DoorDash to acquire Instacart
Posted by WalterSobchak 5 hours ago
Comments
Comment by whyenot 4 minutes ago
Comment by jakeinspace 1 minute ago
Comment by resters 31 minutes ago
- in the past few years, orders are frequently not received.
- in the past few years, fruit/produce is often covered in mold, rotten, or otherwise unacceptable.
- in the past few years, delivery time estimates are frequently missed.
- in the past few months, customer support got significantly worse and came to resemble the bad attitude and general grudging unhlelpfulness of AirBNB's support team.
I think the main issue has been a big shortage of supply of workers who are willing to do the job and who can do it well. Often times the person delivering the order (and the order itself) smells strongly of cigarette smoke, and increasingly I've had drivers refuse to bring the order to the door, etc.
Add to that the impact of the labor shortage on grocery stores that makes stocking less reliable and results in no availability of bags, greater chances of rotten produce, etc.
Instacart does stand behind it service and I have received full refunds for the non-delivered orders and the rotten produce, but such things must take a great toll on the profitability of the business.
Comment by taurath 12 minutes ago
The answer is not to find new pools of desperate people but to improve working conditions (pay, benefits) and on a macro level reducing cost of living so the people performing the work don't have to work so much they stop being able to.
The way you COULD do that is to reduce administrative cost. From their most recent filing, marketing costs them 1/4 of their revenue, R&D (software development) 1/5th, and operations and administration 1/8th each. Their cost of revenue aka what they pay to their "shoppers" aka lower-class labor and the businesses they integrate with is 1/4th of gross, barely a pittance compared to the slush funds for management and investor payouts.
Take a look yourself: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001579091/a4bcc10...
Bottom line: they are making money hand over fist, with the vast vast majority not going to workers but the corporate employees and investors. Your issue with delivery drivers is an issue with the bottom-of-the-barrel treatment decided by management - they could solve this problem (EASILY), but they choose not to in order to pay for more corporate employees and to have more profit to shareholders. The numbers are clear as day.
Comment by throwup238 1 minute ago
Don't be surprised when the permanent underclass you depend on doesn't give a shit about your moldy strawberries.
Comment by rtkwe 2 minutes ago
Comment by kevin_thibedeau 4 minutes ago
Comment by mvdtnz 4 minutes ago
Comment by throwaway27448 8 minutes ago
Instacart is profitable, yea? So they don't want to provide a better quality service or they would offer greater incentives to workers.
Comment by themightyquinn 3 hours ago
Comment by themightyquinn 3 hours ago
Comment by bradlys 1 hour ago
It used to be there was a significant premium for this service and that's why I wouldn't do it but not anymore. In places like NYC - it's actually much cheaper than local options.
Comment by subarctic 1 hour ago
Comment by seizethecheese 2 hours ago
They do serve the same market for gig workers that don’t want to be ride share drivers, though, right? I wonder what their market share is for that.
Comment by BugsJustFindMe 3 hours ago
In my area Walmart is on Instacart and I've often wondered how that squares with their own delivery service.
Comment by themightyquinn 2 hours ago
Comment by kotaKat 1 hour ago
Comment by swed420 3 hours ago
Comment by kwanbix 2 hours ago
Comment by insom 1 hour ago
Now that menus are being 'audited' by the delivery companies, the use of UE or DD can lead to the _retail_ prices that people pay in person being raised (as it's the only way they restaurants can safely raise their delivery prices).
Bad for everyone except shareholders of delivery services, I guess.
Comment by browningstreet 2 hours ago
I do wonder what percentage of their orders are McDonalds. I lived near one and the car traffic of vehicles with delivery placards was significant.
Which makes me wonder about pricing pressure that is often reported re: McDonalds, and yet people end up paying $30-40 for a $15 McDonalds order.
Don’t get it.
Comment by saghm 28 minutes ago
I guess I could like, get a shopping cart and spent an extra 40 minutes hauling stuff back and forth every time we wanted groceries, but even that would be somewhat dependent on weather; a delivery driver is not going to have to walk 40 minutes in heavy rain and can bring frozen goods in an amount of time that doesn't result in them being soggy or completely melted messes by the time they reach us.
Comment by bobthepanda 7 minutes ago
basically the only things i bother online delivering grocery wise are bulky dry goods (e.g. paper towels)
Comment by pcan77 1 hour ago
Comment by rcpt 41 minutes ago
The way I see it: customer service sucks real bad now. In San Francisco it sucks incredibly bad. Adding another layer of it is another place for things to get worse.
I completely understand how door dash is useful. But I've been so disappointed that I just don't consider it anymore
Comment by oblio 28 minutes ago
> My wife and I BARELY have time to go grocery shopping
If you can, take them grocery shopping with you. One parent stays at home doing stuff, the other goes grocery shopping with at least one kid.
In my experience kids at least 12-18 months old LOVE grocery shopping.
Get a big shopping cart, put them in that special seat facing you. Keep it concise, don't shop for more than 1 hour per round. Talk to them, explain what you're doing, give them harmless things to play with (a carrot, a celery bulb, a bag of rice, whatever). Have a little fun with the produce, they will love random things, for example that weird looking tomato.
It becomes even easier as they grow a bit.
Comment by vorpalhex 1 hour ago
Stop entertaining your kid.
Your kid doesn't need to be entertained. They don't need the tv, a tablet, or a scheduled production put on by their parents.
Let them be entertain themselves. They are great at it.
They will be better behaved, they will be happier and more independent. You will enjoy spending time with your kids again.
Take them out. Let them wait in line. Let them sit at the table a bit. Do slow restaurants that aren't kid friendly.
Let them bring a few small non-electronic toys or a little book, or paper and crayons.
Comment by xXSLAYERXx 9 minutes ago
Comment by rcpt 25 minutes ago
> Take them out.
?
Comment by strulovich 59 minutes ago
Things that work for your kids don’t necessarily work for all kids.
Comment by oblio 32 minutes ago
1. only some specific circumstances for regular kids
2. special needs kids
should warrant exceptions.
Comment by MisterTea 2 hours ago
>Don’t get it.
I get that it takes full advantage of human tendency to be lazy. A friends stepson works a crappy job seemingly to pay for his door dash. The kid saves almost no money and is always asking his mother for money here and there while living at home with no expenses outside of his door dash and video game purchases. He couldn't afford to buy a bicycle.
Comment by nonethewiser 2 hours ago
I do get it. If you just really dont want to spend time on getting/making your own food, dont care about the cost, and are willing to put up with the experience then it serves a purpose. There is also a difference between doing it regularly and rarely.
I'd wager most, although not all (reread this before replies of "but I ..."), of those people doing it regularly are lazy and making a bad financial decisions but thats on them.
Comment by esikich 2 hours ago
I literally order from all of those companies as do 10s of millions of people if not more.
Comment by agoodusername63 2 hours ago
You couldn't torture that out of me.
Comment by angiolillo 1 hour ago
I haven't eaten MacD's in decades, but why does it matter as a percentage? How much you're willing to pay should be dependent on how much it costs you to acquire the items yourself. For example, if the store is a 10 minute round trip and you value your free time at at least $30/hr then paying $5 for delivery is rational, regardless of the item's initial cost. Better than rational even, when considering fuel and vehicle wear-and-tear.
(Of course if you have a kitchen, equipment, and time then buying bulk ingredients and making your own meals is sometimes more efficient, but thats an argument against buying prepared food in the first place, not against getting it delivered.)
Comment by zdragnar 2 hours ago
That's not to say it is worth it as an axiomatic rule, but it's something some people will choose from among the options available to them, which may be many or few, as dictated by their circumstances.
Comment by nonethewiser 1 hour ago
Compared to what? Pulling left overs out of the fridge? Or driving to get takeout? Driving to get takeout was never the financially savy decision in the first place so let's not set that as the baseline.
Comment by tredre3 1 hour ago
That's it. The comparison is indeed burger delivery vs drive-through/takeout. Cooking is irrelevant in the equation.
