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

Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

oregonlive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 580 posts

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#311

Post by chrisseaton »

abc-xyz wrote: post #309
chrisseaton wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m pretty sure that in most countries, a store can’t just sell another company’s products without entering an agreement with them. Of course you can. What makes you think you can't?

The fact that your company’s product end up being represented by the store and its actions. Mistreating employees and customers, discrimination, bad customer service/return policy, terrible product placement, etc. There are so many ways a store can hurt your company’s reputation by association.

But I mean there just isn't any law like you think there should be.

People are free to resell any goods they own (exceptions for things like controlled substances, other things with regulations etc.)

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#312

Post by Bootwizard »

MisterTea wrote: post #285
briandear wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's absurd to think that people are so lazy that they cant pick up a phone or walk a few blocks/cycle/drive to get their meal. You don’t have kids. Calling me lazy because I don’t have time to load up for small children in the car to drive a few miles then have to wait 0-25 minutes — potentially having to get out of the car and unloading said four kids to pick up the food, then reloading them to return home. Such…

> You don’t have kids. Calling me lazy because I don’t have time to load up for small children in the car to drive a few miles then have to wait 0-25 minutes My mother did that all day long when we were children.

She also didn't have a choice because delivery apps didn't exist

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#313

Post by panzagl »

treis wrote: post #164
chrisseaton wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really get it. Doordash or whatever says 'for $x we will put a WhateverBurger burger into your hand'. As long as that's what they achieve, this seems fundamentally honest to me. As a consumer I don't really care where that $x goes to - Doordash, WhateverBurger, delivery person... doesn't seem my business to interfere in people's private financial agreements. The diner gets offered a deal and can take it or no…

>Doordash or whatever says 'for $x we will put a WhateverBurger burger into your hand'. As long as that's what they achieve, this seems fundamentally honest to me. What percentage of customers do you think understand that Grubhub is marking up their food? >If they aren't, they can turn it down and go elsewhere. That's precisely the problem. Some of the restaurants customers are turning it down and going elsewhere bec…

Is the markup similar for all restaurants? If Joe's burger is $5 marked up to $6, and Fancy Joseph's burger is $10 marked up to $12, isn't any marketing/signalling value of the price maintained?

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#314

Post by gruez »

dumbfoundded wrote: post #244
a_c_s wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of these platforms charge a fee for phone calls to the restaurant too. Platforms like Seamless go so far as to set up websites for restaurants (that often have better SEO than the restaurant's original website), so the phone number listed routes through Seamless, helping to ensure they get their cut of any order.

If a restaurant doesn't comply, wouldn't this be fraudulent representation?

AFAIK last time it came up people mentioned that they were allowed to do that because of a clause in their EULA

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20321705

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#315

Post by xref »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #195
lotsofpulp wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is a completely unnecessary law. Restaurant phone numbers are seconds away using the same device used to order from these apps, and a phone call is free. Absolutely no reason a restaurant can’t recoup extra costs by charging the app users more or simply refusing to do business with the app.

A family member of mine owns a restaurant that does mostly delivery business. He employs his own drivers; he's on GrubHub because it brings in more business and is a net positive for his bottom line. He includes flyers with every order that says, in large obvious text, "Call us directly at [this number] and save 20% compared to GrubHub." He still gets a sizeable amount of repeat business from GrubHub.

This is explicitly against the ToS in his grubhub contract. While he may be doing it in a way that skates under the radar for now it is not scalable.

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#317

Post by panzagl »

treis wrote: post #225
chrisseaton wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What percentage of customers do you think understand that Grubhub is marking up their food? Why do they need to care about the markup? If the burger price seems like a good deal, go for it, otherwise don't. > Some of the restaurants customers are turning it down and going elsewhere because Grubhub has misrepresented their prices. Well then that seems like the situation is fixing itself due to everyone's free abilit…

>Why do they need to care about the markup? If the burger price seems like a good deal, go for it, otherwise don't. Why don't you answer the question? >Well then that seems like the situation is fixing itself due to everyone's free ability to do what they want? So why are we complaining? In what way is the situation being fixed?

People always 'find out' about mark ups and get pissed about them, but businesses are not charities.

And let's not act like this law was passed because of consumers- this is restaurant owners trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#318

Post by valuearb »

ethbro wrote: post #310
cortesoft wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hate this sort of argument... that people who use the newer, more convenient, technology are just lazy and should keep using the old way of doing things. Why stop at delivery apps? Why are lazy people driving cars instead of just riding horses? Why are you ordering things online instead of just going to the store? Why are you farming using that tractor instead of a horse drawn plow? Small conveniences add up…

Because sometimes the net result of individual optimization (predatory food delivery apps) is social deoptimization (local restaurants close). And for the same reason that we don't allow health insurance to charge people different rates on the basis of their genetic profiles, the exercise of government prerogative to optimize for the greater good, on behalf of all, is apt here. Whether or not this particular approach…

We don't even let health insurance to charge people different rates based on pre-existing conditions anymore, which is what drove health insurance premiums through the roof.

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#319

Post by dehrmann »

andrewla wrote: post #194
inkaudio wrote: post #99

This is a regulatory response to Silicon Valley’s implementation of predatory pricing. Let me explain: Predatory pricing is defined as “the pricing of goods or services at such a low level that other suppliers cannot compete and are forced to leave the market.” For silicon valley startups like Doordash and Grubhub this is accomplished by acquiring customers at a significant loss in ways that may often seem idiotic. e…

The problem is that this response is in the wrong direction. By forcing prices lower, we guarantee that only over-capitalized predatory businesses can compete in the space. The problem is that consumer advocacy and anti-monopoly are practically the opposite thing. The end result of government action here should be short-term higher prices to the consumer, that reflect the actual cost of operations, rather than lower…

> we guarantee that only over-capitalized predatory businesses can compete in the space.

Assuming you can't make money at 10%, why would even a well-capitalized company that's OK with having a loss leader enter that market? The Uber strategy has been to enter a market fast, drive competitors out (possibly taking a loss), then (and looking at their earnings, this never happened, probably because there's a competitor in most of their markets) raise prices and finally turn a profit. If you can never turn a profit, why would you enter the market?

Re: Portland approves 10% cap on fees that food delivery apps can charge restaurants

#320

Post by [deleted] »

Reedx wrote: post #305
maltelandwehr wrote: post #71

Next week there will be complaints that food delivery services are no longer catering to certain areas. Instead of accepting that it is just not profitable for them, journalists will label it as backslash or an act of punishment. Same thing happened in others states/cities that implemented similar rules. The winners are people living in central areas of the city with lots of restaurants. The losers are the poorer out…

Exactly what happened in SF. Uber Eats stopped delivering to Treasure Island as a result: "The Order limits our ability to cover operation costs, so we have had to revise the areas Uber Eats can deliver to in the city. Unfortunately, this means we cannot continue to serve customers in Treasure Island. The Mayor’s Emergency Order limits the commissions we charge restaurants for access to our platform and delivery serv…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN