"The number and power of a company's competitive rivals, potential new market entrants, suppliers, customers, and substitute products influence a company's profitability."
There are several hundreds of thousands of restaurants (maybe millions?). There are only 2-3 aggregators. Most of the restaurants are replaceable by a similar one. So aggregators have more bargaining power.
As long as there is a profitable business model for the aggregators, the restaurants will get pushed to their lowest common profits. Without resorting to collusion with other restaurants (or asking the govt. to intervene) the only way to compete is to differentiate significantly that makes the customer desire a specific restaurant.
In the US, this - "They made a pact to pull out of Gold and other discount programs for a few days." is collusion and is illegal.
If FTC allows restaurant owners (or any group of businesses) to create pacts like this against their suppliers or customers, next time, they will make similar pacts against you (the customer). "hey, what say, let's all make a pact together and increase the price of that dosa to $50?"
In reality, some industries (most famously airlines) do this kind of collusion through winks and nods anyway and is bad for consumers (very good for the industry as a whole though).
In an ideal world, we wouldn't care about which company is called a tech company and which isn't. This reminds me of that famous Bezos quote to the question of whether Amazon is an internet company or not.
He said "It doesn't matter whether we are a pure internet play or not. Internet, Schminternet, it doesn't matter. What matters is obsessing over providing customer value."
That said, it is altogether a different question whether WeWork provides value for customers in a fiscally responsible and sustainable manner, and whether Nuemann has the foresight and business acumen of Bezos.
Where baby steps according to her is removing Facebook and Instagram apps off the phone, and logging out on the web “without fully disabling or deleting them”).
Got distracted by statements like “But the belief that everyone coding would solve anyone’s problems has been shown up as completely ludicrous. If anything, computer literacy has declined over the generations as computers have got easier to use.”
Yes, you are right. But increasing adoption across different zipcodes won't help that much (although, yes, it’ll bring SG&A per order down). The adoption has to increase in the exact same area (your point #2 has to be true, i.e. stops should be so close, like an apartment building) for drivers to make more orders per hour, and for this service to be profitable in the long run.
"The number and power of a company's competitive rivals, potential new market entrants, suppliers, customers, and substitute products influence a company's profitability."
There are several hundreds of thousands of restaurants (maybe millions?). There are only 2-3 aggregators. Most of the restaurants are replaceable by a similar one. So aggregators have more bargaining power.
As long as there is a profitable business model for the aggregators, the restaurants will get pushed to their lowest common profits. Without resorting to collusion with other restaurants (or asking the govt. to intervene) the only way to compete is to differentiate significantly that makes the customer desire a specific restaurant.