True, and unlike modern VC-bacjked companies they didn't lose money in the others. BUT they were hit pretty hard with anti competitive legislation and were broken up as a result of these practices.
>Ponzi scheme" has been thrown around flippantly lately, and I think your comment is perfect example of that
We can agree to disagree, and I welcome you to a post about the subject from 2017 that pretty well explains my viewpoint (not my article) [1]. It's about Uber, but applies to all the recent IPO darlings
> it's a safe assumption that significantly more people order food from local restaurants than they did before DoorDash existed
What's your assumption based on? I figure it's either flatline or maybe had an impact on dining rooms. Either way, I have no data to back it up, but if you do I'd very interested.
>This I agree with, but for different reasons.
How is it different? They run an unprofitable business that rips off everyone involved and is subsidized by investors who were suckered into thinking this is a real business.
[1] https://www.forrester.com/blogs/ubers-unicorn-ponzi-scheme/