One of the biggest problems here is that patrons could care less. I have mentioned to sooooo many people that these apps are pure poison for their favorite small restaurant. But once they get a taste of the convenience of the likes of GrubHub and UberEats, they just won't go back to ordering directly. Doesn't seem to matter even if it literally runs their favorite restaurants out of business.
I think we need to develop a new moral imperative and a sense of collective responsibility for issues like this. Is that tiny extra convenience really worth the carnage for small businesses? Would it really KILL you to do curbside pickup to help your favorite eating establishment stay in business?
OK...so we have a government that could care less about small business and is working actively against the interests of the majority of Americans. We've thrown anti-trust into the dumpster. But these situations don't exist in a vacuum. We can vote with our feet and just say "no" to the predator class. If we as a society refuse to play their game, they will eventually have to pick up their toys and go home. But until we develop a general sense of responsibility for the welfare of the commons, we are stuck in a world where counterfeit capitalism wins again and again.
"Send me tips...by clicking on the title of this newsletter"
uhh, waht? I get into a loop, no way of communicating other than these comments. I have TONS of information to share with you, and I'm sure I could learn a lot by having a conversation with you as well.
Network effects are everywhere in the universe. But only in the last 40-60 years with these vast digital global ecosystems (financial and informational) we are beginning to understand that humanity's socio-political and economic networks do not mirror those of nature. Rather than achieve the balance that nature achieves in terms of sustainability and generativity, (wo)mankind's networks achieve neither. Throughout history we see a cycle of excess followed by collapse. For more, read this piece on equilibrism and the need to rethink and our approach to all of our networks; not only the digital platforms you target. These cycles have been repeating since the time of Plato and earlier; only now the stakes are existential. http://bit.ly/2iLAHlG
In DC, Pedro & Vinny's burrito cart operated by renting out kitchen space from local restaurants, who had extra space before the lunch crush.
Also, it seems obvious that these "delivery" companies should just build and sell software that local restaurants could purchase to make their own online ordering/delivery/pickup systems easier. Being a middleman and trying to make delivery profitable (when it wasn't profitable for the restaurant originally, or they'd be doing it) seems like a fool's errand.
In the UK it's Deliveroo vs. JustEat, but most of the rest applies. Deliveroo has agreed takeover from Amazon pending UK gov't approval (decision due soon). JustEat is part of a bigger pan European delivery business. Ubereats a distant 3rd with only a few chain brands.
As yet, have not heard of attempts to trade as a restaurant brand without permission ("passing off" is easy to stop by injunction, if expensive).
Tech startup in Toronto called Ritual is building Ritual One platform for ordering, charging zero dollars, as help for restaurant owners in the pandemic.
This is Capitalism, the definition is obvious, money rules simply and over laws and regulations. corrupt people are everywhere, within corporates and governments departments. What tie their relationship is money.
That being said, the problem is not the concept of capitalism, the problem is within us as human. delivery apps like any other corporate, they want to 100% share of the market, themselves only make money.
Self discipline for recognizing that others needs to make profit is a key to healthy market and economy. thats why they are burning money, each one them fight to be the one and only.
Results: waste of capital that could be spent on better things, destroying restaurant business, and killing ambitious ideas in the same sphere.
Hey Matt, on the issue of recommendations to breakup Google by UK regulators that's a great find. You might be interested in the Australian Consumer & Competition Commission inquiry on Digital Platforms, I haven't seen you reference it so it might be of interest. The ACCC found that both Google and Facebook have significant market power and while do not go as far as UK, as part of the recommendations they suggested
Recommendation 1: Changes to merger law
Recommendation 2: Advance notice of acquisitions
Recommendation 3: Changes to search engine and internet browser defaults
I am on the side of Microsoft against Slack on this one.
Remember how cool CUSeeMe was? Or how cool ICQ was? Or AIM? Or Paltalk? Or Skype? Or Google Talk? Or MSN Messenger? Or WebEx?
It's likely that we'll be nostalgic about Zoom in a few years too.
There is a pattern of non-competition in communication apps where "competition" is that "so and so wants to talk to you so they'll force you to install program A". Somebody else wants you to install program B, and another to install program C.
