I wish it could all be managed intelligently; I'm hungry but I can wait, let orders collect and make them all at once or something.
Dominos had this down pat twenty years ago, how come everything with an app is so much more expensive?
Dominos had this down pat twenty years ago, how come everything with an app is so much more expensive?
The people making the app need a much bigger cut than Domino's. Domino's cut only needs to be big enough to pay their delivery drivers, they make their money selling pizza and the delivery is just an additional service that drives business.
The app maker needs a cut big enough to pay their delivery driver and also be the main revenue stream for their entire business since they're not making money off the pizza.
https://biz.dominos.com/about-us/innovations/
They're not just selling pizza to make money - but also looking at making cars.
https://www.hagerty.com/media/car-profiles/why-dominos-dxp-d...
While I'm not going to claim that was a good idea, the point is that Dominos sees making and delivering pizza as one and the same business.
> 154 examples of the DXP cars were built. Along with the delivery driver, each DXP car could carry up to 45 pizzas, 12 two-liter sodas, and all the extra dipping sauces one could ever want. Add to that the fact that the car’s still held their five-year 100,000-mile warranty, were cheap on gas, and created a surprising amount of buzz, it is hard not to look at the DXP program as a success, low production aside.
Edit: the Hagerty story was a nice read, thank you for linking to it
So I think a third-party delivery business must seek exclusivity contracts to be competitive with an in-house solution.
And if that could be done, maybe just 2 orders to start with (for example carpool benefits for 2 people), that will be awesome, but if you could pool 4-5 orders, that will make bank !
I guess this model, if scaled purely based on the model, will imply restaurants co-located (same parking lot) will benefit from such an arrangement.
This is a super good point. I didn't think about that.
So expensive for a frustrating cold food delivery.
All the delivery app companies are NOT making the food so the blame game starts AND they are not employees so a bunch of gaming is going on.
I know my one experience with Uber eats is such that I'll never use it again, and instead travel myself.
(And I'm not sure if my experiences were representative of each country, just that they were consistent in each city.)
when it’s just starting out in something, you get instant classics.
when it’s out of ideas but still has the levers of access tilted all the way to “got mine bitches”, you get the late MCU, Uber for X, and OpenAI Larry Summers Edition.
After ton of investment investors are finally looking for returns now. And consumers have decided convenience reigns supreme. Right from the SAAS products to daily breakfast customers there is lot of premium on convenience.
We need a quippy phrase for this, but unfortunately "Pump and Dump" is already taken for a kind of stock-market manipulation.
Instead, I would like to coin/nominate "Tease and Squeeze".
First consumers are teased by the idea that the disruptive new service has invented a magic new secret to low prices and great value... But after the company as achieved some kind of market strangehold, those consumers are squeezed with price-hikes and quality-drops as the investors--who bankrolled the early predatory pricing [0]--try to recoup their investment plus additional profit.
[0] Note that the term "Predatory Pricing" usually refers to artificially low prices to destroy competitors, although I can totally understand why some may assume it means preying on customers with high prices.
Granted, Tease and Squeeze has a nicer ring. Then again, the enshittification neologism became standard langue in no time and is understood by everybody.
But at this point I'm not sure exactly what it's supposed to mean.
First, the issue of intent and overall history. Tease and Squeeze implies it was the plan all along, but an "enshittified" product doesn't have to be that way. For example, a company could have been successful without any "Tease"--no predatory pricing or monopolistic behavior--and then taken a nosedive later when the founder retired and sold it to a new owner, meaning it's Squeeze-only.
Second, "Squeeze" doesn't require a quality-drop, it can include purely a price-hike, but "enshittified" products almost always mean a drop in quality, regardless of whether prices rise or not.
I for one like it