Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Slow-Motion Trainwreck Facing the Meal-Kit Industry

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 320 posts

Re: A Slow-Motion Trainwreck Facing the Meal-Kit Industry

#141

Post by threesixandnine »

illumin8 wrote: post #20
pavel_lishin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can afford a meal-in-a-box service, why would you not just go to a restaurant where the wait staff will do a decent job as a substitute for your own live-in cook previously known as The Wife? I always say that these are for people with more money than time. The reason they don't go to a restaurant is because you like cooking - or at least, you like the idea of being someone who cooks. But the ad copy is righ…

I've tried BlueApron and HelloFresh. I enjoy cooking, and the quality of the recipes is great, but damn, it takes too long to make their recipes. Often, they promise it only takes 15-30 minutes for an entire meal, but apparently I'm not a professional chef who can wash vegetables, dice them, prepare marinades, chop garlic, and do all of this in just a few minutes. I end up usually spending between 60-90 minutes just…

It's like when Jamie Oliver cooks lunch. Of course it takes 15 minutes cooking only with nicely laid out and prepared ingredients.

But let's get straight. I can whip a steak from zero to hero in 15 minutes. Throw some Broccoli in and you have a nice tasty lunch in real 15 minutes ready to eat.

We are two working full time although my wife is currently at home with a newborn. We always prepared a meal one day before and took it to work. There is always time to cook yourself. You just decided to spend it for something else...

Re: A Slow-Motion Trainwreck Facing the Meal-Kit Industry

#142

Post by eropple »

opportune wrote: post #132
eropple wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I'm not trying to pick on you, but have you ever stopped to think about how absolutely dystopic this future you're positing is? And the parts of the community--set aside "consumers" for a second, the point of being human is not to consume , is not to be an economic actor in your model--who could most use price improvements of economies of scale will be frozen out, because they're always frozen out. We don't need i…

Personally I don't mind it. I'm not invested whatsoever in involving human contact in getting my food; I don't mind talking to people to get my food or having to interact with a waiter or cashier, but I wouldn't care if I could order on a kiosk or do checkout-by-RFID. People probably decried the automation of textile manufacturing, that clothing was losing its personal touch. Now we don't seem to have a problem with…

Have you considered the knock-on effects of minimizing human interaction with regard to actually creating an empathic community? That the people who you would like to avoid interacting with (sorry, "don't care" about avoiding, while you implicitly cheer it on) are a part of the local community around you--generally of a lower social class, which emphatically does not make them less important but does make them less visible and thus less considered to you when voting or suggesting policy?

That empathy that develops through knowing and understanding the people around you is what makes society actually work. The idea that "efficient = better" is one of the most profoundly dehumanizing pictures I have ever seen painted of the future and you do nothing to shake that. Monstrosities like the one you posit are what we should be working to avoid because it makes all of us mere grist for the mill.

Re: A Slow-Motion Trainwreck Facing the Meal-Kit Industry

#143

Post by frandroid »

revelation wrote: post #87
frandroid wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> together we consistently hit the low-end. But that's two people, so really you just hit double the low end?

Amdahl's law applies, what fraction of cooking these recipes is purely serial? What does the critical path look like? How much inter-kitchen communication is there to get tools and ingredients to/from your wife?

Good point, I hadn't thought about that. But my point is that obviously cooking will happen faster you throw double the manpower at it, even if it not in a linear fashion. :P

Re: A Slow-Motion Trainwreck Facing the Meal-Kit Industry

#144

Post by ghaff »

dbot wrote: post #119
ghaff wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like grocery stores keep a bunch of extra food on hand that they don't expect to sell. But, to your main point, a number of chains and other stores have started doing this. I'm a little surprised it's not more common though, of course, there's a lot of pre-chopped vegetables etc. so once you're in the store, gathering up the ingredients for a quick meal is pretty straightforward.

Cooking involves 3 steps: (1) recipe selection, (2) ingredient acquisition, and (3) cooking. Blue Apron takes care of the first two, which I don't enjoy, and let's me do (3), which I very much enjoy. A grocery store doesn't solve (1) and only partially solves (2) (often has item availability, too much quantity issues, and then I have to measure it, too).

I'd argue prep and cleanup are in there too which I enjoy less. Some kits help with the first and none help with the second :-)

But that's a good way of looking at it. Personally I like selecting (and modifying) recipes. I agree that getting the ingredients is often a pain--especially to the degree they invalidate the first step. My general philosophy is that if any of these services get people cooking rather than eating fast food that's a good thing.

Re: A Slow-Motion Trainwreck Facing the Meal-Kit Industry

#145

Post by inZGBl »

dragonwriter wrote: post #120
Naritai wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the point has been made several times in this thread, it's not much cheaper. Unless you're referring to some Michelin-starred restaurant, it's quite possible to eat fast-casual for the same price of many of these kits (especially if you live in a suburb where restaurants tend to be much cheaper than in e.g. SF)

> But the point has been made several times in this thread, it's not much cheaper. Yes, it is. > Unless you're referring to some Michelin-starred restaurant, it's quite possible to eat fast-casual for the same price of many of these kits (especially if you live in a suburb where restaurants tend to be much cheaper than in e.g. SF) Blue Apron is $8.74 (family plan) or $9.99 (couples plan) per plate for complete dinner…

This doesn't hold true for the rest of America. Go build a chipotle meal at some other zip code.

South East: 1 chipotle burrito bowl, chicken, black beans, brown rice, guac, hot salsa, cheese 1 22oz drink Total - $10.20

Re: A Slow-Motion Trainwreck Facing the Meal-Kit Industry

#146

Post by harryh »

mothers wrote: post #77
harryh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can afford a meal-in-a-box service, why would you not just go to a restaurant Because I'd rather eat at home. Especially if I have kids. It's easier. Because it's a lot cheaper. Because it's better for me from a health perspective.

I highly doubt any of these claims are true on the low end. Maybe if you only go to expensive restaurants.

There are certainly restaurants where you can spend less than $10/person but not for the quality of food in a Blue Apron box.

Re: A Slow-Motion Trainwreck Facing the Meal-Kit Industry

#147

Post by Mz »

ABCLAW wrote: post #140
Mz wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren't a uniform congealed mass of preferences that match your own. Generally speaking, when people make generalizations, they are not assuming that 100% of the world will exactly fit their statements 100% of the time. Saying that it is generally true does not presume that people like you do not exist. It just presumes that you are probably in the minority.

Sure, but if you do that, then your following statement doesn't actually hold true. >If people wanted to, you know, tweak it themselves, then there would be no food services of any kind, not restaurants and not take out food and not meal-in-a-box delivery services. Turn that statement into one about a minority's preference, and suddenly you discover an underserved market that likes preparing their own food. Kind of l…

I didn't write the article with the headline about how this market is facing a "slow-motion trainwreck." I merely gave my opinion as to why this is an inherently difficult problem space. That's it.

It is pretty ridiculous for you to act like I think there is zero market because I wouldn't buy it. That amounts to twisting my comments in a way that makes it very hard to engage in good faith.

Re: A Slow-Motion Trainwreck Facing the Meal-Kit Industry

#148

Post by harryh »

Naritai wrote: post #75
harryh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can afford a meal-in-a-box service, why would you not just go to a restaurant Because I'd rather eat at home. Especially if I have kids. It's easier. Because it's a lot cheaper. Because it's better for me from a health perspective.

But the point has been made several times in this thread, it's not much cheaper. Unless you're referring to some Michelin-starred restaurant, it's quite possible to eat fast-casual for the same price of many of these kits (especially if you live in a suburb where restaurants tend to be much cheaper than in e.g. SF)

Blue Apron meals are significantly better than what you'll find in a fast casual restaurant.

Re: A Slow-Motion Trainwreck Facing the Meal-Kit Industry

#149

Post by harryh »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #117
harryh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll get much faster with practice. I never take more than 45 minutes to prepare a BA meal now and generally do it in about 30. And I'm no professional cook or anything either. Just learned by doing (and watching an occasional YouTube video).

Doing large-scale prep work occasionally, combined with some smart tricks in the morning, really helps as well. E.g. peel, cut and sautée 10 onions, let it cool, divide into 10 bags and freeze. 15 minutes time spent, 10x5 minutes saved on subsequent dinners. Peel, cut and freeze bags of carrot, celery, cabbage, chilies, etc. Another 5 minutes off. Buy canned lentils, chickpeas and beans rather than dry, and you save…

Great comment and 100% agree. I don't do all of this, but I've started doing a decent chunk. Aspire to do more.

Re: A Slow-Motion Trainwreck Facing the Meal-Kit Industry

#150

Post by wutbrodo »

Naritai wrote: post #75
harryh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can afford a meal-in-a-box service, why would you not just go to a restaurant Because I'd rather eat at home. Especially if I have kids. It's easier. Because it's a lot cheaper. Because it's better for me from a health perspective.

But the point has been made several times in this thread, it's not much cheaper. Unless you're referring to some Michelin-starred restaurant, it's quite possible to eat fast-casual for the same price of many of these kits (especially if you live in a suburb where restaurants tend to be much cheaper than in e.g. SF)

> it's quite possible to eat fast-casual for the same price of many of these kits (especially if you live in a suburb where restaurants tend to be much cheaper than in e.g. SF)

Sure, but now we're not making an apples-to-apples comparison anymore, given the quality of fast-casual food vs even nominally home-cooked food. I don't like fast-casual food, and I don't think I'm alone in this. I enjoy home-cooked food and I enjoy food from restaurants above a certain quality bar.

What you're saying isn't that far off from saying "why does anyone cook _or_ go to restaurants when they could just have Soylent?". Quality matters to people.

Post reply on HN