Live data from Hacker News

California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

661–663 of 663 posts

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it does make it harder for newer businesses to enter the space. However, from what I have been able to piece together, the real culprits here are DoorDash and GrubHub, by listing restaurants without permission/agreements in the first place, necessitating the creation of this law. You're probably right that GrubHub and DoorDash are cheering at the moment, unless the law get…

Market forces will have the opposite effect: leaders in delivery will monopolize further and have even more pricing power, taking ever larger share from restaurants. Instead we could have had lots of delivery companies competing on price. Apple may want to control the purchasing experience by only selling their products at Apple Stores. Should I not be able to pay someone for the service of going to the store and buy…

True. It is sad that market forces may and likely will have the opposite of the intended effect. Personally, I like the idea of having more options to have healthier competition in the market.

It is also true that the issue is very similar to the one you describe in the e-commerce world. However, I would argue that food delivery is specifically very different from most other products/services. Food is a need; not a want, and poor experience usually produces a stronger-than-usual emotional response... we have all been "hangry" at some point in time. IMO, that specific emotional response is the key differentiator. Hangry customers that are usually unaware of the nuances of the food delivery industry and its practices, usually end up blaming the restaurants. It also doesn't help that feedback mechanisms built into most delivery apps are limited (although I've seen improvements in that area in more recent times).

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but if my marked up $15 thing you sell to someone else is crappy because of your handling, and now the customer associates my name with expensive, crappy product, my brand has been spoiled by you.

And yet most people don't struggle to realize that when your UPS chucks your package at your house and it breaks, that's UPS' fault, not whoever you ordered from. This whole argument revolves around a very uncharitable assumption that people are incredibly stupid and incapable of comprehending that the creation of the food and the delivery of the food are handled by two different parties. If that's the case, the more…

Either you make poor decisions on your own or pay someone to make poor, or deceptive decisions on your behalf. Pick your poison.

Re: California law bans delivery apps from listing a restaurant without an agreement

#663
post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the most part, they're okay, if you don't have super high expectations for the soup portion of it. Some Chinese places near me have started selling the dumplings they make frozen as well.

The thing is I do have high expectations. I'd be very happy with good frozen potstickers and wontons. Actually cooking them is pretty easy; I just find making them really tedious. And I haven't really found the ones I can get in Oriental markets all that great.

yeah, getting food delivered generally sucks.. You pay $30* for something that tastes like crap, when you could've made something better on your own in 20 minutes for $5 or less

* in the bay area anyway, presumably it's not this expensive out in the real world

Post reply on HN