[HN Gopher] 'It's Parasitic': Little Star Pizza Owner Lambasts D...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       'It's Parasitic': Little Star Pizza Owner Lambasts DoorDash, Uber
       Eats
        
       Author : sharemywin
       Score  : 36 points
       Date   : 2023-06-09 18:38 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.sfgate.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.sfgate.com)
        
       | joshu wrote:
       | the landlord probably extracts the vast majority of money from
       | them. why do we give them a pass?
        
       | jasonlaramburu wrote:
       | Little Star Pizza is one, if not the best, pie in the Bay Area.
       | It's very well known and loved. It is surprising that customers
       | wouldn't be willing to order delivery directly from the
       | restaurant, especially if they could pass along some savings.
        
         | lotsofpulp wrote:
         | The idea that people would rather pay unknown extra dollars to
         | middlemen to avoid picking up a phone and talking to someone
         | for 2 minutes is so bizarre to me.
        
           | AuthError wrote:
           | It saves you the trouble when your order goes wrong and way
           | easier to argue/negotiate, it's the same reason airbnb works
           | (else why wouldnt you just exchange number with the host and
           | rent it directly)
        
         | mercutio2 wrote:
         | Little Star does not hold a candle to Zachary's. IMHO :)
        
       | sharemywin wrote:
       | what if doordash and the other apps go the way of groupon?
        
       | gumby wrote:
       | A post on HN within the past couple of weeks analyzed the take:
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36146111
       | 
       | Order directly from the restaurant (same reason I order mac apps
       | from the developer even when I could use the mac app store).
        
         | rahimnathwani wrote:
         | The place I go to for takeout sushi uses a site on Chownow for
         | online ordering. This SaaS platform charger the restaurant a
         | monthly fee, rather than taking a cut.
         | 
         | I just Googled Chownow, and apparently you can browse local
         | restaurants as well: https://www.chownow.com/
        
       | SpicyLemonZest wrote:
       | I'm sympathetic to the plight of long-standing restaurant owners,
       | who signed up for a different role in a different environment and
       | didn't get a say in how the ecosystem evolved. But "parasitic"
       | doesn't seem like a reasonable analysis. Food delivery apps offer
       | a wide selection of choices that consumers find valuable.
       | Valuable enough that, as the article describes, they're often
       | willing to pay more than they would if they had ordered directly.
       | Why is it parasitic for delivery apps to satisfy this demand at
       | prevailing market prices?
       | 
       | An argument that this is _socially_ bad would be another thing. I
       | could imagine a convincing article describing how restaurants are
       | in a more precarious state than they used to be, and this has
       | non-obvious second order effects on the quality of food or the
       | general quality of life in a city. I don 't understand the idea
       | that there's a general moral obligation for delivery apps to
       | charge their business partners less money.
        
         | Zanfa wrote:
         | Not sure if parasitic is the correct term, but there's little
         | to do with market prices when it comes to food delivery apps.
         | They're all basically dumping with VC money, burning billions,
         | driving out legitimate competitors.
        
         | wwweston wrote:
         | I think you just made the argument, more or less -- there's an
         | implicit moral obligation in noting that there are negative
         | social impacts.
         | 
         | As for whether the term parasite applies:
         | 
         | - They move in and take over the channel for demand, often
         | burning VC cash to do it
         | 
         | - But they can't meet that demand for the product themselves,
         | and therefore can't survive on their own
         | 
         | - Once they sit in between those who can meet demand and the
         | market, they mess with the cost structure without apparent
         | consideration for whether or not they kill any given host
         | 
         | One can imagine a more symbiotic relationship but if the
         | restaurant owners are basically tell us that it's already
         | reaching the point where they die if they go off the apps and
         | they die if they stay on, it's pretty clear that something is
         | wrong.
        
           | SpicyLemonZest wrote:
           | Any restaurant that finds itself in financial trouble can
           | point to delivery apps and say, well, if they charged me less
           | money I'd have more money. What's not obvious to me that this
           | is any different from saying that they'd have more money if
           | their landlord charged less money or their suppliers charged
           | less money.
           | 
           | It'd be one thing if delivery apps were "taking over" the
           | demand channel in the sense that they're _preventing_
           | customers from ordering directly. But that doesn 't generally
           | seem to be the case. As the article covers, it's not like
           | delivery apps are even cheaper. (There was a story a while
           | back where Grubhub was creating websites which looked like
           | direct orders but weren't - I have no qualms about calling
           | that parasitic.)
        
           | namaria wrote:
           | Makes me think of the pizza app in Silicon Valley. I just
           | realized they were likely satirizing this very model. Who
           | knew it could become so entrenched...
        
         | sharemywin wrote:
         | One problem is they aren't very transparent on fees. They
         | charge both the business and the consumer. Probably offer the
         | driver the minimum amount possible to entice them to do the
         | delivery. And the business fees eat up much of the profit in
         | the transaction. Also, this whole thing was built on free
         | investor money in a wildly growling economy.
         | 
         | What happens if demand sinks because consumers have to be more
         | diligent with their money and 20% business fee + >$10 consumer
         | fees + 20% tip isn't a good value anymore.
         | 
         | it also drive up the prices on the rest customers because the
         | business needs to raise prices across the board to survive.
        
           | SpicyLemonZest wrote:
           | For most consumer products there's no fee transparency at
           | all. When I buy a cabbage, I just get a price, not a detailed
           | breakdown of how much money goes to the farmer, delivery
           | truck driver, and grocery store. It might be higher or lower
           | depending on where I shop, and I might be willing to pay more
           | if the store is nicer or more convenient or I think they're
           | more socially responsible. But I don't get the idea that
           | transparency as such is an imperative here.
           | 
           | If market conditions change and consumers have to be more
           | diligent with their money, or funding conditions change and
           | the delivery apps all discover that their business models are
           | unsustainable, presumably customers can simply start ordering
           | directly from restaurants again if that's the best way to get
           | the food they want. It doesn't seem like there are any
           | structural barriers to that.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-06-09 23:02 UTC)