Too lazy to walk (see 1) 4. COVID or other potentially contagious illness 5. Delivery driver is cute and you are lonely 6. Live event, can't take a break to go get food 7. You may not own a car or bike. (see 3) 8. Agoraphobia
1. Too lazy to drive 2. Too drunk to drive 3. Too lazy to walk (see 1) 4. COVID or other potentially contagious illness 5. Delivery driver is cute and you are lonely 6. Live event, can't take a break to go get food 7. You may not own a car or bike. (see 3) 8. Agoraphobia
My family orders carry-out and I pick it up on my bike. That's an option in a "sufficiently urban" area.
In the UK, there are now a lot of places that have delivery app only hours or are even exclusive to delivery apps.
For example, my local McDonalds "closes" at 9pm but is actually open on Uber Eats 24/7. Deliveroo has Five Guys just down the road in a warehouse kitchen, but the nearest actual Five Guys is a 30+ minute drive.
I mostly don't order food any more, but when I do, it's hard to avoid the apps.
For example, my local McDonalds "closes" at 9pm but is actually open on Uber Eats 24/7. Deliveroo has Five Guys just down the road in a warehouse kitchen, but the nearest actual Five Guys is a 30+ minute drive.
I mostly don't order food any more, but when I do, it's hard to avoid the apps.
The problem that I have yet to see DoorDash et. al. solve is that they're injecting a middle-man where one doesn't need to exist. The typical delivery model of a local restaurant worked just fine without them, but with a third entity holding their hand out for money in that system it becomes net negative for pretty much everyone involved.
I think a lot of small restaurants would disagree.
Managing a fleet of drivers on top of managing your kitchen (and often a front-of-house too) is a nightmare. You have to surge in ways that go beyond day of the week, you have to handle short-time route management and work out how much return to base will affect your availability. Plus insurance. Plus fraud. Plus systems handling. Doing this independently might cost more both up-front and in running costs.
Using a third party, most of those problems are now not yours. It's on the intermediary to make sure they have a driver available, and another, and another, and another because everybody decided they want Chinese tonight. And if nobody wants Chinese, you're only paying the standing fee.
We have a nearby Thai restaurant that just stops taking delivery orders when their one driver is fully booked for the next hour. They lose money. And on a slow night, they're paying for a delivery driver they're not using.
Managing a fleet of drivers on top of managing your kitchen (and often a front-of-house too) is a nightmare. You have to surge in ways that go beyond day of the week, you have to handle short-time route management and work out how much return to base will affect your availability. Plus insurance. Plus fraud. Plus systems handling. Doing this independently might cost more both up-front and in running costs.
Using a third party, most of those problems are now not yours. It's on the intermediary to make sure they have a driver available, and another, and another, and another because everybody decided they want Chinese tonight. And if nobody wants Chinese, you're only paying the standing fee.
We have a nearby Thai restaurant that just stops taking delivery orders when their one driver is fully booked for the next hour. They lose money. And on a slow night, they're paying for a delivery driver they're not using.
There is a place for a middle man, but these guys aren't occupying it yet.
Take 100 customers ordering food from 10 different restaurants, and 5 delivery drivers. There's an optimal delivery schedule where everyone gets their food warm and relatively promptly, and all the drivers are somewhat busy. That's a valid logistical problem that a middleman can solve.
If all the driver is doing is pickup, delivery, pickup, delivery, ad infinitum, then yeah, there's no unique middleman position there.
Take 100 customers ordering food from 10 different restaurants, and 5 delivery drivers. There's an optimal delivery schedule where everyone gets their food warm and relatively promptly, and all the drivers are somewhat busy. That's a valid logistical problem that a middleman can solve.
If all the driver is doing is pickup, delivery, pickup, delivery, ad infinitum, then yeah, there's no unique middleman position there.
I haven't used Doordash in a while, but Uber Eats is definitely attempting to do what you're describing. You have to pay additional money for someone to drive directly from the restaurant to you, or else they'll often stop to do another pickup or delivery on the way.
There is a few things:
Food marketing.
Delivery orders for companies without a website or app for ordering. This is worth Pennie’s per order not a hefty %.
Delivery service (logistics and Human Resources). This is hard and not solved.
The hardest part of the problem has not been solved and the tech firms don’t deserve a big cut of food companies revenue for the incomplete service.
Food marketing.
Delivery orders for companies without a website or app for ordering. This is worth Pennie’s per order not a hefty %.
Delivery service (logistics and Human Resources). This is hard and not solved.
The hardest part of the problem has not been solved and the tech firms don’t deserve a big cut of food companies revenue for the incomplete service.
> they're injecting a middle-man where one doesn't need to exist
a food logistics service should exist, as (if done well) it should scale better than local restaurants doing their own delivery.
a food logistics service should exist, as (if done well) it should scale better than local restaurants doing their own delivery.
The "if done well" is key though.
One specific example, but Pizza delivered by apps is basically garbage. Actual pizza delivery drivers that work for the restaurant have special boxes that control temperature and humidity, enable them to easily carry lots of pizzas and keep them relatively horizonal, etc. Pizza from the app delivery drivers inevitably ends up cold and sad and bunched up to one side the box.
Pizza drivers only need one bag thing, but your food logistics service would definitely to give the drivers a few different sized containers that can keep some things hot, other things cold, be able to be carried a medium-length walk (sometimes you have to park far away), etc. and they definitely don't do that today.
One specific example, but Pizza delivered by apps is basically garbage. Actual pizza delivery drivers that work for the restaurant have special boxes that control temperature and humidity, enable them to easily carry lots of pizzas and keep them relatively horizonal, etc. Pizza from the app delivery drivers inevitably ends up cold and sad and bunched up to one side the box.
Pizza drivers only need one bag thing, but your food logistics service would definitely to give the drivers a few different sized containers that can keep some things hot, other things cold, be able to be carried a medium-length walk (sometimes you have to park far away), etc. and they definitely don't do that today.
> the typical delivery model of a local restaurant worked just fine without them
The typical delivery model of my 4 favorite local restaurants was to not do delivery at all. With DoorDash, they're offering a middle-man as a service when the overworked and understaffed local restauranteur doesn't feel like adding a hat to his collection for managing a delivery service.
The problem, though, is that this service does not come without added risk for said restauranteur - ther business lives and dies on a combination of online reviews and word-of-mouth recommendations, both of which can be harmed by DoorDash.
The typical delivery model of my 4 favorite local restaurants was to not do delivery at all. With DoorDash, they're offering a middle-man as a service when the overworked and understaffed local restauranteur doesn't feel like adding a hat to his collection for managing a delivery service.
The problem, though, is that this service does not come without added risk for said restauranteur - ther business lives and dies on a combination of online reviews and word-of-mouth recommendations, both of which can be harmed by DoorDash.
I think most of the value proposition of food delivery is for people who can't do the drive.
People who happen to be drunk, or stoned, or don't want to take their eyes off the football game, or don't have a car, or their partner is using the shared car, etc.
But yeah if you're able to drive, it almost always makes more sense to just phone in the order and drive to the restaurant to pick it up. It's faster, cheaper, the food is actually still warm, you're not forcing the local restaurant to pay a 30% cut to a middleman, and so on.
People who happen to be drunk, or stoned, or don't want to take their eyes off the football game, or don't have a car, or their partner is using the shared car, etc.
