361–370 of 580 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realise free shipping on ebay and amazon is.. anything but free right?
Maybe that's whats next -- online only restaurants. Food made in a warehouse.
Then local depots could store them in thermal insulators.
Not sure if anyone would ever eat a pizza that has stored below freezing point
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realise free shipping on ebay and amazon is.. anything but free right?
Maybe that's whats next -- online only restaurants. Food made in a warehouse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe that's whats next -- online only restaurants. Food made in a warehouse.
Wouldn’t last long. Perhaps if most energy was removed first. Then local depots could store them in thermal insulators. Not sure if anyone would ever eat a pizza that has stored below freezing point
DiGiorno would like a word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't seem like a good comparison, the burger is not a "bill of materials" it's a final product available directly to customers by the restaurant, consumers would definently care that they are being sold a marked up burger that is available to them for 25% cheaper. If a delivery company charges me 70 dollars to deliver a flat screen tv that's fine, but if they charge me 70 dollars but also markup the price of…
> If a delivery company charges me 70 dollars to deliver a flat screen tv that's fine, but if they charge me 70 dollars but also markup the price of the TV 25% I'd consider that pretty dishonest and would at least want to know that I have the option to save 25% by managing delivery on my own. ...but this is exactly how other industries already work and everyone's fine with it! When you buy a TV from Amazon they both…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No! Absolutely do not do this! Do not listen to this idea! Regulation is the wrong solution here! Warning! Jaguars will eat you if you do this! Prosecute the dumb startups for breaking the law. Don't force everyone to comply with some stupid pricing regulations and fill out a trillion forms when they're not doing anything wrong. Legislators should legislate, law enforcement should enforce laws. Regulators will just b…
Do you have any evidence that this particular rule actually involves any additional cumbersome paperwork? Is this just a knee-jerk reaction to the word "regulation"? Would it be better if the word "law" was used instead?
I assume that the proposed regulation here was larger in scope than the Portland City Council rule, especially since that rule does not do anything to correct the market distortion -- arguably, it makes it worse, by mandating that they undercut economically viable approaches, rather than just letting them do so. That was what I was addressing.
This particular rule is innocent enough on the face of it -- it has only two requirements [1]; that they cannot charge more than 10% of the purchase price, and that they cannot reduce payments based on compliance with the first part. To enforce this (especially given how broad the definition of a delivery service is) will be a supreme act of discretion, and clarifying this rule and eventually handing it off to the local commissioners of the counties' health departments for enforcement will complete the slide into the endless land of bureaucracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 i…
Netflix delivered DVDs at a loss to build a brand and content licensing for their streaming service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No! Absolutely do not do this! Do not listen to this idea! Regulation is the wrong solution here! Warning! Jaguars will eat you if you do this! Prosecute the dumb startups for breaking the law. Don't force everyone to comply with some stupid pricing regulations and fill out a trillion forms when they're not doing anything wrong. Legislators should legislate, law enforcement should enforce laws. Regulators will just b…
I don't really see your distinctions here. Regulations have the force of law, and regulators are law enforcement. Unless you are referring to some of the anti-trust laws which are actually criminal statutes? In that case I'm on the same page that we should actually start enforcing those.
Regulations do have the force of law, theoretically, but rarely have the ability to enforce at scale, and would much rather deal with a couple of giant companies rather than try to deal with a variety of different companies, so there's a natural push back in that direction.
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 End game is to be the dominant food ordering platform in any given town where you get to dictate rates like 25%. You fight back by calling your order in and having them deliver it or pick it up yourself. I do this 99%* of the time as I refuse to pay a web server $8+ order+delivery fee for a meal that costs the same. It's absurd to think that people are so lazy that they cant pick up a phone or walk a few blocks…
I get that for some of these small local restaurant owners the margins are tight and I’ll do my best to make sure my money goes directly to them and not GrubHub/Yelp/Uber but I also understand that most of these places aren’t run by front-end developers and SEO experts. I’m not sure what the answer is but I also don’t think it’s always quite as simple as you’re making it out to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 i…
Because you’re funded by investors who have been lied to about eventual automation. Netflix delivered DVDs at a loss to build a brand and content licensing for their streaming service.