>But no one is being forced into the transaction, and they are clearly adding value for many.
Eh, there have been many stories over the years about these delivery platforms doing pretty awful things to insert themselves as a middleman where they aren't wanted. Here's one from a couple days ago. [1] Other strategies I've seen stories about include claiming the location on Google maps and changing the phone number listed, buying a domain for the restaurant and hosting the menu (setup to order through the delivery service), and modifying the prices shown in the app to help cover delivery costs which could distort the perception of the value of the restaurant unfairly.
I'm not sure where I personally fall on it all. On the one hand, a generic delivery service should be able to exist, and if that generic delivery service ordered food, maybe they should get served just as any other takeout does.
On the other, restaurants are ending up with bad reviews because consumers sometimes think they're ordering directly from the restaurants and end up with cold food, stolen food, etc. Restaurants might package things differently if they knew they'd be in the car longer than the average drive home. I'm empathetic to restaurants wanting to protect their reputations. This is a bigger issue than Amazon delivering your package 30 minutes late, the food has a pretty short time where it'll be considered "really good" by the consumer, and a delivery service maximizing profit would like to get just one more delivery on the trip if at all possible.
[1] https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/restaurants/anti-doordash-re...