Comment by nonethewiser 1 hour ago
Comment by nonethewiser 1 hour ago
Compared to what? Pulling left overs out of the fridge? Or driving to get takeout? Driving to get takeout was never the financially savy decision in the first place. You are simply paying more for enjoyment. So let's not set that as the baseline.
In terms of time, if you spend 40 minutes on a batch making 8 meals you are spending 5 minutes/meal on preparation. You're going to take that much time with your doordash order so there is not even a time saving.
Doordash buys you enjoyment and impulsiveness. You can spend your money on that. But don't fool yourself into thinking its a time or especially a money saver.
Comment by yawnxyz 1 hour ago
Comment by nonethewiser 58 minutes ago
Comment by mcmcmc 1 hour ago
Comment by gamblor956 3 minutes ago
Comment by atomicUpdate 2 hours ago
Comment by throwitaway222 49 minutes ago
Comment by Theodores 1 hour ago
I don't order artificial food on apps or go anywhere near the golden arches, but it amazes me that the majority of the app orders are for these chains that sell utter garbage.
It is a bit like a phone, you could open a book to read classic literature or you could doom scroll AI trash all day. For some reason the latter option is invariably chosen over the former.
The money is also ridiculous, I am not sure of golden arches prices with delivery and tip on top, I just don't live like that. However, I always cook from scratch with no animal products, just stodgy vegetables, and I am sure that my weekly food bill is going to be less than one delivered cold and late burger meal of no nutritional value.
Also shocking as a cooking person is how few McDonald's orders are sit down with people. We have ended up with people eating with their fingers in their solitary confinement cars with the worst junk food possible, whereas we once had dinner parties with a proper table, home cooked food of nutritional value, valued company, crockery, cutlery, etiquette and prayers to an imaginary god.
Even stranger is that there is no free healthcare in the USA. Eat this garbage and you have a healthcare bill coming for the obesity, saturated fats blocking arteries, cancer and the rest of the chronic diseases that go with artificial food.
This situation is a product of American corporate ways of doing things and hard to unpick, but with these delivery apps now worth billions, there is now another barrier between healthy eating since this silly gig economy now needs to be kept in existence since jobs and corporate profits depend on it.
Comment by joshstrange 4 hours ago
> to Help Local Stores Win
Any local store will tell you DD is a necessary evil they put up with but strongly dislike overall. From the % of sales they take to the incredibly rude delivery drivers, DD is not well liked.
On multiple occasions a family member's employees (or they, themselves) have had a DD delivery driver cut to the front of the line, interrupt the cashier, and shove their phone in their face. No words, no anything, just "here is the code/screen/whatever I need to show you to pick up the order". DD doesn't let stores rate delivery drivers so there isn't any recourse.
Comment by Toynbeeidea 4 hours ago
Quite a few of them spoke no English, so yes, they'd just present their phone screen. I didn't take it as rude. It was a very clear and direct communication. A simple scan, and boom, nothing further needed, I could just scan their items. Thr QR code scan handled payment and everything. They almost always helped with doing thier own bagging: Time is money, after all.
Comment by joshstrange 2 hours ago
I want to be clear, the ability to speak English is not what I took issue with. That doesn't bother me and I'm fine with just showing the phone screen, no conversation. The issue I had was cutting the line and essentially demanding they be helped immediately. Wait in line like everyone else. This is a small food stall in a food hall with often just 1 person working the front. If they are actively helping another customer and have a line, I find it unacceptable to think you can cut to the front and immediately demand attention. What message does that send to the customers in line? "You're less important than delivery orders", and I can tell you that isn't the case due to the large chunk that DD takes.
My family member has even considered shutting down DD orders temporarily if/when the drivers act this way and publishing on social media about it. According to them, the loss in sales (and overall profit, which is minor on DD orders) wouldn't matter compared to the publicity/engagement (I don't know, that's not my world).
Comment by Toynbeeidea 36 minutes ago
Comment by SoftTalker 3 hours ago
What I don't understand is why DD gets any cut of the store's profit. They should be paying retail like anyone else, and their customer paying for the delivery costs.
Comment by BHSPitMonkey 1 hour ago
It's a finder's fee, a very old and ordinary concept in business. The more sales you can bring to a company (or could divert to competitors), the more skin in the game you have. That's not to say I think these companies aren't in some ways anticompetitive to the detriment of merchants and DIY shoppers.
Comment by Toynbeeidea 3 hours ago
Comment by jedberg 1 hour ago
In theory it's because that customer wouldn't be purchasing without DD. In practice it's a shakedown.
Comment by bradlys 1 hour ago
Comment by jedberg 1 hour ago
Elsewhere in this post a store owner talks about how DD is a necessary evil. How they have convinced a big chunk of customers to only use DD to order food, and you will lose out if you aren't on the platform.
Comment by kingleopold 3 hours ago
Comment by craftwerk 42 minutes ago
Comment by brookst 4 hours ago
And all the stuff you mention.
The one restaurant owner I know who’s happy with DD set up an entirely separate kitchen in an industrial park. But to get to the DD revenue necessary to justify that investment, he had a couple of years of DD hell in his main restaurant.
Comment by mikepurvis 3 hours ago
Comment by ikety 4 hours ago
Could see the kitchen areas through a window and they weren't necessarily dirty, but looked sketchy for some reason. Few people, robots delivering orders, one set of cooks making the food. Just dystopian.
We might as well just build ready to eat food factories that pipe the slop directly into your house. We got rid of the "inconvenience" of going out to eat and enjoying a restaurant. Why not get rid of the pesky delivery middle-man too?
Comment by brookst 4 hours ago
And the DD-specific kitchen I know is basically just a typical restaurant kitchen minus attached dining. You can make slop in an industrial park, you can make slop in a real restaurant (I’ve certainly experienced that).
Why in the world would it be necessary to have dining tables for a kitchen to make good food?
Comment by SoftTalker 3 hours ago
Comment by quickthrowman 1 hour ago
Comment by apparent 1 hour ago
Comment by cowlevel 3 hours ago
Comment by mattkenefick 2 hours ago
That's exactly what it's like in NYC. They just walk up with their huge backpacks straight to the front skipping everyone, turn around bumping people, show their phone, then stand RIGHT in the front as-if no one else exists. It's awful.
I'd love to contribute to a no-delivery store. Pickup or dine-in only.
Edit: Might have to re-think Pickup because that would just become a loophole for delivery. Maybe orders have to be placed in-store for to go.
Comment by pcthrowaway 1 hour ago
I don't understand why you think they should wait in line in restaurants where people order at the counter, to pick up their order which was placed online. And if you want to see this, you should be supporting legislation makes them proper employees who get a proper wage based on their time working.
Comment by junofan 1 hour ago
Also, why would those who pay to be there have to wait in line, but people who get paid by a third-party service to be there don’t? That doesn’t make sense.
I don’t get why we’re talking legislation; it’s basic courtesy.
If I said “hey, here’s $5 if you go cut the line at that restaurant,” does that make it right?
Comment by quickthrowman 1 hour ago
The dine-in customers have not paid for or ordered their food, to do so they must wait in line.
The delivery driver is being handed a bag of food that is ready to go and paid for.
Many restaurants are already set up to accommodate online to-go orders. Chik-Fil-A has a separate drive-thru line for online orders, Chipotle lets people come up and get to-go orders that have been paid, same with Potbelly, it’s very common. It’s mildly annoying when you’re the one waiting in line but I don’t expect a delivery driver to wait in line to be handed a bag.
Comment by IncreasePosts 1 hour ago
Regarding line cutting - it doesn't quite make sense that someone just picking up a bag that is already prepared should wait in the same line as people who are putting in orders for food. For an extreme example, a BBQ place near me in Brooklyn commonly has lines that are 45 minutes long, with people waiting to order. Should a person who called in an order wait in that line, or just go to the front and ask for their food?
Comment by thorin 1 hour ago
Lots of people cycling all in black on ebikes on pavements making it dangerous for people to walk around safely and causing chaos for drivers and other cyclists. Also generally supporting big business over small stores. Everyone moans about having individuals charged with these minor traffic offences but in my view just targeting companies like JustEat directly and having massive fines based on employee behaviour would be far more effective.