But yeah if you're able to drive, it almost always makes more sense to just phone in the order and drive to the restaurant to pick it up. It's faster, cheaper, the food is actually still warm, you're not forcing the local restaurant to pay a 30% cut to a middleman, and so on.
> I think most of the value proposition of food delivery is for people who can't do the drive.
This. If you live alone and can't drive, it's a nice to have option for some variety. I never thought I'd use DoorDash, Grubhub, etc. for the reasons you mention; then, I lost my right foot. I'm not yet to the point where I can drive a modified vehicle; so, I sometimes use them. (The same thing applies for grocery delivery service.) Most of the time, though, I order from a pizzeria or Chinese place which have their own delivery drivers.
This. If you live alone and can't drive, it's a nice to have option for some variety. I never thought I'd use DoorDash, Grubhub, etc. for the reasons you mention; then, I lost my right foot. I'm not yet to the point where I can drive a modified vehicle; so, I sometimes use them. (The same thing applies for grocery delivery service.) Most of the time, though, I order from a pizzeria or Chinese place which have their own delivery drivers.
> I could have /walked/ 2.3 miles there and back, sat down for dinner in the restaurant, and still done it in less than 75 minutes while saving $14.
The goal is not to save money -- cooking is even more efficient -- the goal is to trade money for time. Presumably you still could have worked all of those 75 minutes and gotten some value that way. Now the service could probably work better along other metrics but it does seem like the value delivered is non-zero.
The goal is not to save money -- cooking is even more efficient -- the goal is to trade money for time. Presumably you still could have worked all of those 75 minutes and gotten some value that way. Now the service could probably work better along other metrics but it does seem like the value delivered is non-zero.
Seem to be missing the forest for the trees a bit, with this take
Not necessarily. They're describing the benefit for me. I only really use these services during the work week for lunch. My wife and I both work from home and sometimes we didn't make something in advance or stop at the store to pick something up for lunch. We don't always have that 75 minutes to step out and buy something. It takes 5 minutes to order through the app and they leave it at the front door so we can plan to have it arrive during the time we're planning to have lunch. Then we can just focus on having lunch together before getting back to work.
This doesn't explain the value of eating cold, unappetizing food for a high price, though.
If you're only trying to consume nutrition, there are any number of ways to do that both cheaper and faster.
If you're only trying to consume nutrition, there are any number of ways to do that both cheaper and faster.
I used to get groceries delivered from Vons. It was $10 more than in-store shopping, and totally worth it. About a year ago they shit-canned their delivery drivers, and went with Instacart.
The first order I had with them after that was terrible. The driver got the food from the store at 7am, to be delivered before 10am. By 3pm that afternoon—no delivery yet—I cancelled it. I didn't trust that the produce, meat, and other perishables weren't just baking under a hatchback window all day.
The first order I had with them after that was terrible. The driver got the food from the store at 7am, to be delivered before 10am. By 3pm that afternoon—no delivery yet—I cancelled it. I didn't trust that the produce, meat, and other perishables weren't just baking under a hatchback window all day.
There's a reason why, before door dash and seam less and grub hub, pizza dominated food delivery in the United States. And it's the same reason why "delivery pizza" developed as a style of pizza: thicker than 'thin crust' pizzas, cooked at lower temperatures than Neapolitan, a higher ratio of cheese to sauce than those two styles, not as heavy as Chicago deep dish...
That kind of pizza can be put in an insulating cardboard box, and then a warmer, and driven 20-45 minutes to a customer's house and it arrives in a condition that is comparatively palatable. It can also be made rapidly in bulk using conveyor-belt ovens.
Delivery pizza thrived on this model, and still does. Delivery pizza from a local operation (or a national chain) that employs their own drivers is still affordable and decent.
Other kinds of food are delivered disappointingly for a reason. The only styles that come close to pizza in terms of suitability for delivery are bulk noodle dishes and sandwiches (and both of these styles had delivery cultures before the rise of software middlemen).
That kind of pizza can be put in an insulating cardboard box, and then a warmer, and driven 20-45 minutes to a customer's house and it arrives in a condition that is comparatively palatable. It can also be made rapidly in bulk using conveyor-belt ovens.
Delivery pizza thrived on this model, and still does. Delivery pizza from a local operation (or a national chain) that employs their own drivers is still affordable and decent.
Other kinds of food are delivered disappointingly for a reason. The only styles that come close to pizza in terms of suitability for delivery are bulk noodle dishes and sandwiches (and both of these styles had delivery cultures before the rise of software middlemen).
Do thin crust pizzas, or those closer to the Italian style, not survive deliveries, what happens?
Just get cold faster.
The worst part of this “gig economy” is that it has allowed entrepreneurs as well as governments to parade around these gig jobs as “full time employment” and thump their chests and wash their hands off of any real employment generation.
Gig jobs do not equal employment. Employment comes with benefits and stability that allows one to plan ahead and invest and grow and even take some risks.
Gig work is essentially the illusion of work. On the surface, it makes you money and your bosses money and your customers good (food, transport, whatever). But it hollows out your society and makes it a little less future-focused, a little more insecure. Gig workers can’t plan their retirements or growing their families like normally employed people do.
Great for profits. Terrible for society at large.
Gig jobs do not equal employment. Employment comes with benefits and stability that allows one to plan ahead and invest and grow and even take some risks.
Gig work is essentially the illusion of work. On the surface, it makes you money and your bosses money and your customers good (food, transport, whatever). But it hollows out your society and makes it a little less future-focused, a little more insecure. Gig workers can’t plan their retirements or growing their families like normally employed people do.
Great for profits. Terrible for society at large.
Safeway suffers from a similar pricing problem. Ordered items that cost $42 on the receipt but $35 on DoorDash, with fees and tip.
I think if people were more diligent about where and what to order for delivery it would turn out better. We rarely have issues with food delivery. Arrives hot/warm and in around an hour. I won't order from anywhere that is more than a 1.5 miles away. 2 miles is a very long distance in a city like Chicago. If it's pasta I'm ordering it better be close to walking distance.
> “He realized that a delivery option had mysteriously appeared on their company’s Google Listing. The delivery option was created by Doordash,” Roy wrote.
Isn't that the crux of the issue? No one except the business owner should be able to edit the Google Listing.
Isn't that the crux of the issue? No one except the business owner should be able to edit the Google Listing.
You'd think so, but Google allows people to claim businesses without so much as a shred of proof.
Maybe they have their own heuristics, who knows. When my FIL started a sunflower farm, I wrote a nice review and google offered to have me claim the page.
Maybe they have their own heuristics, who knows. When my FIL started a sunflower farm, I wrote a nice review and google offered to have me claim the page.
I have also been offered to claim a business that I reviewed. There isn't even an option to say that you aren't the owner.
Why on earth is that even a suggestion? If it's actually the owner leaving a review of their own business that seems like the kind of situation where at a minimum you wouldn't want to go out of your way to help them claim the listing. The cynic in me thinks this was probably a data driven decision and reflects the sad state of third party reviews and small businesses.
> No one except the business owner should be able to edit the Google Listing.
Or something in between: you should be able to "suggest" an edit and then when enough people confirmed it the information would show up but with something like "not confirmed by the owner".
Otherwise Google would lose all this free workforce that is the people who go to restaurants and then fill the missing bits because the owners don’t know they have a listing on Google Maps / don’t know they can edit it.
Or something in between: you should be able to "suggest" an edit and then when enough people confirmed it the information would show up but with something like "not confirmed by the owner".
