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

Blue Apron Files for IPO

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 167 posts

Re: Blue Apron Files for IPO

#81

Post by KWD »

groby_b wrote: post #33
paulcole wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They are trying to help people cook healthy food, they are doing a good thing I don't think the idea that they're "doing a good thing" is so cut and dry. Aren't they producing an astounding amount of waste? And aren't the working conditions uncomfortable at best? https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/the-not-so-wholeso...

Let's not forget the astonishing amount of dark patterns in their UI. Cancelling your Blue Apron account is... quite the experience. (Not to mention their food model seems to be "30% is crap we need to get rid of, and you will buy it")

I actually don't recall any negative experience when I cancelled my account. It might be because I'd already opted out the future deliveries, but closed the account with no issues.

Re: Blue Apron Files for IPO

#82

Post by bkanber »

dominotw wrote: post #45
bkanber wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can ship the boxes, gel packs, and foil bag back to them for recycling. They give you a free shipping label. https://support.blueapron.com/hc/en-us/articles/202510818-Ho...

doesn't the carbon footprint of shipping it back offset the recycling?

No. It is still better to recycle.

While there is an obvious carbon footprint when shipping, don't forget that your box is on a truck with many other boxes. Inside your single returned box are 8-10 completely reusable gel packs from the last 4-5 weeks of meals. Ship back once a month.

Also keep in mind that many supermarket items travel farther than Blue Apron boxes, so if you're concerned about shipping emissions, you have to compare Blue Apron against that un-recycleable Purdue chicken package that probably traveled 3x as far.

The UK did a study about shipping recyclables to China for processing, and even that 10,000 mile journey for recycling had a better carbon footprint than landfilling and remanufacturing.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/19/recyclin...

Re: Blue Apron Files for IPO

#83

Post by nemo44x »

avree wrote: post #59
scottbez1 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the recipes I tried listed "Add salt and pepper to taste" after basically every intermediate step, so I could certainly understand why someone might end up with too much salt if they're not paying too much attention or don't know how much salt is typical.

That's basically how cooking works though... you adjust the spice level, particularly salt, after each step... to taste.

I wouldn't say after each step. It would be foolish to add salt to a sauce I'm reducing for instance. You taste your food always before adding salt. And you generally hold of seasoning until whatever you're doing is reasonably stable.

So imagine I want to cook some chicken breasts. I'm going to dry them and the season them and let them sit for awhile. Then I will cook them and finish them. If I want to make a sauce from the nice remains of the pan they were cooked in I'd remove the chicken and excess oil perhaps and begin that process. And that process has many steps from adding shallots and garlic to deglazing with wine perhaps and reducing that and then adding stock and reducing and then mixing in some butter. The very last thing I'd do is season.

If I'm going to put the sauce on the plate and there is a starch there's a good chance I won't have to season those much at all as the sauce will carry that.

New cooks tend to over season. They forget that if everything you're cooking has salt on it when someone eats one thing there will be salt left on their tongue and in their mouth. This will help the next they thing eat and it won't need as much salt.

In general anything like a stew or a sauce should be seasons as late as possible even if there are many steps in creating it. Meat should be seasoned early and left to rest so excess moisture can be taken out of the surface areas of the meat to help form a better surface texture and flavor.

Re: Blue Apron Files for IPO

#84

Post by rattray »

seibelj wrote: post #5

There is a lot of hate for this company on HN. They are trying to help people cook healthy food, they are doing a good thing, and have an actual product. Good for them! And I hope the engineers / common workers get some money too :)

I agree that they're doing a good thing.

Doesn't mean they're worth investing in, or have prospects to match the valuation (I don't have an opinion either way on that personally, but I enjoy reading others' opinions).

Re: Blue Apron Files for IPO

#85

Post by bkanber »

kafkaesq wrote: post #64
dominotw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doesn't the carbon footprint of shipping it back offset the recycling?

That's a perfectly valid point, above, which definitely should not have been downvoted. This business about "just ship it back to us and we'll recycle it" is obviously suspect. If anything it sounds like a scheme they came up with so they could check some box in some policy subscription about "offering recycling opportunities at all stages in the supply chain", or something similar. Even though when you think about,…

It's not that obvious and not so much a loophole. Shipping is more efficient than you give credit for (eg shipping recyclables from UK to China is still net-beneficial as opposed to landfilling [0]), and most likely recycling back to them is advantageous. The gel packs are reusable, you ship them 10 at a time, and "Reuse" is better than "Recycle" in "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle".

