31–40 of 124 posts
But … I don’t think the cities are properly accounting for the ease of using multiple apps? If a driver is logged into Uber and Doordash and GrubHub on 3 phones waiting for a delivery they probably should not be accruing $17.96*3 per hour at that time. But it sounds like they might be able to under this new law.
What a crap business model these companies have if they rely on haggling over legal loopholes to operate. The business case, at best, is the status quo remains with material threats to their operations if these laws change. This is a lose-lose for everyone. Ignore the morality arguments, why risk your money on something with almost zero upside and all this downside? Suing the government is not a sign of strength
> What a crap business model these companies have if they rely on haggling over legal loopholes to operate. They will be fine. It's the consumers and delivery drivers who will mostly pay for it.
The players: restaurants, drivers (current and former), platforms and consumers. Former drivers, those who don’t make the new cut, will lose. Drivers who stay on will gain. Looking at leverage, consumers are less likely to bear the burden than restaurants. Given the new fixed cost of operating a delivery platform, the incumbents’ threat of competition from new entrants is reduced; that will help them.
If I were to make predictions, I’d expect to see some consolidation among the platforms with the winners squeezing restaurants and consumers waiting longer more than paying a higher price. (It is notable restaurants have virtually no representation in this debate.) The pie will be smaller. But the platforms’ role in it will be more stable and secure.
This will essentially kill these platforms. I don't have the data but I can see how a delivery can take, on average, one hour. Between waiting for an order to arrive, accepting it, going to the food place, taking it to the destination, delivering it, etc... $17 + fees + tips? => $20+ delivery fee. Unless you are delivering for a well-off family of 5, it makes no sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can see it working in New York City (and closer denser areas) but these platforms operate in the broader US and other markets (which can have now laws influenced by the US).
Adopted nationally, this would absolutely kill the platforms as well as a number of restaurants. This law is particular to New York, whose density both makes it work and raises living costs.
To be clear before I say anything: I think the entire food delivery app business model is bad for all parties involved and that these companies are bad actors. But … I don’t think the cities are properly accounting for the ease of using multiple apps? If a driver is logged into Uber and Doordash and GrubHub on 3 phones waiting for a delivery they probably should not be accruing $17.96*3 per hour at that time. But it…
If the apps are idiots, perhaps. In practice, this law basically all but these companies to employ a fleet of drivers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adopted nationally, this would absolutely kill the platforms as well as a number of restaurants. This law is particular to New York, whose density both makes it work and raises living costs.
Nobody forced them to use this business model. If it isn't profitable without exploiting workers, it was a bad idea to begin with.
There are two classes of gig workers whose interests are at odds: the ersatz full time and true part time. The former, whom worker rights activists highlight, is being exploited. The latter, which companies like to talk about, benefit from a high-flexibility additional source of income.
The ratio of the former to the latter increases with density; there is more work to fill the hours. Below a certain level of density, the former cannot exist. It’s absolutely possible that the optimum for New York is not the same as in rural Kentucky, where outlawing the odd job an otherwise stay-at-home parent takes to earn extra cash does more harm than good.
To be clear before I say anything: I think the entire food delivery app business model is bad for all parties involved and that these companies are bad actors. But … I don’t think the cities are properly accounting for the ease of using multiple apps? If a driver is logged into Uber and Doordash and GrubHub on 3 phones waiting for a delivery they probably should not be accruing $17.96*3 per hour at that time. But it…
This will essentially kill these platforms. I don't have the data but I can see how a delivery can take, on average, one hour. Between waiting for an order to arrive, accepting it, going to the food place, taking it to the destination, delivering it, etc... $17 + fees + tips? => $20+ delivery fee. Unless you are delivering for a well-off family of 5, it makes no sense.
> I can see how a delivery can take, on average, one hour In New York? > will essentially kill these platforms It will curtail them. They will need to trim their driver network, which will reduce the number of drivers and increase delivery times. Restaurants and consumers outside high-density areas no longer make sense to cater to. Dropping restaurants who don’t meet minimums will also, likely, be necessary. In summa…
This will essentially kill these platforms. I don't have the data but I can see how a delivery can take, on average, one hour. Between waiting for an order to arrive, accepting it, going to the food place, taking it to the destination, delivering it, etc... $17 + fees + tips? => $20+ delivery fee. Unless you are delivering for a well-off family of 5, it makes no sense.
Could it maybe be the case that this service was previously undervalued, or is that somehow out of the question?