Comment by ashu1461 4 hours ago
With this merger I have a feeling that things are only going to go worse.
Comment by getfacl 2 hours ago
Comment by andreimackenzie 2 hours ago
Comment by bherms 1 hour ago
Comment by jvanderbot 1 hour ago
Comment by thamer 4 hours ago
From the NYT version of this story:
> DoorDash said the median payment to be returned to workers amounts to around $48. > City officials said about 700 workers are owed more than $10,000 each; more than 27,000 workers are owed more than $1,000; and more than 4,000 workers are owed more than $5,000.
DoorDash also spent (from what I can tell) (1+1.4+1.8) million dollars to campaign against Mamdani.
Comment by ashf023 1 hour ago
Comment by toomuchtodo 4 hours ago
https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/09/mayor-mamdani...
Culper Research released a report about a year ago indicating a large component of DoorDash labor is very likely undocumented workers (which is not meant to be derogatory towards these workers, but signal that DoorDash needs labor willing to take gig payments on offer to make the model work).
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/cc91fda7-4669-4d1b-81ce-a0b...
I don't think the platform economics are working post ZIRP ("zero interest rate policy") as wages rise and margins compress, would need more data to understand what forward curves look like.
Comment by jmyeet 3 hours ago
Back during Covid, Congress passed and Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act ("IRA"), which actually did a couple of good things.
One of those was the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax ("CAMT"). For non-Americans, AMTs are a weird thing where Congress basically gives up and decides the tax code is too complex so they give up and say whatever your deductions are, if the AMT produces a higher amount, that's what you have to pay. Every complexity is somebody's special interest so repealing them can be hard. It's kind of why the carried interest tax credit has never been repealed.
Repealing it, as Republicans tried to do, is hard to do because the counter-messaging is "well if the corporate tax rate is 21%, why do you care about repealing a minimum of 15%?". Everybody understands that companies through various tax schemes aren't paying 21% but you can't say that.
But the one I want to talk about is the 10 year plan to increase IRS funding to update incredibly outdated systems and increase enforcement. This was a good measure. And you can tell because the Republican Party lost their minds. They fairly successively propagandized it as the IRS hiring 80,000 agents to go after Joe Q. Citizen. No, it was enforcement against the ultra-wealthy and corporations. So it was killed in 3 years under the guise of "saving money" as well as not persecuting average citizens (which it was never going to do).
It's particularly stupid because money spent on IRS enforcement pays for itself. It's been estimated every $1 spent recovers $7. It pays for itself. But there was no counter-messaging and Republicans could push it through under reconiliation.
Compare that to the 4 year $175 billion increase in ICE funding.
Comment by johsole 1 hour ago
This is how income tax was sold to the American public. When it originally started it really only did effect the top earners, but as the years rolled on and inflation happened it impacted more and more people. The reality is these tools that target only the 'wealthy', if they're successful are used to target everyone.
Comment by myersj 1 hour ago
1 - https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-tax-stats-at-a-...
Comment by toomuchtodo 1 hour ago
This is also why California is voting on a wealth tax.
Wealth Inequality in America drawn to scale - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50270764 - October 2026
The 'Buy, Borrow and Die' Wealth Strategy Has Become a $5T Market - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50253630 - October 2026
Warren Buffett has been saying this for years, that his secretary was taxed at a higher effective rate then him.
Billionaire Warren Buffett Calls It 'Outrageous' His Secretary Pays 2x's His Tax Rate – 'If This Is A War, My Side Has The Nuclear Bomb' - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaire-warren-buffett-ca... - December 16th, 2024
- He explained, "I don't pay hardly any payroll taxes. Gov. Romney hardly pays any payroll taxes. Newt Gingrich hardly pays any payroll taxes." Driving the point home, he emphasized the disparity: "Debbie pays lots of payroll taxes."
- Buffett's effective tax rate was 17.4% at the time, largely due to his income coming from capital gains, which are taxed much lower than ordinary wages. Bosanek, like many middle-class Americans, was paying nearly 36% when payroll and income taxes were combined.
- According to a CBS News report, Buffett quickly clarified that he didn't blame Romney for following the law. "I don't blame Gov. Romney for paying the tax rate he paid," Buffett said. "I blame the U.S. Congress."
- The disparity didn't bother Buffett – it drove him to advocate for sweeping changes to the tax code. In an op-ed for The New York Times, he argued for what would become known as the "Buffett Rule," a proposal to implement a minimum 30% tax on incomes exceeding $1 million. President Obama backed the idea, but opposition in Congress kept it from moving forward.
Comment by toomuchtodo 3 hours ago
[1] https://www.mamdanibulletin.com/p/everything-zohran-mamdani-...
The pendulum will swing back, and be the opportunity to prevent this from ever happening again.
(i like taxes, with them i buy civilization, although i prefer they pay for social services and improving quality of life of humans with said resources, not endless wars in the middle east and tax cuts for the wealthiest driven by old men, their ideology, and their egos [n=1, ymmv, my two cents])
Comment by freejazz 2 hours ago
Comment by minraws 27 minutes ago
So I honestly think they should be under heavy govt regulations or be co-owned by everyone in the supply chain. Or firm regulated to avoid overcharging for useless stuff, everyone loses out including these companies as in needing to compete with eachother they have to offer dozens of benefits offers etc to customers, and customers get shafted when they are the most desperate because making money from the desperate is the best money making formula in the valley atm.
Comment by boringg 5 hours ago
Merging reduces platform inefficiencies and drivers can work both situation.
I am actually amazed both companies are alive and making a profit.
Comment by fckgw 36 minutes ago
DD plays big games with pay, sometimes hides tips, drives down base pay, and stacks orders with good pay and bad pay offers to try and pay drivers as little money as possible.
In a bad economy, there's less people ordering on DD (although higher income earners who aren't as effective by economic effects don't change habits), however, it drives MORE desperate drivers to the platform that accept the low pay orders since they no longer have an income. This drives down all wages for drivers, and costs, which in turn pads DD's margins.
We actually see this seasonally in the summer when more students and teachers join the platform over the break. There's a glut of drivers, you can't cherry pick higher paying orders and most stuff that's left to fight for is low paying, no tip orders. When school starts back up things return to normal.
This is why DD is trying to sign up as many drivers as possible. If you remove the scarcity of drivers, then every low paying gig will eventually get picked up, driving average pay down and you can ratchet down your base pay hoping customer tips make up the slack.
Comment by apparent 26 minutes ago
You're probably absolutely right about this, and some people in the company, or who invest in it, have likely made this exact (cold hard) calculation.
Comment by rckclmbr 4 hours ago
This was literally why Rockefeller was a big proponent of the monopoly. Unfortunately exploitation is the tradeoff that is enables
Comment by cowlevel 2 hours ago
Comment by seanclayton 2 hours ago
Comment by giwook 1 hour ago
First off, okay that's great but no one is telling you to go use them. You can continue living your life exactly as you were without needing to judge others who live their lives differently from yours.
Second, clearly there are plenty of people who do use them judging from this $17b acquisition that just happened.
Comment by Jcampuzano2 1 hour ago
You'll always get some people who argue that time is money and that the saved time that people have from ordering from these services is an opportunity cost. But the reality is I'd wager that for probably 99% of the population, this is actually not true and the economics doesn't work out favorably after accounting for all the fees.
So then, all that is really left is convenience. And personally, I don't really find it that convenient at all. Often times the time it takes for an order to land on your doorstep is meaningfully longer than it would have taken for you to drive to the store and pick it up yourself.
In other words - these services really just profit off of laziness. And the sad part is I think we're just promoting a lazy society overall with lots of the newer services being offered.
Comment by jvanderbot 1 hour ago
Here's how it works out rationally: I just got home from work, the kids are a mess, the house needs cleaning, and my spouse is having a work crisis. The kids favorite treat is chipotle. Of all the options for "use money to make this go away so I can focus on the problem" paying $10 surcharge for doordash is by far the cheapest.
