Hacker News Reader

Comment by nawitus | Hacker News Reader

It's hard to see how these new startups can compete with existing restaurants. There already are restaurants in cheap-to-rent locations, and it doesn't seem like Sprig et. al. can compete with the prices. I guess my point is that I don't see Sprig doing anything that new, so I don't see what new value they'll bring. But good luck of course, the restaurant business seems to be one of the harder markets out there.

View on HN

I haven't tried Sprig yet, but Munchery's business model is awesome. They are not trying to be a fast / cheap food service. They hire top notch chefs who prepare high end food. The cost of meal is b/w $10-$15. The quality of the food is what you will expect in a high end restaurant. They are basically getting rid of all the real-estate of a high end restaurant and delivering awesome food directly to you (lots of economies of scale). I am spending roughly about $500 per month ordering food from them. Highest quality food, delivered to you at very reasonable prices (I'm pretty sure I'll pay at least 50+% more for the same food if I went to a high end restaurant).

This makes a lot more sense if you're right about the numbers. It's not the single meal they are targeting but 2-4 meals. That will drive down the number of meals they have to deliver to make a profit. If the meals are of superb quality this idea works. But it might be tough if they are delivering: food doesn't travel well -- your food is guaranteed to be sitting for 5-15 minutes.

I think they are targeting dinner for families. I always order 2 meals since they don't deliver lunch. You have to order food before 10am and they deliver b/w 3-6. My food is definitely sitting at least 1-2 hours because it is being delivered from SF to Mt view. I believe they have proper storage in the delivery vans - I don't know the details though.

In SF proper you can order Munchery as late as 4pm.

Key Munchery operational detail: the food does not travel hot. It arrives refrigerated, with detailed reheating options. Wouldn't be surprised if it is flash-chilled after cooking (otherwise how do they get my steak right every time :))

Sous Vide

This makes me think about food carts. Here in Portland, they are are filling the niche for fine food at discount prices. For weekday lunches I pay $6-9 for what would be $12-20 in a restaurant. Clearly many other customers are doing the same. The local weekly recently reported that there are now 750 carts in town.

I haven't tried Munchery since I live outside SF, but I'm surprised the food tastes good reheated. I've never had restaurant leftovers taste very good, particularly in the proteins where the moisture loss in heat/cool/reheat is significant. And the presentation ends up looking more like a TV dinner than the plated dinner shown on the website.

Does the perception around the chef/dishes contribute more to the positive experience than the actual taste of the food?

I agree. The article asserted that only three locations would be needed to serve all of SF, but also states that the food is delivered 'fast'. I am not sure I understand how you move the food further away from its destination, but then it is still 'fast'.

I think looking at a pizza restaraunt is a good comparison on how far away on-demand delivery can be from the delivery point. The range of a pizza place is usually only a few miles.

Because their is not limited by their physical locations. If you've ever gotten a SpoonRocket meal you'd notice that they have a heater in the car and the heater has a whole bunch of meals in it. Combine this with multiple cars.

waitersonwheels.com has been doing that for years. From what I recall consumer delivery proved not to be that economical and now they concentrate on business clients. I believe they're doing fine but I'm not sure it's an explosive growth model.

On a general note, you look at industry incumbents and they're not shy about leveraging technology as things are, so I'm not convinced that software is going to eat their lunch as the article claims.

Consumer delivery is alive and thriving where I live. We personally order from Sunshine Kitchen (as well as a few other restaurants) a few times a week for dinner. Every McDonalds in my city has a fleet of electric delivery bikes and they seem to be pretty busy. All ordering proceeds online.

Oh, did you mean to just limit your comment to the states?

You probably live in a country where very cheap labor is available or with very high population density, where I live you would not be able to make a living from delivering McDonalds burgers.

Bingo. I know hacker news is pretty American in its bias, but it hate when people talk in terms of universals.

No, I didn't. I didn't say you can't run a healthy business that way, I said 'I'm not sure it's an explosive growth model' ie the sort of runaway success the tech press likes to celebrate, not least because of industry incumbents of the sort you mention who are already embracing technology. You appear to have misunderstood my earlier comment.

Also, while I do live in the Bay Area I'm not American so your condescension is misplaced.

You stated it's not a healthy business model period. Yet there are many places in the world where a lot of money is being made at it. So what gives about your statement?

No I didn't.

This is a limited perspective (mine), but here's how they're competing right now: All 3 are optimized on "home-quality" food, i.e. healthy, homestyle cooking. And they're cheap. Sprig dinner is $12, delivered in 15 mins, warm, tasty, and healthy. There are _very_ few $12 meals out there that meet all of those criteria (Chipotle is almost there, but they don't deliver to my door in 15 mins).

So I see them competing because they're focused on different things (and they're doing it right, at least for me -- I order dinner from Sprig 2-3 nights a week and lunch from SpoonRocket 2-3 times a week).

Traditional fast food restaurants (Chipotle excluded) optimize on price, speed and taste (similarly), but those all come at the expense of nutrition, which (disappointingly) most people don't seem to mind. I hope A) that changes as the US continues to get fatter, and B) these guys don't 'sell out' and drop their food quality because they realize that deep-fried cheap chicken is "tastier" and cheaper than grilled high-quality chicken, etc.

The best way (I think) they can compete is on pure speed and adopting 'obvious' innovations.

If the restaurant business were invented today, this is probably what it would look like. Their primary challenge will be finding out if enough customers like their new approach fast enough to get some staying power.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com