Otherwise Google would lose all this free workforce that is the people who go to restaurants and then fill the missing bits because the owners don’t know they have a listing on Google Maps / don’t know they can edit it.
I still haven't figured out how an app would get a monopoly?
Each city is pretty independent so there's not much incumbent advantage.
Seems like a reasonable discount would get someone to try a new app.
Drivers aren't loyal. If a restaurant uses any app they probably don't care where the order comes from.
Taco bell and other chains might be hard to get but is the market for taco bell or mcdonalds that big for delivery? and seems like it clutters the app anyway.
DashPass what does it get you? lower fees they should be charging anyway?
Am I missing something?
Each city is pretty independent so there's not much incumbent advantage.
Seems like a reasonable discount would get someone to try a new app.
Drivers aren't loyal. If a restaurant uses any app they probably don't care where the order comes from.
Taco bell and other chains might be hard to get but is the market for taco bell or mcdonalds that big for delivery? and seems like it clutters the app anyway.
DashPass what does it get you? lower fees they should be charging anyway?
Am I missing something?
The exclusivity agreements are between the restaurant and the courier. DoorDash has a massive sales team to negotiate contracts.
The theory is that restaurants may not be fungible to all diners and that by contracting with as many restaurants as possible, the competition becomes less attractive.
The theory is that restaurants may not be fungible to all diners and that by contracting with as many restaurants as possible, the competition becomes less attractive.
I don't know of any exclusivity clauses in contracts. Most restaurants are on GrubHub and Doordash and UberEats.
> I still haven't figured out how an app would get a monopoly?
They don’t have a monopoly, that’s why.
They don’t have a monopoly, that’s why.
But that's the premise why they've got such a huge multiple.
mostly they have solved the problem of "i've heard of this service and i will go to their homepage to search for restaurants when i want to order delivery"
still think the market could be segmented to remove the clutter(aka taco bell). And an incentive like $15 off your first order etc
Kind of like Etsy and Ebay.
Kind of like Etsy and Ebay.
If you already have the app you usually start by checking what options are available there.
As a user, I don't want to install another app, create an account, fill out my address and delivery details, and put in my billing information. Some restaurants have their own online ordering system which lets you automatically fill everything out with PayPal and such.
Besides, what is there to compete on?
As a user, I don't want to install another app, create an account, fill out my address and delivery details, and put in my billing information. Some restaurants have their own online ordering system which lets you automatically fill everything out with PayPal and such.
Besides, what is there to compete on?
Price. Some kind of discount on the first order.
Anti corporate Local only option.
In app clutter. Walgreens coming up when you search for desserts.
Anti corporate Local only option.
In app clutter. Walgreens coming up when you search for desserts.
I assume most of these situations are (if they actually thought this through that far) is achieve enough coverage and then institute some sort of predatory type deal with the local stores that locks them into their service / gives them deals on pricing and etc.
None of these seem to make sense in a dynamic free market with healthy competition.
None of these seem to make sense in a dynamic free market with healthy competition.
The thing that's worked in the past for companies is free digital options where your marginal distribution costs are 0. But drivers that's not the case. Could driverless tech work maybe. but would commercial driverless cars have apis?
> Drivers aren't loyal. If a restaurant uses any app they probably don't care where the order comes from.
Some drivers probably drive for multiple companies, and cherry-pick the best order that comes up.
I know I've seen drivers who drove for Uber and Lyft at the same time. Seems like the same is likely true for the food services.
Some drivers probably drive for multiple companies, and cherry-pick the best order that comes up.
I know I've seen drivers who drove for Uber and Lyft at the same time. Seems like the same is likely true for the food services.
youtube's full of drivers talking about using multiple apps.
My credit card has an annual fee, but includes DashPass for free when I use it. So, if I order twice a month, I'm even-ish on costs versus the discounts.
If there aren't any coupons available to me, then I sometimes try to optimize an order around a delivery minimum. Typical fast food restaurants are surprisingly good targets for this.
I think of the delivery fees + tips I pay as the cost of convenience. They mean I can sit around in my pajamas, playing a game or watching a movie, while slightly intoxicated. Or, I can read a book outside while I wait, if it's nice out.
If there aren't any coupons available to me, then I sometimes try to optimize an order around a delivery minimum. Typical fast food restaurants are surprisingly good targets for this.
I think of the delivery fees + tips I pay as the cost of convenience. They mean I can sit around in my pajamas, playing a game or watching a movie, while slightly intoxicated. Or, I can read a book outside while I wait, if it's nice out.
> My credit card has an annual fee, but includes DashPass for free when I use it. So, if I order twice a month, I'm even-ish on costs versus the discounts.
Technically you are not even-ish, you just spend more money. It's like buying a piece of clothing that's on sale - you don't save money unless you intended to purchase that exact (or an equivalent) item anyway. So unless you were anyway going to buy that specific food (rather than e.g. cook your own food, make a sandwich, or bake a frozen pizza) you are not at all profiting.
Technically you are not even-ish, you just spend more money. It's like buying a piece of clothing that's on sale - you don't save money unless you intended to purchase that exact (or an equivalent) item anyway. So unless you were anyway going to buy that specific food (rather than e.g. cook your own food, make a sandwich, or bake a frozen pizza) you are not at all profiting.
Oh no, I don't profit at all. More like, I know I'm going to be spending here, so I'm going to grab some perks where I can.
* Annual card fee is cheaper than DashPass * Decent points rewards from the card itself * DashPass significantly reduces fees * I use promotional discounts when I can
I expect to order food for delivery at least twice per month anyways, and the savings I get from this scheme offset the annual fee on the card. Plus, I keep some other delivery apps on my phone in case they send me desperation coupons.
I do also keep some frozen goodies, but I consider ordering out to be a treat. I just like to eat, and sometimes, KFC is what's gonna hit me right. Other times, a frozen pizza, which I greatly prefer to cheap chain-store pizza.
* Annual card fee is cheaper than DashPass * Decent points rewards from the card itself * DashPass significantly reduces fees * I use promotional discounts when I can
I expect to order food for delivery at least twice per month anyways, and the savings I get from this scheme offset the annual fee on the card. Plus, I keep some other delivery apps on my phone in case they send me desperation coupons.
I do also keep some frozen goodies, but I consider ordering out to be a treat. I just like to eat, and sometimes, KFC is what's gonna hit me right. Other times, a frozen pizza, which I greatly prefer to cheap chain-store pizza.
This is a ludicrous system. Imagine trying to explain this to someone from 1970.
unless they lined up deals with every major credit card company then the market could get segmented up. Which point it's not really a value for the credit card company. so I still see some kind of competition.
I trust the app to be a more reliable intermediary between me and the restaurant rather than ordering directly. I trust that the app is more technically sound (I've had problems ordering from 'bespoke' apps and websites) and won't forget my order or route it to different city/country or something (things that have happened). Some apps offer tracking of the courier (can be nice to have) and give features that 'bespoke' options don't have.
Also, you get reviews and discoverability of options. I can go to a different city and see all the delivery options immediately.
Unlike a lot of people here, I've had great experiences with food delivery apps. Not doordash (not a thing where I live), but others. I knew people working as delivery bikers and they said it can be a decent way to earn a living while you're studying. The flexible nature of the work lends itself well to that.
Also, you get reviews and discoverability of options. I can go to a different city and see all the delivery options immediately.