"Hey kids chipotle treats are on the way - but you have to go get your room tidied and leave mom alone" actually does work.
6 million smart, rational engineers, mathematicians, actuaries, professors in the country, each doing this analysis, four times a year, yields 240 million dollars in surcharges without an ounce of laziness.
Then add laziness on top.
Comment by apparent 1 hour ago
Comment by jvanderbot 1 hour ago
Comment by coredog64 1 hour ago
Comment by apparent 38 minutes ago
I'd be interested to see the math on this. They cover the amount I'd be expected to tip? They cover all the govt-mandated delivery driver fees? I could see how they might end up covering the official "delivery charge" but not the tip and other expected/mandatory fees that go along with actual delivery.
Comment by vlan0 1 hour ago
Exactly this. They know humans will likely pick the path of least resistance. And we are generally bad at problems that have compounding long term outcomes. They are essentially preying on our societal circumstances. My story: Brain will resist using energy for creative solution from within if external solution exists for $.
Comment by jvanderbot 1 hour ago
Yes, doordash can prey on laziness, and people will fall into laziness, but in my example the _availability_ of the service is providing a price-adjustment for urgency that matches my own rational prioritization of the evening's needs. It's the most rational, mutually-beneficial argument I can make, and it's real in my house from time to time.
Comment by Jcampuzano2 1 hour ago
Our own parents went through this exact scenario that you mentioned plenty of times before any of this even existed without having the to pay the $10 fee.
Comment by magneticnorth 1 hour ago
Doordash costs more than that, but chipotle is a good deal more nutritious than the 90's-era tv dinners I remember, so I can understand parents preferring to spend a bit more for that equally-easy solution.
Comment by jvanderbot 57 minutes ago
From my memory we often piled into the car, got dinner, and went home and my parents had to stay up late to clean while we went to bed.
In my wife's memory, one parent couldn't work - all this stuff had to fall on them.
I'm saying the $10 is a nicety, not a necessity. We would be ok without it. I just think we're a little better with it. It's a market system - if I need it, it's there at a price I can justify. Markets are a good thing.
Comment by vineyardmike 1 hour ago
What is this question? Is the idea of new products, technology, or services strange and problematic to you? Convenience is a major driver of invention.
Also when I was growing up my parents would order delivery plenty - but the only option was pizza because the driver worked for the pizza joint. And yes, it’s true, their parents didn’t order delivery, but they also lived in crushing poverty of the Great Depression and could barely afford to feed their kids during every meal.
Comment by rcpt 1 hour ago
Comment by hext 1 hour ago
Comment by MINECRAFT_BIOLO 59 minutes ago
Comment by garlic_enjoyer 1 hour ago
Comment by zamalek 1 hour ago
8.5% of American households have no car[1]. That isn't a strict majority, but if you can be charitably informal: paying for grocery deliveries is orders of magnitude cheaper than loan+insurance+maintenance for a car.
If you want to become car-less then the like of Instacart make that a realistic prospective (but Instacart specifically makes no sense because stores usually do it for free if you can tolerate next-day).
Comment by worldsoup 1 hour ago
Comment by milkytron 1 hour ago
I was landing from a flight and traveling home late on a Sunday. I also needed to go grocery shopping that night. I did not have a car at the airport, so my choices were either rideshare home for $70, or take the train for $10. The train takes about 30-40 minutes longer, but saves me $60.
If I did the rideshare, I could probably do the grocery shopping myself and get home a little bit later than when the train would get me home. Or I could take the train, order the grocery delivery, and then get home, unpack, and go to sleep. I chose to take the train and do grocery delivery. When I got home from the train, the delivery driver was walking up to my door with bags in hand. It worked out perfectly.
I could have taken the train and also done the grocery shopping myself, but it would have been very late by then and I had to be up early for work the next day.
Comment by tshaddox 1 hour ago
> So then, all that is really left is convenience.
But nearly all technology and services you pay for arguably boil down to “convenience,” in the sense that people in the past either did the thing themselves or survived without it.
Comment by longerthoughts 1 hour ago
This misses the point. One is you devoting your own time and attention to doing the task, the other is delegating it so you can use your time for other things. Some people are going to burn the extra time scrolling (not great), others are going to help their kids with homework or get a workout in.
I'm all for people getting time back even with the downside that not everybody will choose to use it well. If people are choosing brainrot over living well, there's a bigger issue than delivery services.
Comment by mrits 1 hour ago
I don't think there are many people using this because they think they get it faster.
Comment by hyperbovine 1 hour ago
Comment by Jcampuzano2 1 hour ago
In my opinion this scenario may actually end up promoting unhealthy habits for your children which is what these companies want.
Comment by tourist2d 1 hour ago
Comment by joking 1 hour ago
I know why they do it, that doesn't mean I like how the world works.
Comment by LexiMax 1 hour ago
Virtue signaling.
Comment by Danox 53 minutes ago
Comment by IncreasePosts 1 hour ago
Comment by tonymet 1 hour ago
To say “ i can’t believe people use it “ is obviously a lie. It’s a magic food delivery machine. It’s the closest thing to the Star Trek Replicator we have .
I don’t like it, and you could make a million arguments about why it’s either bad, unhealthy, bad economics etc. But it’s perfectly obvious why the business is huge.
Comment by giwook 29 minutes ago
LMAO wat
Comment by quickthrowman 1 hour ago
Paying an extra $10-12 in tips and fees to have some courier a meal directly to your door is ridiculously cheap, a courier service would charge 4x as much for a similar courier trip.
Comment by mrweasel 1 hour ago
I completely understand the grocery deliveries, it's a trade off, time vs. money. Personally I think the delivery costs are to high, but I also live four minutes away from the supermarket on foot. For others it's one less thing to deal with and they can do the shopping in the evening when the kids are put to bed or have the groceries ready when they come home after a long day. For them the delivery fee is well worth the value the service provides.
It's the $10+ for getting McDonalds multiple times a week I struggle with. People are free to make that choice obviously, but I feel like the delivery services are praying on people who are already struggling, especially when they team up the Buy Now Pay Later companies.
Comment by jansan 1 hour ago
Comment by jansan 1 hour ago
Comment by lizardking 1 hour ago
Comment by fosron 1 hour ago
Comment by jansan 1 hour ago
Comment by Liuser 1 hour ago
I’m not going judge how folks spend their money. It’s their money and they’re all valid reasons regardless.
Comment by JohnHaugeland 2 minutes ago
Comment by clcaev 3 hours ago
If this merger is approved via consumer welfare standard, should it be contingent upon some constraints? For example, should DoorDash be restricted from participating in the market it coordinates? If it’s a near monopoly in some regions, how will price be controlled without market pressure?
Historically, antitrust action also considers economic opportunity: Bell/AT&T licensed Unix source code for a nominal fee, largely because the 1956 consent decree restricted Bell/AT&T from selling products outside telecommunications.
Comment by cowlevel 3 hours ago
Comment by clcaev 2 hours ago
Their platform scopes and coordinates a market. They even recognize this in their announcement: "DoorDash and Instacart believe that communities benefit when Main Street competes"
Comment by cowlevel 2 hours ago
Comment by clcaev 2 hours ago
If contestabilty, not marketshare, is the appropriate test of economic power, then laws may be needed to increase contestability, such as "data portability" rules for store owners so they don't have to key-in product description, availability, and pricing multiple times.
In your example of a new delivery platform entrant who bootstraps using its direct competitor, what legal framework protects that startup? This seems another contestability consideration.
Comment by cowlevel 2 hours ago
Heck, they don't even have to sign up. Just copy their listing from Doordash and when someone orders, place an order on Doordash if you can't fulfil it yourself. You'll probably need several phones to scale this, or you could make a doordash account per customer.
Once you have some drivers yourself, go around restaurants in your area and copy down their menus. Have drivers go and make takeaway orders.
Doordash undoubtedly used all these tactics. This is just how business works. Obviously doordash didn't order off doordash but they surely integrated restaurant ordering from places that already had their own delivery.
