The article conveniently omits discussing this, but I can only assume it's because these restaurants have signed contracts with the delivery services. There's no other way this makes sense, like the taking of commission on fraudulent phone orders (the delivery service setting up a number purporting to the business and then charging a commission).

So it sounds like the restaurants themselves signed up for a terrible deal, and are now trying to change it via the court of public opinion. There can certainly be power imbalances that push parties into detrimental arrangements, but leaving this fundamental fact out makes the article extremely disingenuous.

The real question is are these restaurants locked into some kind of term commitment, or could they sever their relationship with the delivery services tomorrow and set up their own? The delivery services' move would presumably be to blackball the restaurant from the platform (in contrast with how they handle non-contracted restaurants that they're courting), but if enough restaurants got together they could certainly start a competing service.

Some restaurants figured that out, they simply have different the menu price displayed on the delivery app or even different menu set. For customer who prefer lower price they can order directly with the restaurant.

Many restaurants do this already. However, its a lot of overhead to synchronize menus between a restaurant and the marketplace apps. Raising prices to make up for commissions means making prices higher on every item and choice. Then there are the customers who do not like to see different prices in different places — pre-covid this would not have gone down well. All these news articles at least raises awareness to help mitigate the customer backlash. That being said, a customer won’t want to pay a 30% up charge plus delivery and service fees. Maybe 10% which can be ok for restaurants that have more than 20% profit margin, but that’s not where many establishments are.

Some platforms ban restaurants who offer a different (higher) price on the platform than they do direct. The problem is that that these platforms flush with VC cash have forced themselves into the market as intermediaries, hoping that they can drive out direct ordering and hold the restaurants to ransom. But food delivery existed long before Deliveroo et al and I always try to order direct when I can. Sure it's not as slick as using an app, but the true price of the app is the long-term viability of my favourite takeaway restaurants, so screw the VCs.

Short answer: most customers would find the actual cost of that delivery prohibitive. It’s not impossible but that’s would rapidly be a niche market.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23295143

Grubhub, Ubereats, doordash etc charge the restaurant a % of the total bill as a fee for connecting and organizing the clients order.