Unlike a lot of people here, I've had great experiences with food delivery apps. Not doordash (not a thing where I live), but others. I knew people working as delivery bikers and they said it can be a decent way to earn a living while you're studying. The flexible nature of the work lends itself well to that.
if your a traveler then yes. it absolutely makes sense. Totally would use big app to check out the restaurants reviews although google does reviews too.
'Bespoke' used to mean something else. From now on, "duck" means my toaster blew a fuse again.
I’ll bite. What do you believe is the meaning of ‘bespoke’ as used here?
It's used here in the most current meaning. Not "to speak for," or "nice stuff," but for "limited, hurry and get it."
Two and three are melding a bit, but the word has been twisted and abused, and for some reason liked enough by influencers now that it's come around again. Sort of like Toto's Africa.
Two and three are melding a bit, but the word has been twisted and abused, and for some reason liked enough by influencers now that it's come around again. Sort of like Toto's Africa.
A brand is basically a monopoly on a part of your brain.
There are only so many brands that fit inside a person's brain, so for every category there's usually only one brand in memory.
There are only so many brands that fit inside a person's brain, so for every category there's usually only one brand in memory.
I assumed this was one of those "true stories" that content marketers put out to push their newsletter, but I see in an update he actually names the restaurant that allegedly did this.
Would this be fraud? Not necessarily ordering pizza from your own restaurant, but, say, ordering pizza from your own restaurant but only putting dough into the boxes?
Would this be fraud? Not necessarily ordering pizza from your own restaurant, but, say, ordering pizza from your own restaurant but only putting dough into the boxes?
> Would this be fraud?
No. This is not fraud.
Doordash and the pizza company had no contractual relationship. The pizza company did not contract with Doordash to run an "$8 off" pizza promotion. Rather, Doordash, in an attempt to claim a near monopoly on the food ordering market, chose to sell food at a loss. The goal of this strategy is to get consumers used to buying from Doordash (while prices are low). Once a sizable percentage of orders are going through Doordash, Doordash can raise fees and refuse to list companies that don't pay up. The only way to get this sort of market share is through tactics like the one described (selling food at a loss).
When the pizza man chooses to buy his own pizza on Doordash, he is merely affording himself of the same cheap pizza that Doordash is providing to anyone else. Doordash is behaving rationally here. They need to capture the mindshare of users. By providing pizza delivery at prices that are lower than economically viable, Doordash will get this. The pizza man is simply choosing to benefit while he can. Long live the pizza man!
No. This is not fraud.
Doordash and the pizza company had no contractual relationship. The pizza company did not contract with Doordash to run an "$8 off" pizza promotion. Rather, Doordash, in an attempt to claim a near monopoly on the food ordering market, chose to sell food at a loss. The goal of this strategy is to get consumers used to buying from Doordash (while prices are low). Once a sizable percentage of orders are going through Doordash, Doordash can raise fees and refuse to list companies that don't pay up. The only way to get this sort of market share is through tactics like the one described (selling food at a loss).
When the pizza man chooses to buy his own pizza on Doordash, he is merely affording himself of the same cheap pizza that Doordash is providing to anyone else. Doordash is behaving rationally here. They need to capture the mindshare of users. By providing pizza delivery at prices that are lower than economically viable, Doordash will get this. The pizza man is simply choosing to benefit while he can. Long live the pizza man!
> Rather, Doordash, in an attempt to claim a near monopoly on the food ordering market, chose to sell food at a loss.
This is called price dumping for anyone that wants to read up on it.
This is called price dumping for anyone that wants to read up on it.
and it's illegal in some places
Unfortunately it's usually only illegal when a monopoly or other dominant company does it. SV seems to have worked around this by funding "startups" so much that they have the capital to engage in dumping before becoming dominant in an industry.
at least in the US doordash already reached more than 50%. i believe if it can be argued that it was only able to achieve this through predatory pricing then at this point it should be possible to stop it from continuing that pricing strategy.
Link please
I believe they only applies to a company in a "dominant" position
Gas stations have been successfully sued under such laws. So clearly, there's some flexibility when it comes to the definition of dominant.
i don't know the case behind this example, but i can imagine that if a small city only has a few gas stations, even just one undercutting all the others, forcing them to close would be a form of domination.
so basically (and i am just guessing here) a company becomes dominant the moment its competitors start going out of business because of this companies predatory pricing.
so basically (and i am just guessing here) a company becomes dominant the moment its competitors start going out of business because of this companies predatory pricing.
If he wanted to really stick it to them, he'd complain that his pizzas were just dough and get himself some doordash credits :)
> Doordash and the pizza company had no contractual relationship.
Don't Doordash and the pizza company owner have a contractual relationship when the pizza shop owner agrees to the Terms of Service for using the Doordash app to order food?
I have no clue if the doordash TOS forbids such usage, but it might?
Don't Doordash and the pizza company owner have a contractual relationship when the pizza shop owner agrees to the Terms of Service for using the Doordash app to order food?
I have no clue if the doordash TOS forbids such usage, but it might?
No, that was kind of the point. Doordash listed them without the restaurant's approval. In fact it was a surprise to the pizza place they were on DD.
The restaurant agrees to Doordash’s terms when they buy pizza, not sell.
The restaurant did not agree to anything, at most the person ordering food agreed to something.
> at most the person ordering food agreed to something.
That's the part I'm talking about. The restaurant owner agreed to something in order to use the app to buy pizza.
That's the part I'm talking about. The restaurant owner agreed to something in order to use the app to buy pizza.
It's a bit bizarre that you are claiming this relationship might exist, when you could simply read the TOS and see if such a clause exists.
I'm not a lawyer, I can read the TOS but I'm not qualified to understand it. TOSes are a farce but that doesn't mean they can't be enforced.
EDIT: But I'll humor the premise, here are some lines from the customer TOS:
> (e) You will not use the Services to cause nuisance, annoyance or inconvenience.
> (q) You will not try to harm other Users, DoorDash, or the Services in any way whatsoever.
> (t) You will not abuse our promotional or credit code system, including by redeeming multiple coupons at once or by opening multiple accounts to benefit from offers available only to first-time users.
> You agree that promotional offers: (i) may only be used by the intended audience, for the intended purpose, and in a lawful manner;
What are the actual legal implications of these lines? I have no clue. Could they be construed by lawyers to forbid this scheme? I don't know.
EDIT: But I'll humor the premise, here are some lines from the customer TOS:
> (e) You will not use the Services to cause nuisance, annoyance or inconvenience.
> (q) You will not try to harm other Users, DoorDash, or the Services in any way whatsoever.
> (t) You will not abuse our promotional or credit code system, including by redeeming multiple coupons at once or by opening multiple accounts to benefit from offers available only to first-time users.
> You agree that promotional offers: (i) may only be used by the intended audience, for the intended purpose, and in a lawful manner;
What are the actual legal implications of these lines? I have no clue. Could they be construed by lawyers to forbid this scheme? I don't know.
It would be really interesting for DoorDash to argue in court that ordering food from them and then paying for it somehow harms them.
But in case you really can’t tell, no the terms don’t apply here. Lawsuits generally assume people have put on their big boy pants, if sell a painting for 10$ that ends up being worth millions that’s on you. You decided 10$ was a reasonable price at the time of sale and you don’t get to say but your honor I am an idiot.
But in case you really can’t tell, no the terms don’t apply here. Lawsuits generally assume people have put on their big boy pants, if sell a painting for 10$ that ends up being worth millions that’s on you. You decided 10$ was a reasonable price at the time of sale and you don’t get to say but your honor I am an idiot.