If you have VC funding, subsidize part of what doordash is charging so your prices are lower. IIRC Google did this once to the point where a pizza restaurant repeatedly ordered their own pizzas and made a profit, making front-page HN - don't go that crazy.
Comment by morelandjs 4 hours ago
Comment by danielodievich 1 hour ago
Comment by bko 46 minutes ago
For context, I used to deliver pizzas in a the early 2000s. I made
$4-5 an hour
+ $1 per delivery
+ tips (~$3 average)
My typical night made me about $20/hour (3-4 deliveries per hour). Someone would order $20 pizza, pay $4 for delivery fee and tip (16% markup). Restaurant paid $1.5 per delivery (amortized $5/h). Everyone was happy.
If you look at it today, the typical take home for delivery people is still $20 (same from 20 years ago, not inflation adjusted).
Here is what typical order looks like today:
Pizza cost: $20
Delivery fee: $3-5
Service fee (10-15%): $2-3
Optional tip (15-20%): $3-4
Possible small order fee: $0-2
Total customer cost: $28-34 (40-70% markup)
Restaurant commission (15-30%): $3-6
Restaurant makes less, customer pays a lot more.
And these companies managing this workforce still manage to lose money! So where the hell is the money going??
I wrote more about it here
https://mleverything.substack.com/p/what-happened-to-food-de...
Comment by tuchsen 23 seconds ago
If you run the numbers it’s clear that DoorDash targets 18 an hour to pay folks, but pushes it up to time and a half when it’s busy, so 27 during the holidays. Thing is, you can force them to pay a little more than double when it’s really busy and get 40 an hour from them. People work really hard to hit those numbers regardless of the quality of service they provide in the end.
For instance, I can randomly be 20 minutes late to an order one day and the next that’s a contract violation, three of those and they might fire you, depending on how many drivers they have available at the time. But if you can be twenty minutes late to an order you can do Uber Eats at the same time, you do that for an hour and by law in California the minimum you can make is 46 bucks in SF.
Alright that was all really anecdotal evidence to say that most experienced drivers are probably making more than 20 an hour, the shit service you receive is also directly incentivized by the platforms adversarial relationship with the drivers.
The whole thing just really doesn’t work. They must really banking on the autonomous delivery robots to work out.
Comment by capsudo 25 minutes ago
only the latter is true. the former is true only for a subset of restaurants.
While your old pizza place probably serves the same amount of pizzas as before, for other restaurants, not specialized in delivery, the number of meals they sell has exploded.
so restaurant make less money per meal, put they make more meals.
also while customers pay more, you could see it as the price of convenience and choice.
Comment by pkulak 40 minutes ago
Making a phone call, then paying with cash, is just crazy efficient. What exactly have we even gained?
Comment by bko 39 minutes ago
Comment by throwitaway222 37 minutes ago
Comment by moate 39 minutes ago
Are we really asking this question in the year of our Late Stage Capitalism lord 2026? Are we confused about the American Oligarchy working with private equity to dash all the labor gains of the mid-20th century?
It's going to billionaire's Yacht & Bunker funds. The gig economy is about inserting tech into the middle of a functioning system to extract wealth for 4-5 dudes' benefit.
Comment by bko 37 minutes ago
Stop hand waving about capitalism. Give me a real answer.
Comment by NoDodgeQuestion 23 minutes ago
Comment by pianoben 1 hour ago
By the time the CEO bailed to OpenAI, the damage was done - billions of dollars of opportunity, totally wasted. She left an organization gripped with paralysis, apparently too broken to fix and remain independent.
Comment by ocd 5 hours ago
Comment by the__alchemist 4 hours ago
Comment by imzadi 3 hours ago
Comment by paxy 4 hours ago
Comment by the__alchemist 4 hours ago
Comment by BugsJustFindMe 3 hours ago
Yes. Instacart has low cost retailers like Walmart and Aldi in many areas, and their prices are generally better than Amazon groceries. Now Walmart does also have their own service, so technically you can do that, but then you're limited to just them.
Comment by wombat-man 2 hours ago
Comment by micromacrofoot 4 hours ago
Comment by seizethecheese 2 hours ago
As a thought experiment, we currently have a duopoly for ride share. Would we be better off if Uber were broken up into two platforms?
Obviously having one platform would be bad, since there would be no price competition, but what’s the optimal number? Surely, too many platforms would be bad, as the concentration of delivery workers would be terrible on each app, making the whole system inefficient (setting aside whether one things the system should exist at all).
Comment by ivegottapocketf 14 minutes ago
I see and interact with hundreds of people a day. DoorDashers are the worst of the worst, by a mile. I cannot wait for the day DoorDash ceases to exist.
I can spot a DoorDasher from a mile away. There are three types of DoorDashers.
The first is the kind who is most likely not here legally. They come barreling into the store with their speakerphones turned up to the max as they yell into the phone to their wife/girlfriend in some other language (Venezuelan/Cuban?) the entire time. Without any attempt to look on their own, they find every worker they see and shove the phone in their face demanding and begging to have us do their job for them and find the items. Then they get in line, phone still blasting, and ignore you when you smile and say hello or ask them to touch a button on the screen or say “thank you, have a nice rest of your day”. This kind makes up probably about 70% of DDers. Mind you, I interact with non-English speakers all day. They make eye contact, they smile, they make an attempt. DoorDashers make zero attempt whatsoever and are extremely brash and rude.
The second is the citizens who cannot get a job anywhere else. These are all very clearly drug addicts and former convicts straight out of the halfway house who shop and deliver under the influence of every mixture of drug you can imagine. Really, really rough people. These people, too, also beg you to complete their entire shopping trip for them, but at least they understand English and make eye contact with you. These are about 20% of DDers.
The last group are the “okay” ones. These are decent everyday people who talk to you like a human being, smile, and are friendly. They only ask for help after they’ve clearly made an effort to find the items on their own. Unfortunately, this group makes up only about 10% of adders.
We got along just fine a few years ago when DoorDash didn’t exist. DD contributes to the anti socialization of the world, and it’s not a good thing.
Comment by taurath 3 minutes ago
Comment by zach 2 hours ago
Comment by dzonga 12 minutes ago
none of this instacart nonsense. because it's the actual grocery shop delivering your order - you're not up-charged, your groceries tend to be of good quality no breakage etc cz they want you to return.
with instacart it's pervase incentives all the way down - spoiled fruit - instacart can blame the grocer, breakages same. grocer doesn't even know who ordered.
Comment by ortusdux 2 hours ago
Comment by kotaKat 29 minutes ago
I've heard of that being "a thing" where the brand wants to make sure their product is actually out on the shelves properly, so that Dasher probably got easy money verifying the store did their own job properly.
https://about.doordash.com/en-us/news/introducing-doordash-t...
I assume it's just their own version of Gigwalk (https://www.gigwalk.com/).
Comment by Liuser 2 hours ago
I wonder if DD is going to make a play for Lyft next, which they’re already in close partnership. The market consolidating to these 2 players (Uber and DoorDash) seems natural(?), for lack of better terms. Either way, it wouldn’t surprise me.
Comment by ttul 2 hours ago
Comment by jesse_dot_id 3 hours ago
Comment by hermannj314 2 hours ago
Comment by Narciss 2 hours ago
Comment by levl289 2 hours ago
Comment by kccqzy 2 hours ago
If you don’t want to be taxed for some service, you can always choose to vote to get rid of that service or move to a place without that service. I welcome more experimentation in municipal services.
Comment by paxy 2 hours ago
Comment by kccqzy 1 hour ago
Comment by Buttons840 1 hour ago
When DoorDash drivers subtract vehicle wear and tear, fuel, depreciation, and maintenance from their earnings, their net hourly pay frequently drops below the standard minimum wage.
DoorDash benefits from desperate people who slowly transform their vehicle into cash by laboring thousands of hours. They could have just sold the car; either way they end up with cash but no car.
