Hacker News Reader

Comment by senttoschool | Hacker News Reader

>To be clear before I say anything: I think the entire food delivery app business model is bad for all parties involved and that these companies are bad actors.

Funny I have the exact opposite opinion. I think it's good for all parties involved. Restaurants get a bigger market. Delivery people get more freedom at work. Eaters get convenience. Delivery apps get a piece of the revenue for efficiently routing drivers and customer service.

If it's truly bad for all parties, there'd be no Uber Eats, no one would order from Uber Eats, no restaurant would sign up, and no one would deliver.

View on HN

> If it's truly bad for all parties, there'd be no Uber Eats, no one would order from Uber Eats, no restaurant would sign up, and no one would deliver.

What a strange take.

If I take 3 billion dollars and setup a company that flies in people from other parts of the country at a loss to do your job for half the money you get for it, and have everyone compete for it, then when you lose your job and the business you worked for gets dependent on a business model requiring cheap disposable labor and I own the market I then I jack up prices to more than you were being paid but take the difference as profit, would you consider that a win for all parties?

I don't think the moat for food delivery is big enough that capturing the market and hiking prices is a realistic option. Uber eats already has plenty of competition (at least in my country) from foodora, wolt and bolt food.

So, with a net income of -$9 billion, what is their business plan, then?

* https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/uber/company-pro...

Are you arguing that Uber’s business model isn’t sustainable or that it’s bad for both parties? Uber being in the red doesn’t mean it’s a net negative for everyone.

Operating at a loss drives out anyone who doesn't have the money to burn forever to compete with you, and when the market is yours you can re-align prices to allow profit. This seems clear to me and the 'net negative' is that you don't actually have a free market anymore. Inserting yourself between product and fulfillment and taking the surplus value that would have gone to either customer or producer is not a gain for anyone but the people who invested in the rent-seeker.

The parties involved:

- Drivers: clearly unhappy with their pay at least in NYC and other major markets.

- Restaurants: have been quite vocal about how they are in a lose-lose situation because they can’t afford to not participate but also have to give a massive cut to Uber.

- Customers: probably the happiest group but in general there’s a rising tide of complaints about the massive fees.

- Uber/Doordash: losing money despite everyone else thinking they’re taking absurdly high cuts.

The entire model is unsustainable if everyone thinks their cut is too low. Regulation will probably fix it for one or two parties which will cause the others to opt out.

You can say the same with any business. No party is truly ever happy in business. Everyone wants more. Everyone has greed.

But people are still ordering. Drivers are still driving. Restaurants are still on the apps.

So clearly, some people still find value in all of this.

>Delivery people get more freedom at work.

Getting paid 7 bucks an hour in NYC: that's freedom, baby!

The real minimum wage is always 0.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com