> "no the terms don’t apply here"
Is that your legal opinion as a lawyer?
It says that customers agree to only use promotional discounts "for the intended purpose"; what does that mean and how can you be sure a business owner using promotional discounts to profit from arbitrage is the "intended purpose" of the promotional discount?
Is that your legal opinion as a lawyer?
It says that customers agree to only use promotional discounts "for the intended purpose"; what does that mean and how can you be sure a business owner using promotional discounts to profit from arbitrage is the "intended purpose" of the promotional discount?
This actually wasn't listed as a "promotional discount". Doordash just listed the pizza as cheap. And the pizza man decided to enjoy the cheap pizza.
This stuff isn't complicated, “Intended purpose” is the obvious use aka making orders.
Finding the cheapest order possible and making repeated orders to DOS the company locally wouldn’t be.
Finding the cheapest order possible and making repeated orders to DOS the company locally wouldn’t be.
Seems like a deliberate nuisance?
He was making individual orders of a large but not extreme size every few days. That's hardly a nuisance.
The restaurant was represented by the person ordering the food. That person had to agree to TOS when downloading the Door Dash app. That is what is being considered.
Owing a business doesn't mean every action you take represents the company.
> the person ordering food agreed to something
That’s… the restaurant owner, though.
That’s… the restaurant owner, though.
Which is legally distinct from the resturant.
If the owner agreed not to create a nuisance and they’re order creates a nuisance then they’re not meeting their agreement.
In your hypothetical case they could sue the owner but not the company.
[deleted]
Not necessarily, considering how DoorDash adds restaurants to their site without their knowledge and foists the customer service burden onto them.
e: Yes, the original article makes it clear that he didn't sign up for this: https://www.readmargins.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitrage
e: Yes, the original article makes it clear that he didn't sign up for this: https://www.readmargins.com/p/doordash-and-pizza-arbitrage
I don't mean a TOS between Doordash and the restaurant, I mean the TOS between Doordash and customers of Doordash using the Doordash app. The pizzeria owner signed up to Doordash as a customer, in order to buy pizzas.
And he honored this contract. He paid $16 for each pizza, just as Doordash offered. The fact that Doordash was selling pizzas for a loss was Doordash's problem, not his.
> And he honored this contract.
I don't know, what does the TOS actually say? The app's TOS might say something like "you can't use this app to order food from a business you own", or something else that might forbid this scheme. Maybe it doesn't though, I don't know and haven't read it, but I think it could.
I don't know, what does the TOS actually say? The app's TOS might say something like "you can't use this app to order food from a business you own", or something else that might forbid this scheme. Maybe it doesn't though, I don't know and haven't read it, but I think it could.
I just scanned through the TOS. The only thing I could find that's related to this at all is a clause saying that you won't submit a review or rating "for any Merchant or business for which you have an ownership interest, employment relationship or other affiliation or for any of that company’s competitors"
Nothing about not ordering from your own business.
Nothing about not ordering from your own business.
I feel like such a clause, even if somehow enforceable, could easily be worked around. The owner's child could place the order. Or the owner's spouse. Or a close friend.
Clearly the better option for Doordash is to simply not engage in predatory pricing to begin with.
Clearly the better option for Doordash is to simply not engage in predatory pricing to begin with.
Still probably fraud since done with intent.
If you access any of our websites (or other methods) … you have read, understand, and agree to be bound by this Agreement - https://help.doordash.com/consumers/s/terms-and-conditions-u...
The T&C attempts to bind “merchants” to the “Self-Delivery Product Addendum”, which states: Merchant shall ensure that pricing of Merchant Products under the PickUp Program is not greater than the pricing of the same Merchant Products for pickup (a) in-store - https://help.doordash.com/merchants/s/us-addendum-self-deliv...
So it’s expressly prohibited. But are they bound to the additional merchant provisions if they never signed up to be a merchant?
The T&C attempts to bind “merchants” to the “Self-Delivery Product Addendum”, which states: Merchant shall ensure that pricing of Merchant Products under the PickUp Program is not greater than the pricing of the same Merchant Products for pickup (a) in-store - https://help.doordash.com/merchants/s/us-addendum-self-deliv...
So it’s expressly prohibited. But are they bound to the additional merchant provisions if they never signed up to be a merchant?
Of course not. He’s not acting as a merchant when he orders pizza from himself on Doordash and can’t be bound by contract terms he never agreed to. Doordash didn’t ask him to sell pizzas on doordash, they decide to list his products themselves below cost. He doesn’t have an agreement with them except as anyone else ordering food from doordash, or doordash ordering food from him as anyone else could. Doordash doesn’t bind him contractually any way here.
Uh huh. There’s also this in the T&C: You will not use the Services, or any content accessible through the Services, for any commercial purpose, including but not limited to contacting, advertising to, soliciting or selling to, any Merchant, User or Contractor, unless DoorDash has given you prior permission to do so in writing. the pizza shop owner used it for the commercial purpose of selling pizza to himself.
In English law, if it’s dishonest, it’s fraud. The pizza shop owner’s conduct was plainly dishonest by the standards of “ordinary decent people”. Where was this, anyway? What’s the local standard? Probably a variation of exactly the same.
I like DoorDash’s chances on this.
In English law, if it’s dishonest, it’s fraud. The pizza shop owner’s conduct was plainly dishonest by the standards of “ordinary decent people”. Where was this, anyway? What’s the local standard? Probably a variation of exactly the same.
I like DoorDash’s chances on this.
[deleted]
There is one Term that is probably applicable, but this was certainly not the case they were anticipating when they wrote the term:
> (f) You will not use the Services, or any content accessible through the Services, for any commercial purpose, including but not limited to contacting, advertising to, soliciting or selling to, any Merchant, User or Contractor, unless DoorDash has given you prior permission to do so in writing.
This hinges on if trying to make money by using the service as a consumer counts as commercial use. But you can tell they were thinking about very different scenarios when they wrote this term.
> (f) You will not use the Services, or any content accessible through the Services, for any commercial purpose, including but not limited to contacting, advertising to, soliciting or selling to, any Merchant, User or Contractor, unless DoorDash has given you prior permission to do so in writing.
This hinges on if trying to make money by using the service as a consumer counts as commercial use. But you can tell they were thinking about very different scenarios when they wrote this term.
I have no reason to believe the TOS contains a clause like that.
I’d argue it’s clearly a ‘nuisance’, which is prohibited by the TOS.
I don't think you could add such language to a TOS and have it be legally binding.
Potentially yes, and I think people are skimming over this because they want to agree with what the shop owner is doing (because Doordash sucks and is a predatory business).
To buy from Doordash, you have to agree to some TOS on their app. Sales, as has been pointed out, no. But buying, yes. He could be violating that TOS, if they try to prevent this sort of thing. Since this loophole was reported on in a fairly well-known publication years ago, it isn't ridiculous to think they have something in there.
IANAL, but I wonder if he could coordinate with somebody to have them order the pizzas instead, so he doesn't have to agree to anything.
A funny idea might be to start offering Doordash's discount to in-person customers who were going to buy the pizza anyway. "Just order on this stupid app and set your delivery location to our address, then we'll Doordash it across the room or whatever."
