Thread

1. dzonga · 1790195655 · focus · HN ↗

   services like door-dash are literally built on a concept of a sucker pays more. you order a meal that costs $10. total charge comes to $25. then delivery worker made $5 on that order. + the delivery worker expects a tip.

   which means the company sees both the delivery worker and the person who ordered as suckers. no wonder ride-share companies jumped onto food-delivery.

   1. sokoloff · 1790197194 · focus · HN ↗

      I don’t think paying someone to perform a service for you makes you a sucker.

      I’ve never used DoorDash (and am pretty unlikely to), but if I did, I would look at as paying someone for a service they provided rather than simply “paying more for the item” (and expecting someone to wait on me personally for free?).

      1. wat10000 · 1790197804 · focus · HN ↗

         It’s not like they hide anything about what they’re offering. They advertise service X for price Y and that’s what they deliver. Seems fine. If you don’t think Y is worth it for X then don’t use it.

         Now, the part where they use tips to offset driver pay is evil and people should be in prison for it.

         1. nonfamous · 1790201955 · focus · HN ↗

            Well, they hide the fact that the food prices are marked up for one thing. Even if you pick up yourself, menu prices in DoorDash are at least 20% above the restaurant’s posted prices. That undisclosed upcharge comes on top of the delivery fees and service charges they do disclose — but only after you have made your order.

            1. wat10000 · 1790207988 · focus · HN ↗

               I don’t see a problem with that. They show a price for a product. They have no responsibility to inform you that a lower price for the same product is available elsewhere.

               1. kyleee · 1790208865 · focus · HN ↗

                  It’s still rude, have you no shame?

                  1. sokoloff · 1790211469 · focus · HN ↗

                     This is what distributors do. I don't feel cheated when an Amazon sellers offers something that I can buy for 40% less direct from China, or when a store sells me a loaf of bread for $4 that they paid $2.75 for.

                     If it's worth it to me at the price offered, I'll buy it. If it's not, I won't.

                     1. dgently7 · 1790215634 · focus · HN ↗

                        amazon is a bad example for this because they aren't just saying here is x for y$. they force the sellers into paying at least y everywhere, even if amazon has nothing to do with the sale. they are using their semi-monopoly to raise your price on x everywhere. sort of the opposite of the "the market will solve it" approach.
                  2. wat10000 · 1790252739 · focus · HN ↗

                     My local Giant charges $1 more for identical butter than Lidl. What an outrage.
            2. kelnos · 1790239414 · focus · HN ↗

               Aren't the prices marked up by the restaurant, not by DoorDash? I thought it was common practice for restaurants to list higher menu prices on DoorDash (and other delivery platforms) to help offset the platform's cut they take from the restaurant. (Which sounds entirely reasonable to me.)

               I'm not sure why DoorDash should be responsible for disclosing that; DoorDash may not even know what the regular in-person menu prices are in the first place.

               The solution to this is to stop allowing delivery services to take a cut of the restaurant's revenue. Instead they should be required to raise their delivery/service fees charged to the customer. Of course, this will likely result in fewer customers, so they don't want to do that, but it's the only honest thing to do.

               I get that the delivery services do provide value to the restaurants in many cases, but ultimately the customer pays for it either way, so that cost should be made explicit to the customer.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.