People need to pay rent, so they look at their capital, owning a car, and then trade away that capital for less than it's worth, and a few years later they are worse off, but at least they made rent for those months.
Comment by fhn 2 hours ago
Comment by mtoner23 2 hours ago
Comment by jesse_dot_id 2 hours ago
Comment by fhn 2 hours ago
Comment by DaSHacka 2 hours ago
Comment by parineum 2 hours ago
Comment by cyanydeez 2 hours ago
What you mean is you want to live in one pond and shit in other peoples because they economicaly immoral.
Comment by billbuild 2 hours ago
Comment by nonethewiser 2 hours ago
Here is the neat thing.
They want stores to be government owned too.
Comment by Banditoz 2 hours ago
Comment by nonethewiser 1 hour ago
Comment by IncreasePosts 1 hour ago
Comment by chiatruntime 2 hours ago
Comment by BeetleB 2 hours ago
(And no, I don't want the city involved in food/grocery delivery).
Comment by jesse_dot_id 2 hours ago
Comment by tkahnoski 2 hours ago
Is it necessary? No. Unfortunately I don't think would be great as a utility because quality of service matters and unlike the actual utilities, there's a lot of arbitrariness to quality of the service.
Availability of vehicles for delivery purposes is an interesting proposition. Charge doordash a tax or fee to maintain a fleet of vehicles that would open flexibility in the job market. (Consider this for ride-sharing as well... basically just reinvented the taxi medallion system but maybe with less restriction).
Comment by jesse_dot_id 2 hours ago
Comment by drdec 2 hours ago
What monopoly? I can barely remember all the companies in this space, GrubHub, UberEats, PostMates, etc.
Comment by haliskerbas 2 hours ago
Comment by Aurornis 2 hours ago
It's a good system for aligning the costs with the people who use the service.
If you thought all tax money went into a big general bucket and the government decided what services to offer out of that, municipal garbage pickup does not work that way.
There couldn't be a free delivery service because the usage would be all over the place. Someone DoorDashing burritos for breakfast lunch and dinner 7 days a week would use it 20X more than someone doing their once-weekly grocery order. Subsidizing it would incentivize a lot of waste, traffic, vehicle usage, and other things that we actually don't want to incentivize people to use more of.
The only way this could work is with a substantial per-delivery fee, which gets us right back to what we already have with DoorDash.
Comment by kspacewalk2 2 hours ago
Comment by criddell 2 hours ago
I wouldn't mind if my mom had access to a free grocery delivery service. She's 80 and has very bad vision.
Comment by lotsofpulp 2 hours ago
Fairer, simpler to implement, no avenues for corruption.
Comment by gunsle 2 hours ago
Comment by criddell 59 minutes ago
Comment by CuriouslyC 2 hours ago
Comment by jesse_dot_id 2 hours ago
Comment by Fernicia 2 hours ago
You live in a fantasy land if you think streaming services are not competitive and providing better value for money than public broadcasting companies.
Comment by BeetleB 2 hours ago
Comment by jesse_dot_id 2 hours ago
Comment by faefox 2 hours ago
Comment by wuliwong 2 hours ago
Comment by watercast 1 hour ago
Comment by gunsle 2 hours ago
Comment by tencentshill 2 hours ago
Comment by CSMastermind 2 hours ago
Comment by ibejoeb 2 hours ago
Comment by tofuahdude 1 hour ago
And "should"... what?
Comment by johntarter 2 hours ago
Comment by yesb 1 hour ago
That said, I'm not convinced of this idea either. But if you're not going to enforce antitrust laws, it seems preferable to a private monopoly.
Comment by electroweak 2 hours ago
Comment by jesse_dot_id 2 hours ago
Comment by Jabrov 2 hours ago
Comment by nonethewiser 2 hours ago
Comment by jesse_dot_id 2 hours ago
Comment by Uncle_Brumpus 1 hour ago
I'd have no problem with a subsidized service for those that NEED it, but for those that just WANT it? Nope. But then you get into the sticky messy world of how to determine need.
Comment by nancyminusone 2 hours ago
Just saying, city run trash is far from universal.
Comment by BeetleB 2 hours ago
I'm not going to pay taxes for a service I think shouldn't even exist! Let the (strikeout expletive) people who want this luxury pay for it - I don't want to subsidize them one bit.
(And I'm a pro-socialist who believes university education should be almost free, and we should have universal healthcare).
For the few who really, really can benefit (e.g. disabled), fine - they need to qualify and I'm happy for the city to subsidize them. For those who just don't want to go out and do groceries? No. Way.
Comment by wat10000 4 minutes ago
At the end of the day, I guess their real product is trust. I wouldn't give $50 to a random stranger and ask them to drive me to the airport, but I would give $50 to Uber so they can give $25 to the stranger. It sure seems like a lot to pay for trust, though.
Comment by mithr 4 hours ago
Comment by prologic 2 hours ago
Comment by sumeno 2 hours ago
Comment by prologic 1 hour ago
Comment by neutronicus 2 hours ago
They seem like near-identical businesses to me.
Comment by phoghed 1 hour ago
Still very similar
Comment by subarctic 1 hour ago
Comment by peter422 2 hours ago
Comment by tristanj 1 hour ago
2) Regulatory reviews typically take 6 months to a year. There is an opportunity cost to holding shares over this time, your capital is tied up in shares, when you could instead use the money to buy US 10-year Treasuries that yield around 5%.
Assuming the deal closes at $65 in 12 months, the present value of these shares is $65 / (1 + 5%) = $61.90
Comment by pianoben 2 hours ago
Also, the market has consistently undervalued Instacart since they went public to begin with, so why stop now? (signed, a not-at-all-bitter former employee)
Comment by jagraff 2 hours ago
Comment by badlibrarian 1 hour ago
Comment by getfacl 2 hours ago
My previous experience was any time something went wrong, no one would take accountability for it and at best I might get a partial refund but never a replacement order.
Having to do a bit more planning for meals is worth eliminating that aggravation from my life. Not to mention the shocking amount of money I'm saving.
Comment by princevegeta89 14 minutes ago
Comment by gepeake 1 hour ago
Comment by irishloop 1 hour ago
Comment by ipozgaj 1 hour ago
Comment by howunfortunate 1 hour ago
Strong case for B2B sales focus
Comment by gepeake 1 hour ago
I believe it has been passed down to you, either knowingly or not
Comment by toomuchtodo 1 hour ago
This was never going to be sustainable long term based on the economics, it was a securities and investor grift. Those with stock did well (“the stock is the product”), consumers did well while the subsidies lasted, workers made the least gig platforms could offer, and the ride is coming to an end as true labor costs and regulations catch up. Similar with Uber and Lyft, and Airbnb. It was all a financialization play that worked under ZIRP but no longer works.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39074978 said it best:
“Businesses do not have an inherent right to exist. If you can't pay a living wage, comply with regulations, and be profitable, your business model is not valid and your business should fail and close.”
Comment by jorvi 48 minutes ago
It's just greedy investors destroying the value for the customer by tacking on all these bizarre fees. You see the same with TakeAway-Just Eat. I barely know anyone who still orders food ever since they massively jacked up prices after 2020. Before that you could order a pizza or falafel or whatever without minimum order prize, hidden increased product price, delivery fee, service fee, and idk what else.
Comment by slfnflctd 36 minutes ago
Not just the customer. The businesses which actually make the food receive less profit in this scheme as well. Only the middlemen win. It's privatized health insurance all over again.
Comment by toomuchtodo 41 minutes ago
Comment by tomsellin23 3 hours ago
Comment by hubraumhugo 5 hours ago
Comment by j45 40 minutes ago
Instacart has it's own unique offerings and propositions, hopefully those don't dissapear, they were invaluable during the pandemic.
Comment by Aeroi 2 hours ago
Comment by seanclayton 2 hours ago
Right?
Comment by marcduck 3 hours ago
#999999 on a white background is a 2.84:1 contrast ratio, when the minimum requirement for body text is 4.5:1. So this page technically violates the ADA and other accessibility laws.
