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

421–430 of 580 posts

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

#421

Post by manigandham »

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #407
boring_twenties wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doordash seems to have higher menu prices than the restaurants' own websites, so unless I'm missing something, it seems the restaurant has the ability to choose to recoup those fees from the customer if they want to. What gets me is that Doordash is triple dipping here. There's the fee to the restaurant, which may or may not translate to higher menu item prices. There's the fixed $2-5 delivery fee which is pretty obv…

There's also the 15-20% tip, of which the restaurant staff aren't getting a cent.

Why would you tip the restaurant staff?

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

#422

Post by dmix »

daveoc64 wrote: post #389
ajphdiv wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that's whats next -- online only restaurants. Food made in a warehouse.

Deliveroo already does something a little like that: https://foodscene.deliveroo.co.uk/promotions/deliveroo-editi... They take existing, established chefs or restaurants and clone the cuisine so that the food can be produced in a larger kitchen, potentially reaching a wider delivery area.

It's funny you explained that concept way better in a single sentence than that whole 'explainer' 10 paragraph page on Deliveroo's site.

"We combine our customer insight, logistics experience and relationships with restaurants all over the world to bring an Edition to you." blah blah.

Generic corporate speak is so overrated.

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

#423

Post by nickff »

colinmhayes wrote: post #408
austhrow743 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 minute walk then 20 minute wait then 5 minute walk back. When you're earning $50+ an hour, which many in cities are easily clearing, it starts to make a lot of sense to pay someone else to do your waiting for you.

Walking around is usually one of the highlights of my day. Walking down the block isn't a chore, it's a pleasure. Delivery is cold by the time I get it half the time, I want stuff done well I've got to do it myself.

You're explaining why you don't use delivery, but not why "it doesn't make sense".

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

#425

Post by labster »

manigandham wrote: post #421
SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the 15-20% tip, of which the restaurant staff aren't getting a cent.

Why would you tip the restaurant staff?

Because tipping restaurant staff is what normal people do when they go out to restaurants in the U.S. Those same people still prepare and package the food, even when someone else delivers it.

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

#426

Post by amelius »

dehrmann wrote: post #319
andrewla wrote: post #194

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…

> If you can never turn a profit, why would you enter the market?

Because you can still raise money, sell your company, and make money in the process. An extreme form would be a pyramid scheme where early investors make lots of money, leaving later investors with the problems.

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

#427

Post by strictnein »

orangecat wrote: post #415
nitrogen wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To some extent this seems like grandstanding. They charge a delivery fee. If the delivery fee doesn't cover delivery, then charge a higher delivery fee. That comes from the customer, not the restaurant.

* If the delivery fee doesn't cover delivery, then charge a higher delivery fee.* Why doesn't that reasoning apply to restaurants? If the fees cut into their profits too much, then they need to raise prices. There is no free lunch here (ha!). The customer is always going to be paying for both the food and the delivery. There's no benefit in micromanaging the internal transactions.

Because the restaurants aren't allowed to charge higher prices to their higher cost delivery customers. Which doesn't stop the food delivery places from charging higher prices, of course. And taking a cut, and collecting a delivery fee, etc etc.

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

#428

Post by throw2346785 »

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…

>For silicon valley startups like Doordash and Grubhub

Ah, yes, Grubhub, the Silicon Valley startup that was founded in Chicago, is headquartered in Chicago, and has been a public company for 6 years.

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

#429

Post by sokoloff »

strictnein wrote: post #427
orangecat wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* If the delivery fee doesn't cover delivery, then charge a higher delivery fee.* Why doesn't that reasoning apply to restaurants? If the fees cut into their profits too much, then they need to raise prices. There is no free lunch here (ha!). The customer is always going to be paying for both the food and the delivery. There's no benefit in micromanaging the internal transactions.

Because the restaurants aren't allowed to charge higher prices to their higher cost delivery customers. Which doesn't stop the food delivery places from charging higher prices, of course. And taking a cut, and collecting a delivery fee, etc etc.

> Because the restaurants aren't allowed to charge higher prices to their higher cost delivery customers.

Why can't they? Is this a local or state law?

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

#430

Post by amelius »

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…

I think this has little to do with predatory pricing, but more with abuse of power. This power has been obtained in an unfair way, by collecting money from investors.
Post reply on HN