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/19/recyclin...

Re: Blue Apron Files for IPO

#86

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

seibelj wrote: post #5

There is a lot of hate for this company on HN. They are trying to help people cook healthy food, they are doing a good thing, and have an actual product. Good for them! And I hope the engineers / common workers get some money too :)

I don't really see it as a lot of hate. I agree with everything you said about them, but that still doesn't mean I think their multi-billion dollar valuation is in any way supported by their financials or their business model.

Re: Blue Apron Files for IPO

#87

Post by nilkn »

fovc wrote: post #68
nilkn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've subscribed to Blue Apron before and, regarding waste, it doesn't seem much different from going to the grocery store. Meat ingredients like chicken breast, salmon, and beef are individually wrapped exactly like they are in the store. Blue Apron doesn't wrap all their produce (but they do wrap some of it); most people I know use a lot of plastic bags for produce when going to the grocery, so that's a small differ…

"Recyclable" is not a panacea. There's a rain it comes last in the 3 RS. (Reduce, reuse, recycle)

I agree, but the same applies to a lot of materials accumulated from grocery store shopping. Like I said, I do think Blue Apron ends up being more wasteful in the end, but it doesn't strike me as an "astounding" difference.

Re: Blue Apron Files for IPO

#88

Post by bhandziuk »

wavefunction wrote: post #50
nilkn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've subscribed to Blue Apron before and, regarding waste, it doesn't seem much different from going to the grocery store. Meat ingredients like chicken breast, salmon, and beef are individually wrapped exactly like they are in the store. Blue Apron doesn't wrap all their produce (but they do wrap some of it); most people I know use a lot of plastic bags for produce when going to the grocery, so that's a small differ…

You can buy larger bulk packages at grocery stores and cut down on the waste. And you generally get a more favorable unit-cost that way as well. I have friends who liked it for the healthy-food-on-rails aspect and because they weren't very adventurous cooks before trying it.

somethings. Others, like at Costco just come in even more packaging. There is a box to contain all your boxes of boxes.

Re: Blue Apron Files for IPO

#89

Post by WheelsAtLarge »

Very surprising that they've gotten to the point of actually filing for an IPO. Their business model is overly complicated.

This company reminds me of Webvan during the 1st internet boom. They tried to do everything a market would do plus delivery. They soon found out it was too costly and went under.

What they need to do is partner with grocery stores so that customers can pick up the food or have it delivered without having to deal with UPS or FEDex. One big pain is all the packing. It gives the impression of waste. True or not it's not nice to see a bunch of packing stuff going in the trash.

I, for one,order and pick up a Thanksgiving meal every year from my local market. It's about $10 per head. If they can match that at my local market. I'd be happy to order it. It probably wouldn't be an everyday thing but I'd use it multiple times a week.

Re: Blue Apron Files for IPO

#90

Post by kafkaesq »

bkanber wrote: post #85
kafkaesq wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a perfectly valid point, above, which definitely should not have been downvoted. This business about "just ship it back to us and we'll recycle it" is obviously suspect. If anything it sounds like a scheme they came up with so they could check some box in some policy subscription about "offering recycling opportunities at all stages in the supply chain", or something similar. Even though when you think about,…

It's not that obvious and not so much a loophole. Shipping is more efficient than you give credit for (eg shipping recyclables from UK to China is still net-beneficial as opposed to landfilling [0]), and most likely recycling back to them is advantageous. The gel packs are reusable, you ship them 10 at a time, and "Reuse" is better than "Recycle" in "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle". [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environmen…

shipping recyclables from UK to China is still net-beneficial as opposed to landfilling

That's shipping it from the local recycling plant, ton for ton. But the "net benefit" of shipping millions of box of crumbled aluminum and plastic wrappers back to Blue Apron (then unpacking and sorting them)? As if anyone has time for that, anyway (when most of us have time to do the dishes and put out the trash)? That's where things start to look suspect.

The gel packs are reusable,

Yeah, like all those soaps and mini-shampoo bottles we steal from hotels and intend to "use" someday, too.

But hey, it sure sounds nice enough as a little green checkbox on some "sustainability architect"'s slide presentation somewhere, I'm sure.

Post reply on HN