Once a company like this has market share, their only value proposition is that "everybody else" uses it and there is no reason to improve their product or to defend it from rot. (for instance, social rot, such as the people who give me sexually harassing calls on Skype)
Years later the potential market is vastly larger so there is an opportunity for a company like Zoom to fill the gap, but then it has no competition, it rots, etc. Once in a while people wonder why technology hasn't improved since 1999.
Microsoft office lets you use open protocols like email; Slack wants to lock you down into installing slack. In fact, they'll make you run 5 copies of Slack at once so you can be in touch with your employer and four different customers or suppliers of your employers. There is no sense that you own your data or your attention, but you're just supposed to keep scanning Slack groups to find the 1 important info in the middle of 25 cat gifs people shared.
There should be a computer user's bill of rights that forces services like Slack to allow any client, then you would have competition to make better clients and progress in chat clients would progress past 1999.
Could grocery store private label products be considered a similar situation? They are a retailer of products and take the information they collect on who eats what, when and where to develop their own store branded products to sell? Curious if this should be regulated?
I feel like there is a missing piece here... franchises clearly have some crazy power and a lot of abuses. But why do you take such a negative tone on the ghost kitchens? Say GrubHub has their data on what people order and builds a bunch of ghost kitchens, maybe one big Chili's or McDonald's kitchen for a whole city like you mentioned. This costs less than having the independent restaurants, and the only way to out-compete the independent restaurants is by offering lower prices. That isn't market power, that is healthy competition by providing better service to the customer. If the ghost kitchen setup makes delivery cheaper AND more profitable, then that is a win-win. Yes, they will be stealing business from other restaurants, but competing on price is one of the main ways competition drives companies to provide better service. It seems like this could do that and price caps won't help, since both the independent restaurants and the ghost kitchens will be paying the same order fee. Why so negative about it? Clearly there is potential for abuse, but it seems like there is also potential for improving the industry and serving customers more efficiently.
One of the biggest problems here is that patrons could care less. I have mentioned to sooooo many people that these apps are pure poison for their favorite small restaurant. But once they get a taste of the convenience of the likes of GrubHub and UberEats, they just won't go back to ordering directly. Doesn't seem to matter even if it literally runs their favorite restaurants out of business.
I think we need to develop a new moral imperative and a sense of collective responsibility for issues like this. Is that tiny extra convenience really worth the carnage for small businesses? Would it really KILL you to do curbside pickup to help your favorite eating establishment stay in business?
OK...so we have a government that could care less about small business and is working actively against the interests of the majority of Americans. We've thrown anti-trust into the dumpster. But these situations don't exist in a vacuum. We can vote with our feet and just say "no" to the predator class. If we as a society refuse to play their game, they will eventually have to pick up their toys and go home. But until we develop a general sense of responsibility for the welfare of the commons, we are stuck in a world where counterfeit capitalism wins again and again.
"Send me tips...by clicking on the title of this newsletter"
uhh, waht? I get into a loop, no way of communicating other than these comments. I have TONS of information to share with you, and I'm sure I could learn a lot by having a conversation with you as well.
The article was intriguing, but claim self-driving taxis are decades away raised my eyebrows. What makes you believe this?
Network effects are everywhere in the universe. But only in the last 40-60 years with these vast digital global ecosystems (financial and informational) we are beginning to understand that humanity's socio-political and economic networks do not mirror those of nature. Rather than achieve the balance that nature achieves in terms of sustainability and generativity, (wo)mankind's networks achieve neither. Throughout history we see a cycle of excess followed by collapse. For more, read this piece on equilibrism and the need to rethink and our approach to all of our networks; not only the digital platforms you target. These cycles have been repeating since the time of Plato and earlier; only now the stakes are existential. http://bit.ly/2iLAHlG
In DC, Pedro & Vinny's burrito cart operated by renting out kitchen space from local restaurants, who had extra space before the lunch crush.
Also, it seems obvious that these "delivery" companies should just build and sell software that local restaurants could purchase to make their own online ordering/delivery/pickup systems easier. Being a middleman and trying to make delivery profitable (when it wasn't profitable for the restaurant originally, or they'd be doing it) seems like a fool's errand.