Comment by jesse_dot_id 3 hours ago
Comment by nonethewiser 2 hours ago
Comment by mtswish 2 hours ago
Comment by apparent 40 minutes ago
Amazon has been pretty successful in arguing that Walmart, Nordstrom, and everything in between are their competitors, and I expect that DD and IC will have no trouble doing the same (especially under this administration).
Comment by rektomatic 1 hour ago
Comment by mtswish 53 minutes ago
Comment by paulddraper 1 hour ago
(Nearly all of the remaining amount is Uber Eats.)
So if not a monopoly, then at least a duopoly.
As a rule, two-sided marketplaces are very difficult to disrupt.
Comment by tomrod 1 hour ago
- Other delivery service
- Other task service
- Go yourself
While they are an effective duopoly, it would be good to also consider them as monopolistic competition versus a true market split out -- there is very little traditional moat, and almost only network effect due to restaurants accepting their services and menu.
Comment by rektomatic 1 hour ago
Comment by howunfortunate 1 hour ago
Comment by tomrod 2 hours ago
Two chunks of overhead (IT, web app, mobile app, finance, HR, etc.) instead of one can be bad for consumers too.
But yeah, flexing pricing increases to gobble up consumer welfare is what the FTC is supposed to rally against, and, while services expand their markets aren't that different.
EDIT: Wow, people really hate this comment! I'm not being normative here. Economies of scope are the thing that any acquiring companies with any reasonable market share will argue for their case, its textbook economics and what the FTC is trained for.
Comment by bix6 1 hour ago
Comment by slantedview 2 hours ago
Comment by nonethewiser 1 hour ago
Doordash attempted to buy Instacart in 2021 for $40-50B dollars. Since then Instacart has lost market share and value, and Doordash is now acquiring them for $17B.
The real competitors to Doordash and Instacart for grocery delivery are not each other. The competitors are Walmart, Amazon, and local grocery chains (Meijer, Kroger, etc). And guess what? These competitors are winning. Amazon, Walmart, and Kroger alone comprise a majority of grocery delivery (~64% in 2025, per an emarketer FAQ on digital groceries).
Comment by troupo 1 hour ago
"When there are fewer competitors it means there's increased competition" is quite the take.
> The real competitors to Doordash and Instacart for grocery delivery are not each other.
Together they will have ~80% of the market.
Comment by nonethewiser 1 hour ago
I think it's quite obvious that mergers can increase competition. Especially when you read the rest of my comment. Can you steelman what I'm saying?
>Together they will have ~80% of the market.
Are you mixing restaurant delivery (~60% for doordash) with grocery delivery (~20% for instacart)? Those are different market shares.
Comment by fzysingularity 2 hours ago
Comment by pzxc 2 hours ago
Even though other browsers existed, like Netscape Navigator etc, Microsoft was still found guilty of violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and guilty of anti-competitive action, both in the US and elsewhere.
Microsoft was forced to create a version of Windows without IE bundled, and other corrective actions.
Comment by throwitaway222 2 hours ago
Now the food industry would be my best example that needs more anti-trust. All of my organic brands have been bought out by Conagra Brands. There's no competition.
I would also agree that this specific acquisition is not going to be helpful for consumers.
Comment by dspillett 1 hour ago
If it is only free in order to inconvenience competitors in a way that will eventually reduce choice, either giving you undue control of a market or being done with a view to charge later when people have no choice as the competition is broken, or both - that is when free becomes an anti-consumer matter.
It is an issue that you sometimes need to think long term to notice. If you wait for it to be an immediate problem, it is often too late to easily do anything about it.
Your food example is exactly what people feared would happen with IE, and what actually did happen for a long time despite the anti-trust case: client side developments stalled because IE was such a large part of the market and it did not implement anything new because there was no reason for them to. There was not sufficient competition to make it inconvenient for the incumbent to stagnate, so the whole area stagnated somewhat until Chrome came along and stirred things up a bit. MS was in control due to an effective monopoly, the consumer suffered.
Comment by throwitaway222 1 hour ago
The second most popular browser now is Safari. Should the justice department come after Apple for including it in the Mac?
Comment by mtswish 50 minutes ago
Comment by interroboink 1 hour ago
Not 100% apples-to-apples, but I imagine you've heard cases of "big players" in various industries lowering their prices to the point of selling at a loss, which drives out the small players (Amazon, Wal-Mart come to mind). In the end, only the big player is left, and they are now free to raise prices.
I think it's reasonable to see that initial low-prices (could even be free) period of behavior as anti-competitive, since it may ultimately stifle competition in the long term.
Comment by throwitaway222 1 hour ago
But what you're saying is that if a piece of software is popular, free and has no competition, it should be illegal!? And the browser isn't even a great example of that since there are tons of other options! Wireshark is specialty packet sniffing software that has literally no reasonable competition in it's space. It's also free. Should it be banned here?
Comment by gabrielsroka 1 hour ago
Comment by throwitaway222 1 hour ago
Comment by rini17 1 hour ago
Comment by throwitaway222 1 hour ago
Comment by rini17 59 minutes ago
Comment by throwitaway222 54 minutes ago
Comment by chomp 2 hours ago
Comment by BrokenCogs 2 hours ago
Comment by SecretDreams 2 hours ago
Comment by pavel_lishin 2 hours ago
Comment by Buttons840 2 hours ago
You're right. Duopolies aren't great either and just because two companies are in fierce competition doesn't mean everything is good with the law. Both companies might be engaging in illegal anti-competitive behavior.
Comment by throwitaway222 1 hour ago
This needs to be discussed more in the age of AI. RealPage was just the eye-opener. Every industry that should be competing on prices has a cottage industry of "price recommenders" that is de-facto collusion in front of our eyes.
Comment by cpuguy83 1 hour ago
No one is saying the merger is illegal, just that it probably shouldn't be allowed.
Comment by Buttons840 1 hour ago
If something is legal, the government should allow it.
I am saying that it shouldn't be allowed, because it is not in harmony with the laws, and is therefore illegal.
Comment by troupo 2 hours ago
Comment by nonethewiser 1 hour ago
Can you be more precise about what percentage of what market? I think you are conflating restaurant delivery with grocery delivery. How would instacart have 25% market share and door dash have 60% and Uber eats have 26% and Grub hub have 8%? Doesn't add up because you are mixing markets.
Instacart doesnt event have 25% of grocery delivery. That was 5 years ago. Instacart's market share is declining - Im seeing 18%. Doordash offered around $50B in 2021 now offering $17B.
The grocery stores themselves are actually the major competitors on grocery delivery and they cant serve other small business like the independent services can.
Comment by redwood 2 hours ago
Comment by throwitaway222 1 hour ago
Comment by salah7252 1 hour ago
Comment by nonethewiser 1 hour ago
Comment by ezfe 1 hour ago
Comment by nonethewiser 1 hour ago
Comment by inom155 3 hours ago
Comment by pessimizer 2 hours ago
Comment by apparent 36 minutes ago
Comment by whatever1 44 minutes ago
There is zero cost of building matching systems (maybe 200$ worth of Claude subscription). Drivers and restaurants will be better off if they build their own ones. These centralized platforms need to die ASAP.
Comment by moate 37 minutes ago
Comment by whatever1 30 minutes ago
The restaurant then can broadcast the driver demand and delivery prize in their website. Drivers can be scanning all the restaurants in their area and decide if they want to take it or not. Restaurants over time will build lists of reliable drivers whom they will favor when matching.
Comment by languagehacker 3 hours ago
Comment by htrp 5 hours ago
Comment by randbyte 3 hours ago
Comment by micromacrofoot 4 hours ago
Third party delivery services essentially break the chain of responsibility... food late and cold? tough luck, but please tip in advance. If you don't tip your driver will be very mad at you, maybe they'll text you about it, and we pay them so poorly that it's actually your fault for keeping them impoverished. Talk to our customer service bots and maybe we'll give you a $5 coupon for your next Doordash order.
Comment by apparent 33 minutes ago
Unfortunately the existence of the (less-good) delivery options through DD and IC likely facilitated that decision.
