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

San Francisco permanently caps delivery app fees for restaurants at 15%

sfist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: San Francisco permanently caps delivery app fees for restaurants at 15%

#61

Post by aga_ml »

qeternity wrote: post #53
gnicholas wrote: post #44

Lots of the commenters seem to think (as I did before reading the article) that this is capping how much delivery services can charge the customer, but it's actually about how much they can charge the restaurants. This distinction actually makes some sense because the former is explicit and the latter is hidden. I don't love delivery fees and practically never have food delivered, but I would not want to see the cust…

> This distinction actually makes some sense because the former is explicit and the latter is hidden. Hidden to whom? The customer? Why does that matter? If I phone a restaurant and place an order, is their telephone rate of any concern to me? Or their electricity rate? What relevance does this have?

I prefer price transparency because it helps me decide whether to order directly through the delivery app or via the restaurant. The extent to which I support the restaurant is a factor in my purchasing decisions in addition to the total cost. Having good restaurants that are profitable near where I live is helpful for maintaining the community (and good for property values).

Re: San Francisco permanently caps delivery app fees for restaurants at 15%

#62

Post by silicon2401 »

That this is even an issue is an example of why I never order through doordash, ubereats, etc. I literally laughed when I tried once and saw they wanted to charge me 20% just for driving over food. Instead I either drive to places myself, cook for myself, or look for places where the delivery is directly through the company like a local chinese food place that I love.

Re: San Francisco permanently caps delivery app fees for restaurants at 15%

#63

Post by gnicholas »

qeternity wrote: post #53
gnicholas wrote: post #44

Lots of the commenters seem to think (as I did before reading the article) that this is capping how much delivery services can charge the customer, but it's actually about how much they can charge the restaurants. This distinction actually makes some sense because the former is explicit and the latter is hidden. I don't love delivery fees and practically never have food delivered, but I would not want to see the cust…

> This distinction actually makes some sense because the former is explicit and the latter is hidden. Hidden to whom? The customer? Why does that matter? If I phone a restaurant and place an order, is their telephone rate of any concern to me? Or their electricity rate? What relevance does this have?

Opaque fees that vary based on method of request annoy me in the same way that fees that only appear at the end of the purchase process. They affect my decision whether/how to order, and they cause me to spend time going down one path when I would have otherwise gone down another.

I recall seeing discussion of how Yelp (I think?) was routing users to proxy phone numbers for businesses, and then charging them a referral fee based on order size. Pretty much everyone commenting thought that this was inappropriate. Would you agree? This seems to be pretty close to your example about telephone rates.

Re: San Francisco permanently caps delivery app fees for restaurants at 15%

#64

Post by toomuchtodo »

cryptofistMonk wrote: post #48
toomuchtodo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://ilsr.org/biting-back-delivery-apps-are-gobbling-up-r... https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ILSR_SpecialDeli... https://thecounter.org/grubhub-domain-purchases-thousands-sh... https://www.eater.com/22228352/convenience-of-delivery-apps-... https://www.economicliberties.us/our-work/rescuing-restauran... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/technology/delivery-apps-...

Exactly the point - when apps charge too much, people will complain and alternatives will arise. From your second source: > "Dozens of locally owned services are proving there's a better alternative"

Absolutely, local platform competitors can pop up, but the network effects of national platforms is powerful and their influence and actions damaging in the interim. We may just disagree on this, and that's to be expected. As previously stated, I believe more regulation is required, even if that puts national platforms out of business.

Re: San Francisco permanently caps delivery app fees for restaurants at 15%

#65

Post by Simulacra »

I think this is an unreasonable interference in the free market. The restaurants are not forced to work with the delivery apps. As loathsome as I am to pay $45 for a Big Mac delivered, the delivery company can charge whatever they want, and the restraunts can choose to pay it, or do their own delivery.

Re: San Francisco permanently caps delivery app fees for restaurants at 15%

#66

Post by SllX »

gnicholas wrote: post #63
qeternity wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This distinction actually makes some sense because the former is explicit and the latter is hidden. Hidden to whom? The customer? Why does that matter? If I phone a restaurant and place an order, is their telephone rate of any concern to me? Or their electricity rate? What relevance does this have?