A further extension of this would be, if he can figure out what Doordash is parsing wrong on his online menu, then maybe he could try to work out how to get that field to show up as $1. I'm not sure if it was this one, but there was some place that had had their fancy custom pizza listed with their plain cheese pizza price. So maybe they could start their menu with something like:
Plain pizza raw (subheader: It is literally a lump of uncooked dough, don't buy this): $1
To buy from Doordash, you have to agree to some TOS on their app. Sales, as has been pointed out, no. But buying, yes. He could be violating that TOS, if they try to prevent this sort of thing. Since this loophole was reported on in a fairly well-known publication years ago, it isn't ridiculous to think they have something in there.
IANAL, but I wonder if he could coordinate with somebody to have them order the pizzas instead, so he doesn't have to agree to anything.
A funny idea might be to start offering Doordash's discount to in-person customers who were going to buy the pizza anyway. "Just order on this stupid app and set your delivery location to our address, then we'll Doordash it across the room or whatever."
A further extension of this would be, if he can figure out what Doordash is parsing wrong on his online menu, then maybe he could try to work out how to get that field to show up as $1. I'm not sure if it was this one, but there was some place that had had their fancy custom pizza listed with their plain cheese pizza price. So maybe they could start their menu with something like:
Plain pizza raw (subheader: It is literally a lump of uncooked dough, don't buy this): $1
[deleted]
> Would this be fraud?
It's hard to imagine. The restaurant clearly has no contractual relationship with Doordash. I don't know why they even bothered with the dough and boxes.
It's hard to imagine. The restaurant clearly has no contractual relationship with Doordash. I don't know why they even bothered with the dough and boxes.
If they shipped empty boxes the driver probably would have noticed and brought it to someone's attention. either refusing to deliver or ending the promotion early.
> why they even bothered with the dough and boxes
So it wouldn't be fraud. They had to deliver what was ordered.
So it wouldn't be fraud. They had to deliver what was ordered.
You always enter in a contractual relationship with companies like Doordash if you buy anything through them - which they clearly did here. Whether or not this scheme breaks said agreement could only be answered by checking it closely, but if their legal department is worth anything there's probably some general purpose safeguard against abusing the service.
Ah yes the general. "Ultimately we can choose to screw you however we want, but we've made some sort of blanket clause in this that if you try something that is a breach of contract"
Or as the The PHB in Dilbert once said "It's better than legal we are using the law to keep justice away."
Or as the The PHB in Dilbert once said "It's better than legal we are using the law to keep justice away."
Enforceability and recourse are hurdles to punishing the pizza parlor with anything more than denying them a listing if at some point they wanted one. The pizza parlor did not ask to be listed so recourse seems especially weak.
For this to be fraud someone would have to be defrauded.
Certainly the owner was not defrauded, nor anyone working with him to purchase the dough. Nor was Doordash defrauded: they offered to sell anyone pizzas for $16, and the owner took them up on the offer.
Certainly the owner was not defrauded, nor anyone working with him to purchase the dough. Nor was Doordash defrauded: they offered to sell anyone pizzas for $16, and the owner took them up on the offer.
Doordash defines itself as a technology company responsible for connecting customers with restaurants using dashers as contractors for delivery and itself providing logistics for ordering, paying, and routing dashers.
Can you imagine what the press would do if Doordash actually sued the local pizza place because it was dumb, or filed a police report? I think it wouldn't be pretty, and the stock price could go down, and doing something that makes your stock go down can lead to an investor lawsuit.
Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I'd love to see a lawyer analyze this though.
Can you imagine what the press would do if Doordash actually sued the local pizza place because it was dumb, or filed a police report? I think it wouldn't be pretty, and the stock price could go down, and doing something that makes your stock go down can lead to an investor lawsuit.
Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I'd love to see a lawyer analyze this though.
It may or may not be fraud as the letter of the law, but this is definitely the shadiest part of the story. Also a pretty lame thing to do.
It would have been much more elegant to add some crazy overpriced option to your pizzas where you could make a huge margin. Like "gift wrap +$100" which would mean putting a $0.01 ribbon around the box. You could make much more money this way from Doordash with less hassle than switching certain orders to plain dough.
It would have been much more elegant to add some crazy overpriced option to your pizzas where you could make a huge margin. Like "gift wrap +$100" which would mean putting a $0.01 ribbon around the box. You could make much more money this way from Doordash with less hassle than switching certain orders to plain dough.
Would this be fraud?
IANAL, but I am going to go against the prevailing trend and suggest that it might actually be fraud. In ordering the pizzas from Doordash, he misrepresented himself to Doordash as a genuine customer (for financial gain).
As far as not actually delivering complete pizzas, that may not be fraud as he did not misrepresent the product to . . . himself. However, I could also see an argument for it being fraud as Doordash bought pizzas from him, and he did not deliver pizzas (regardless of the fact that Doordash then sold the "pizzas" back to him for less).
IANAL, but I am going to go against the prevailing trend and suggest that it might actually be fraud. In ordering the pizzas from Doordash, he misrepresented himself to Doordash as a genuine customer (for financial gain).
As far as not actually delivering complete pizzas, that may not be fraud as he did not misrepresent the product to . . . himself. However, I could also see an argument for it being fraud as Doordash bought pizzas from him, and he did not deliver pizzas (regardless of the fact that Doordash then sold the "pizzas" back to him for less).
I mean, if the customer doesn't complain, why would Doordash care?
>Would this be fraud?
It might be fraud. I doubt the damage would be worth the possible backlash for doordash to pursue this.
It might be fraud. I doubt the damage would be worth the possible backlash for doordash to pursue this.
No.
Now someone just needs to make a Doordash arbitrage app, so restaurants can get notifications when Doordash does this and can do the same thing as OP.
>> the only viable endgame is a promise of monopoly concentration and increased prices. But is that even viable?
No, the endgame is to IPO and unload that money furnace on the public. If you can get big enough certain funds will even be required to buy the shares. Part of the problem here is that general public have outsourced stock picking to mutual funds or ETFs via the 401K plan. Good plans won't buy this, but a simple ETF will if the criteria are met right?
No, the endgame is to IPO and unload that money furnace on the public. If you can get big enough certain funds will even be required to buy the shares. Part of the problem here is that general public have outsourced stock picking to mutual funds or ETFs via the 401K plan. Good plans won't buy this, but a simple ETF will if the criteria are met right?
if you look at Uber's fundamentals thru the IPO it's clear that most of the value was a money laundering scheme for the Saudis.
> It’s used to subsidize an untenable customer expectation. [...] the only viable endgame is a promise of monopoly concentration and increased prices. But is that even viable?
I think that's such a great summary. This has arguably already been completed with the music industry and streaming. Although another option other than "increased prices" is to have it be a loss-leading part of a larger profitable media portfolio. Either way, songwriters still get screwed.
(Five imaginary bucks to the first person who replies that songwriting is just supposed to be a marketing expense for touring and merch! :) )
I think that's such a great summary. This has arguably already been completed with the music industry and streaming. Although another option other than "increased prices" is to have it be a loss-leading part of a larger profitable media portfolio. Either way, songwriters still get screwed.
(Five imaginary bucks to the first person who replies that songwriting is just supposed to be a marketing expense for touring and merch! :) )
Dedicated songwriters (who don't also perform) is a hard problem generally. It tends to be where most systems that want to eliminate copyright monopolies stumble badly.
> Either way, songwriters still get screwed
I have a couple of friends who make/made music and they all say this problem is overrated. What you've lost in royalty-per-cd you're more than making up for in availability.
If you tried making music 30 years ago, and you got the 1-in-a-thousand record deal, you only make a cut per CD after you pay back the record label.
Today, if you just want to make some jams in your basement, you can find a niche and end up on a few playlists and start pulling in some money.