In the UK it's Deliveroo vs. JustEat, but most of the rest applies. Deliveroo has agreed takeover from Amazon pending UK gov't approval (decision due soon). JustEat is part of a bigger pan European delivery business. Ubereats a distant 3rd with only a few chain brands.
As yet, have not heard of attempts to trade as a restaurant brand without permission ("passing off" is easy to stop by injunction, if expensive).
Super Hans!
Tech startup in Toronto called Ritual is building Ritual One platform for ordering, charging zero dollars, as help for restaurant owners in the pandemic.
This is Capitalism, the definition is obvious, money rules simply and over laws and regulations. corrupt people are everywhere, within corporates and governments departments. What tie their relationship is money.
That being said, the problem is not the concept of capitalism, the problem is within us as human. delivery apps like any other corporate, they want to 100% share of the market, themselves only make money.
Self discipline for recognizing that others needs to make profit is a key to healthy market and economy. thats why they are burning money, each one them fight to be the one and only.
Results: waste of capital that could be spent on better things, destroying restaurant business, and killing ambitious ideas in the same sphere.
Hey Matt, on the issue of recommendations to breakup Google by UK regulators that's a great find. You might be interested in the Australian Consumer & Competition Commission inquiry on Digital Platforms, I haven't seen you reference it so it might be of interest. The ACCC found that both Google and Facebook have significant market power and while do not go as far as UK, as part of the recommendations they suggested
Recommendation 1: Changes to merger law
Recommendation 2: Advance notice of acquisitions
Recommendation 3: Changes to search engine and internet browser defaults
https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries-ongoing/digital-platforms-inquiry
I am on the side of Microsoft against Slack on this one.
Remember how cool CUSeeMe was? Or how cool ICQ was? Or AIM? Or Paltalk? Or Skype? Or Google Talk? Or MSN Messenger? Or WebEx?
It's likely that we'll be nostalgic about Zoom in a few years too.
There is a pattern of non-competition in communication apps where "competition" is that "so and so wants to talk to you so they'll force you to install program A". Somebody else wants you to install program B, and another to install program C.
Once a company like this has market share, their only value proposition is that "everybody else" uses it and there is no reason to improve their product or to defend it from rot. (for instance, social rot, such as the people who give me sexually harassing calls on Skype)
Years later the potential market is vastly larger so there is an opportunity for a company like Zoom to fill the gap, but then it has no competition, it rots, etc. Once in a while people wonder why technology hasn't improved since 1999.
Microsoft office lets you use open protocols like email; Slack wants to lock you down into installing slack. In fact, they'll make you run 5 copies of Slack at once so you can be in touch with your employer and four different customers or suppliers of your employers. There is no sense that you own your data or your attention, but you're just supposed to keep scanning Slack groups to find the 1 important info in the middle of 25 cat gifs people shared.
There should be a computer user's bill of rights that forces services like Slack to allow any client, then you would have competition to make better clients and progress in chat clients would progress past 1999.
Could grocery store private label products be considered a similar situation? They are a retailer of products and take the information they collect on who eats what, when and where to develop their own store branded products to sell? Curious if this should be regulated?
I feel like there is a missing piece here... franchises clearly have some crazy power and a lot of abuses. But why do you take such a negative tone on the ghost kitchens? Say GrubHub has their data on what people order and builds a bunch of ghost kitchens, maybe one big Chili's or McDonald's kitchen for a whole city like you mentioned. This costs less than having the independent restaurants, and the only way to out-compete the independent restaurants is by offering lower prices. That isn't market power, that is healthy competition by providing better service to the customer. If the ghost kitchen setup makes delivery cheaper AND more profitable, then that is a win-win. Yes, they will be stealing business from other restaurants, but competing on price is one of the main ways competition drives companies to provide better service. It seems like this could do that and price caps won't help, since both the independent restaurants and the ghost kitchens will be paying the same order fee. Why so negative about it? Clearly there is potential for abuse, but it seems like there is also potential for improving the industry and serving customers more efficiently.