Opaque fees that vary based on method of request annoy me in the same way that fees that only appear at the end of the purchase process. They affect my decision whether/how to order, and they cause me to spend time going down one path when I would have otherwise gone down another. I recall seeing discussion of how Yelp (I think?) was routing users to proxy phone numbers for businesses, and then charging them a referr…

Yelp was behaving in a morally if not legally fraudulent manner by having up until that point presenting their service not as a reservation system to the customer, but as a Yellow Pages. They didn’t say this is a number you can use to reserve through Yelp; they presented it as the business’s phone number, and without informing either businesses or customers that they changed up. Of course now they’re in the reservations game.

That said, these commissions are a COGS/COSS item that customers don’t actually need to know about. I don’t need to know that you bought your cheesecake at $30 and are selling it for $60. I don’t need to know the cost of the time it took the employee to stick it in a box and ring me up. And I certainly don’t need to know any of the overhead costs. I’m not asking to review your P&L just to determine if you are receiving a fair amount for your goods and services, nor should your books be open to me. I trust that whatever price you set is the price you are okay with receiving for your goods and services. If it isn’t, raise them or close and do something else with your life.

Re: San Francisco permanently caps delivery app fees for restaurants at 15%

#67

Post by robertlagrant »

mindslight wrote: post #47
robertlagrant wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Simply running a website" may be harder than you think compared with transporting food.

Transporting food takes a person's real time, gas, and wear on a vehicle, for every trip . Running a website is straightforwardly scalable to millions of customers. In my example (which is based on real prices I experienced when I received an Uber gift card), a $2 fee (20% on top of the usual $10 delivery charges) seems more than enough to cover that.

Yes, my point was that they're not just running a website. That's reductive.

Re: San Francisco permanently caps delivery app fees for restaurants at 15%

#68

Post by qeternity »

aga_ml wrote: post #61
qeternity wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This distinction actually makes some sense because the former is explicit and the latter is hidden. Hidden to whom? The customer? Why does that matter? If I phone a restaurant and place an order, is their telephone rate of any concern to me? Or their electricity rate? What relevance does this have?

I prefer price transparency because it helps me decide whether to order directly through the delivery app or via the restaurant. The extent to which I support the restaurant is a factor in my purchasing decisions in addition to the total cost. Having good restaurants that are profitable near where I live is helpful for maintaining the community (and good for property values).

The restaurant is in a much better position to make that decision though. Uber might have high fees and it still might make for phenomenal business. But you would judge the high fees and go somewhere else thus harming the business.

Capitalism isn’t perfect but this is pretty elementary stuff. Information asymmetries are why price is so important: it encapsulates everything.

Re: San Francisco permanently caps delivery app fees for restaurants at 15%

#69

Post by qeternity »

unexpected wrote: post #56
qeternity wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This distinction actually makes some sense because the former is explicit and the latter is hidden. Hidden to whom? The customer? Why does that matter? If I phone a restaurant and place an order, is their telephone rate of any concern to me? Or their electricity rate? What relevance does this have?

well, for starters, their telephone rates and electricity rates don't vary on the price of the order.

Of course they do. If I order a huge meal, they will use more electricity and gas (no matter how incrementally small).

But the question remains: who cares? Their payment processor will charge by value. Do you demand to know who their payment provider is and what their terms are?

Re: San Francisco permanently caps delivery app fees for restaurants at 15%

#70

Post by qeternity »

gnicholas wrote: post #63
qeternity wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This distinction actually makes some sense because the former is explicit and the latter is hidden. Hidden to whom? The customer? Why does that matter? If I phone a restaurant and place an order, is their telephone rate of any concern to me? Or their electricity rate? What relevance does this have?

Opaque fees that vary based on method of request annoy me in the same way that fees that only appear at the end of the purchase process. They affect my decision whether/how to order, and they cause me to spend time going down one path when I would have otherwise gone down another. I recall seeing discussion of how Yelp (I think?) was routing users to proxy phone numbers for businesses, and then charging them a referr…

These are not your fees. These are the fees the restaurants pay. All of their other fees are opaque to you. You have no idea what they pay for their raw ingredients, and why should you?
Post reply on HN