The only people losing out are the big name pop artists - but the distribution tail got a lot fatter for everyone else.
I have a couple of friends who make/made music and they all say this problem is overrated. What you've lost in royalty-per-cd you're more than making up for in availability.
If you tried making music 30 years ago, and you got the 1-in-a-thousand record deal, you only make a cut per CD after you pay back the record label.
Today, if you just want to make some jams in your basement, you can find a niche and end up on a few playlists and start pulling in some money.
The only people losing out are the big name pop artists - but the distribution tail got a lot fatter for everyone else.
I'm not so much talking about the tradeoff from physical to streaming. I'm talking about how when the transition to streaming happened, it was funded with a bunch of VC money that set a customer expectation of a very cheap music supply, which was later used to leverage negotiations for low streaming rates. Paying the songwriters is a cost from the delivery perspective, and the tech companies have every interest to reduce that cost. They're going to try to turn that knob before they try to raise prices on consumers.
Now, if the mathematical modeling has been done to show that any increase in streaming royalty rates is 100% correlated with a decrease in listenership, such that songwriter revenue decreases; in other words, if it's been mathematically shown we are at a maximum from the songwriters' perspective, that would be convincing. I just doubt that that is the case.
Now, if the mathematical modeling has been done to show that any increase in streaming royalty rates is 100% correlated with a decrease in listenership, such that songwriter revenue decreases; in other words, if it's been mathematically shown we are at a maximum from the songwriters' perspective, that would be convincing. I just doubt that that is the case.
We shouldn't mix apples and pears here - music streaming is a different beast. The marginal cost for DoorDash is the cost of a pizza. The marginal cost for a music stream is effectively $0.00 dollars.
You could say that VC set the customer expectation for cheap music (although, Zune Music Pass was available a full decade before streaming took off) but even before streaming you could argue consumer expectation for music was pretty dang cheap. Music was free on the radio, albums where shared widely, music was copied and pirated rampantly. It's a stronger argument that streaming services convinced labels that that everyone could make more money if they started competing with piracy on cost and convenience.
You could say that VC set the customer expectation for cheap music (although, Zune Music Pass was available a full decade before streaming took off) but even before streaming you could argue consumer expectation for music was pretty dang cheap. Music was free on the radio, albums where shared widely, music was copied and pirated rampantly. It's a stronger argument that streaming services convinced labels that that everyone could make more money if they started competing with piracy on cost and convenience.
That makes sense and it's satisfying but the article says: But what’s funnier about Roy’s friend’s problem ... is that DoorDash priced the pizzas incorrectly.
So is this just a DoorDash pricing mistake or evidence of the strategy to which they ascribe it?
So is this just a DoorDash pricing mistake or evidence of the strategy to which they ascribe it?
I think who's going to make money in this space in the long run is a company that provides a single app to get delivery from many places, like DoorDash, but only works with companies that already offer their own delivery service like pizza joints, Jimmy Johns, etc. Such a company can charge a very small fee and simply handle the transaction and some logistics, while fulfillment is handled by the companies that have been doing a good job at it for decades. It's a win-win-win. Maybe such a thing already exists?
Exactly
Another key quote from the article: >>"the only viable endgame is a promise of monopoly concentration and increased prices. But is that even viable?"
No, it is not viable, because as soon as Uber/Grubhub/Doordash/whatever start thinking they have enough of a monopoly to raise prices, ppl will get sick of it, and your scenario of the locals, perhaps with an app, will overtake them because they don't have the global overhead. I don't see this as a business with advantages of scale, but disadvantages of scale - it's all about getting the local market right?
Another key quote from the article: >>"the only viable endgame is a promise of monopoly concentration and increased prices. But is that even viable?"
No, it is not viable, because as soon as Uber/Grubhub/Doordash/whatever start thinking they have enough of a monopoly to raise prices, ppl will get sick of it, and your scenario of the locals, perhaps with an app, will overtake them because they don't have the global overhead. I don't see this as a business with advantages of scale, but disadvantages of scale - it's all about getting the local market right?
That’s more or less what just eat did/does. Though it combines both delivery and pickup
Wasn’t the whole point of this "space" to offer delivery for restaurants that didn’t have it? Outside of pizzas, I’m struggling to find another kind of restaurant that offered home delivery before UberEats/etc.
Before the handful of food delivery services made their way to the top 5 or so, there were a bunch of companies trying to do the same and they would often give you a free meal coupon.
In this way I ate for almost an entire week for free and never use most of those services again after that.
In this way I ate for almost an entire week for free and never use most of those services again after that.
> most of
Sounds like they were successful
Sounds like they were successful
I ended up using Amazon Restaurants, the one that did not give me coupons.
The correct next step, not sure where to begin.
How can localities ban (perhaps outright or through heavy taxation) these services, and perhaps roll their own.
I'm aware of all the pro-free-market economic religiosity one would have to cut through to get there, but I really don't care about any of it.
There is no reason any rando Silicon Valley person or company should get ANY money from a $mycity driver delivering $mycity restaurant food to a $mycity customer. Not any more.
How can localities ban (perhaps outright or through heavy taxation) these services, and perhaps roll their own.
I'm aware of all the pro-free-market economic religiosity one would have to cut through to get there, but I really don't care about any of it.
There is no reason any rando Silicon Valley person or company should get ANY money from a $mycity driver delivering $mycity restaurant food to a $mycity customer. Not any more.
*article from 2020
I guess the business model for DoorDash is to 'lock' customers (both receiving and sending side) into their systems. Once ingrained to a point where it is painful to extricate, prices creep up till it is profitable?
Sort of like cable TV, satellite radio, Youtube, et al. I remember all were initially introduces as 'no commercials, that is what the monthly fee is for', or 'you will not see commercials in our videos'. Today, none of these media can be watched without advertisements.
Step one, present something slightly more convenient, or less costly than status quo.
Step two, wait till every frog is comfortably swimming in the pot and abandons original something.
Step three, put lid on pot, but keep telling frogs that it is for an improvement. Maybe even get Gov to declare original something was dangerous, think of the children!
Step four, turn up heat and start charging big bucks.
Sort of like cable TV, satellite radio, Youtube, et al. I remember all were initially introduces as 'no commercials, that is what the monthly fee is for', or 'you will not see commercials in our videos'. Today, none of these media can be watched without advertisements.
Step one, present something slightly more convenient, or less costly than status quo.
Step two, wait till every frog is comfortably swimming in the pot and abandons original something.
Step three, put lid on pot, but keep telling frogs that it is for an improvement. Maybe even get Gov to declare original something was dangerous, think of the children!
Step four, turn up heat and start charging big bucks.
it's old, but had i discovered this i'd be tempted to automate something to deliver 20 pizzas every day to a homeless shelter and see how long they took to catch on...
[deleted]
Or just front-load it and donate from the proceeds. In a previous discussion, someone purchased several thousand dollars of pizzas in one order to give their local shop a multiple of that.
This felt familiar, here's the previous discussion about this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23216852
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23216852
I managed a pizza place during college. The night the local 'burger place' had a deal on cheeseburgers, we also ironically offered cheeseburger pizzas. Bumped the price a few bucks, paid for the 49 cent cheeseburger, and cleared a bit more cash those nights.
I know this post is related to the umpteenth food delivery but how could it possible to sell a pizza for $24? I mean, a pizza contains flour, yeast, water, tomato sauce, cheese (mozzarella if you want an Italian pizza) and olive oil. All of these ingredients are in US so you don't need to pay extra fees to bring those ingredients in your country. In Italy a delivered pizza costs €7-€12. The raw materials to produce a single pizza costs €1-€3 plus the cost of the resturant (employees, fixed costs) €3-5€, the margin is €3-€4 per pizza.
There is a Streets of New York Pizza on Camelback Rd in Phoenix, AZ that has a sign up by the cash register. I read it picking up an order one day.
It tells patrons that Uber Eats et al. charge up to a cool app-store-esque 30% premium on deliveries.
I'm not sure how that works out for the business or affects their pricing or margins, but they say it pushes them down for their side of the transaction. Uber Eats already gets out of hand for the consumer, so I assume the only winner involved is the corporate body, because it certainly isn't the driver.
It tells patrons that Uber Eats et al. charge up to a cool app-store-esque 30% premium on deliveries.
I'm not sure how that works out for the business or affects their pricing or margins, but they say it pushes them down for their side of the transaction. Uber Eats already gets out of hand for the consumer, so I assume the only winner involved is the corporate body, because it certainly isn't the driver.
Register as a driver. Make a cart that holds 50 pizza boxes.Load 50 boxes, place order, capture this order as yours the moment it is placed you wheel the cart out and sign for it. Wheel the cart back with the same empty 50 boxes go through the payment rigmarole, tip etc ~~ 5-10 minute delivery gap.
Repeat 6-12 times/hour.
The question is:-Are there 5000 or 10,000 drivers out there doing this? There are probably $200 million worth or more...
Yesterday I heard a story about the Chinese green energy industry.
The government subsidizes companies that run city transportation services. The subsidy amount is determined by the overall mileage (of clean energy buses) a company has served during one year.
So those companies raise their clean energy buses with a jack and let them run continuously to update the odometers in order to collect the money.
The government subsidizes companies that run city transportation services. The subsidy amount is determined by the overall mileage (of clean energy buses) a company has served during one year.
So those companies raise their clean energy buses with a jack and let them run continuously to update the odometers in order to collect the money.
One can laugh at DoorDash all they want, but the bottom line is that out of the hundreds of similar services that entered this space in the last decade they are one of the only ones left standing and are worth $30B in the public market. The strategy of burning VC cash to get customers can be gamed, sure, but is also incredibly effective.
They weren't profitable during a unique time period in human history where people were locked in their homes for months and mostly could only get restaurant food through delivery.
The valuation seems completely arbitrary, almost fake, when you take that into account.
The valuation seems completely arbitrary, almost fake, when you take that into account.
All the insiders - founders, employees, early VCs - won. So did consumers who were subsidized for a long time. Who cares about the rest? If public investors were stupid enough to purchase at a 100B valuation, who cares?
The care comes from hoping fake companies fail fast and hard so they can be replaced by companies that can be profitable long term and provide long term value to society.
Until VC money runs out and we have another WeWork-like scenario at our hands.
> and are worth $30B in the public market.
It's not that I directionally disagree with you on VC waste, but this example isn't supporting your point.
It's not that I directionally disagree with you on VC waste, but this example isn't supporting your point.
Well, there are valuations and there is value. WeWork had a decent ahot at becoming public before things came crashing down, so a valuation itself isn't telling a lot.
Right, but DoorDash is /already public/. This thread isn't about WeWork.
Yeah, some outrageous valuation that isn't based on anything in this reality is just not something that impresses me.
SkipTheDishes is still around.
It should be illegal. It allows an unsustainable and lower-quality business to kill competitors that might actually have a working business model.
In the long run, consumers lose because they have reduced (and shittier) options, and the overall economy loses because one giant monopoly isn't going to contribute as much as a competitive market would in terms of innovations, technologies, GDP, etc.
In the long run, consumers lose because they have reduced (and shittier) options, and the overall economy loses because one giant monopoly isn't going to contribute as much as a competitive market would in terms of innovations, technologies, GDP, etc.
Ostensibly, laws are not designed to be tools for protecting business models.
This is a dishonest way to say that since it misconstrues my argument. I never said there should be laws to protect business models, but rather laws to ban them.
One might say it’s the same difference, but the framings are clearly not the same, and makes my argument seem ridiculous.
Antitrust laws exist (even though it may not seem like it). These business models that involve dumping mountains of cash into unsustainable businesses in order to kill the competition is very clearly anti-competitive behavior. The long term harm to consumers is clear.
One might say it’s the same difference, but the framings are clearly not the same, and makes my argument seem ridiculous.
Antitrust laws exist (even though it may not seem like it). These business models that involve dumping mountains of cash into unsustainable businesses in order to kill the competition is very clearly anti-competitive behavior. The long term harm to consumers is clear.
I honestly had no intention of misconstruing your argument.
Consumers are less stupid than VCs believe they are. Look what happened to Groupon. Once DoorDash starts charging $30 for the $24 pizza, people will just go back to ordering it from the pizzeria directly. And DASH is "worth" half of what it was a year ago.
Let's be honest, as soon as L5 is cleared the human driver will be disposable in the context of home deliveries. Then, $1 delivery will be the standard, the crazy surcharges will be gone and you will order all the things you crave without hesitation. Look at Starship on campuses.
Pretty sure a fusion grid will happen first.
I can't say how much I have "abused" various delivery services here in Europe with their coupons. I've never even once ordered for the full price there. If I were to do that, I'd place an order at the restaurant directly instead.
This reminds me of the time when I believe it was California implemented a gun buyback program for dangerous, untraceable 3D printed guns. Some clever git with a 3D printer saw the obvious opportunity and made his almost-literal money printer go brrrr.
This needs a (2020) tag. It’s super old but still an interesting anecdote about “blitz scaling” gone wrong. I found a few of these myself, was able to order a free sandwich that normally cost $16 as long as I ordered something else.
(2020), please. It is at least third time I'm seeing this story on HN top page.
For improved profit, re-heat the pizzas and buy/sell the same ones again.
I don't get the "in fairness: COVID-19" remark. Lockdown was the one time many people I know and I actually did make use of food delivery services because we couldn't eat on prem...
I love DoorDash as a service, but I worry about it being a sustainable business at the pricing they have and I don’t see myself paying more than I already pay.
I still haven't figured out how they can charge what they do and still loose money?
The article is from 2020, it’s a bit different landscape in 2022 with cuts across many VC-fueled startups
[deleted]
It seems like there would be a ton of arbitrage examples like this
This reminds me of Milo Minderbinder from Catch 22 :)
[deleted]
@dang please tag (2020)
“don’t make sense about global capitalism” i am puzzled. has this happened in any other capitalist country? or is the author shy in limiting the statement to just his own?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Similar to uber with their subsidized rides. Early on uber was dirt cheap, now it's 3x for those same fares after they drove the taxi businesses to the ground.
Did they really drive the taxi business to the ground? Do you have any proof of this? And if so, why is it now impossible to start a taxi business again now that Uber decided to triple their prices?
> And if so, why is it now impossible to start a taxi business again now that Uber decided to triple their prices?
If you ask OP for a proof of what they say, please at least do the same for your own claims.
If you ask OP for a proof of what they say, please at least do the same for your own claims.
I did not make a claim that it is impossible to start another taxi company, rather they have to provide proof of this too in order for their claim to make sense.
Eh... taxi companies have been extorting the public for over a century with the "medallion" scam.
I have no sympathy for them.
I have no sympathy for them.