Comment by rglover 3 hours ago
Some people are professional about it (I bring my own drink carriers, food bags, etc and have a minor Andretti gene so orders are as quick as the law allows), but most of the others I see doing it may as well not be. Slow, lazy, check nothing, and look like they just fell out of a methadone clinic (read: not the person you want showing up at your door in the dark at 8pm).
It's frustrating if you try to do it properly but get judged by customers like you're some out of work junkie (when, ironically, most people I deliver to live in a lower-income situation than I do).
From the driver's side, you get inundated with low-paying orders, often rapid-fire as you're driving to either pick up or deliver another order (like so bad that if you're not paying attention, you could get into an accident). Like literal Pavlov's dog, bell jingling over the top of the navigation instructions and a big pop up on screen. Essentially [1].
The entire thing is a psychological rat trap (by design as best as I can tell as these apps aren't terribly complicated to build/design; just scale), so it's not a total surprise when your driver fails to provide good service. They actually make it quite difficult to provide good service (e.g., I routinely get "already picked up" orders on my late night runs w/ no compensation for sitting/waiting on restaurant staff).
I think a lot of people should try doing deliveries via these apps a few times just to experience it. The psychological pressure alone likely makes a lot of people crack. It's all quite fucked up.
Comment by Liuser 3 hours ago
Food generally arrives warm and if not, a quick heat up in the air fryer generally solves most things. Soup based noodles are generally packed separately that you need to prepare it at home anyway.
My main gripe is there is the general occasional missed small item (like sauces, a drink), which I do complain about in DD. I imagine DD does provide this feedback to restaurants because it has been trending better over time.
Comment by paxy 5 hours ago
Comment by jawns 3 hours ago
That's rich! Communities benefit when small businesses compete against each other. Announced as part of a merger of two giant public companies.
Comment by malfist 4 hours ago
Comment by boringg 5 hours ago
Comment by the__alchemist 4 hours ago
And second-order effects like I can always have fresh fruit + veggies / not worrying about rot by getting it in smaller quantities delivered more often.
For those wondering about price: It's much cheaper than takeout or prepared food delivery, but more expensive than getting your own groceries. Offset a bit by less food waste.
Comment by galkk 2 hours ago
In my experience its significantly more expensive for groceries: up to 20% for items + service fee + subscription + tip.
I was canceling Instacart subscription and they offered me another year for discounted price ($17). I kept it but I won’t ever extend it for full price given how much more it costs.
Comment by the__alchemist 2 hours ago
Comment by Mashimo 3 hours ago
Feels like it will end up more expensive in a few years
Comment by the__alchemist 3 hours ago
Comment by toomuchtodo 4 hours ago
Comment by unregistereddev 1 hour ago
- My parents are determined to age in place in their home. They get tired more easily than they used to, and aren't capable of doing as much. Especially in the winter, grocery delivery is a huge help for them.
- People with disabilities may or may not be capable of going to the store. Even for the ones who are capable, it is a much larger time commitment.
- For parents of young kids, leaving the house isn't just putting on pants. It's checking diapers, getting the kids to wear shoes, and timing the trip so it doesn't interfere with naptime, feedings, etc. This is a temporary phase! It doesn't take long before the kids are big enough to enjoy a trip to the store.
Comment by toomuchtodo 1 hour ago
Comment by Toynbeeidea 3 hours ago
Comment by KineticLensman 2 hours ago
Comment by apparent 32 minutes ago
Comment by reaperducer 4 hours ago
Says someone with no problems putting on his pants and making a grocery run.
Just try to remember your own words when you get older. You'll get your turn. Everyone does.
Comment by 999900000999 2 hours ago
Anyway what a strange attitude to have on a tech forum. Why do we need HN, let's discuss this over a game of bowling!
Comment by reaperducer 57 minutes ago
How so? Do tech people never get hurt? They never slip on ice? Blow out a knee playing a sport? Trip over a power cable?
What a strange attitude to think that everyone on a tech forum is identical, and also in identically healthy shape.
"Game of bowling?" Are you a bot, or something?
Comment by 999900000999 54 minutes ago
Comment by the__alchemist 4 hours ago
Comment by stackskipton 4 hours ago
Comment by cj 4 hours ago
Comment by neonnoodle 46 minutes ago
Comment by rovr138 4 hours ago
Comment by the__alchemist 4 hours ago
Comment by stevetron 4 hours ago
Comment by paxy 4 hours ago
Comment by chunky1994 4 hours ago
Comment by kotaKat 1 hour ago
https://www.walmart.com/plus/assist https://www.sparkdriverapp.com/en_us.html
Comment by apparent 30 minutes ago
Comment by ocd 4 hours ago
Comment by 999900000999 4 hours ago
Comment by stevenwoo 4 hours ago
Comment by paxy 4 hours ago
Comment by SoftTalker 3 hours ago
Pizzarias and other traditional delivery food businesses still hire their own drivers in many cases.
Comment by Sohcahtoa82 2 hours ago
Before DoorDash, other than pizza places (who still run their own drivers), what restaurants delivered? McDonald's tried delivery for a short period of time, but other than that, nobody delivered.
Comment by DaSHacka 4 hours ago
Comment by 999900000999 2 hours ago
Luckily he came of age just as texting took off. I guess in theory he could of relied upon a translator to make phone calls for him, but his life was much improved by modern communication.
Even if new technology makes things easier for 99% of people who are lazy, but is essential for that last 1%, it's a net positive.
Consolidation in this industry is horrible for everyone. Less competition means higher prices and lower pay.
Comment by lkey 4 hours ago
A truly laughable fig leaf for the non-existent anti-trust regulators.
Comment by toomuchtodo 1 hour ago
Comment by hkhanna 4 hours ago
A couple days after my wife launched her campaign, Instacart did a 180 and told her they had to fire her for running. Bad for business to run for office and criticize a Republican incumbent!
My wife was also pregnant and she told them. They fired her the next day.
Congratulations on the merger.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/12/15/instacart...
Comment by assimpleaspossi 4 hours ago
He called support who contacted the customer and said they were on their way and could he wait five minutes. Of course he did but 30 minutes went by.
Contacted support again who said customer would be there in five minutes but, 15 minutes later, support said to just take the goods back to the store.
He took the goods back to the store but the store refused to accept them. Support said he could just donate them or keep them.
Despite showing the back and forth text messages, he was deactivated for not delivering to the customer.
Comment by cowlevel 3 hours ago
Comment by nikanj 2 hours ago
Comment by wakamoleguy 2 hours ago
Comment by freejazz 2 hours ago
Comment by wakamoleguy 2 hours ago
It is definitely possible that arbitrators interact with the company repeatedly and so there is gravity towards deciding in their favor, but I have no idea on the size of that effect.
Comment by freejazz 2 hours ago
>And it's less variable because juries are variable. Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.
The vast majority of civil cases do not go to a jury, so again, I don't think this is good reasoning. The difference is mostly in discovery, which in an arbitration is stacked against any plaintiff bringing their claims compared to what they'd be entitled to in state or federal courts. That's probably the biggest reason they are less variable, in my experience.
>It is definitely possible that arbitrators interact with the company repeatedly and so there is gravity towards deciding in their favor, but I have no idea on the size of that effect.
Well according to you, you don't really have any idea of any of this, you are just reflecting your understandings which are based on what?
> Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.
But that doesn't mean those biases are not present.
Comment by wakamoleguy 2 hours ago
Comment by cowlevel 2 hours ago
Comment by freejazz 2 hours ago
Comment by OkayPhysicist 2 hours ago
Comment by cowlevel 1 hour ago
Comment by OkayPhysicist 52 minutes ago
If you have an absolute lay-up of a case (something like "my company fired me because I got pregnant, and lied about by pretending to change their mind about something they'd already approved of"), then you're going to win the arbitration case. Well, more accurately, the company's going to throw a pile of cash at you before it even gets that far, because they screwed up and the first time legal hears about it, the first words out of their mouth will be "you did fucking what?".
It is nigh impossible to cleanly fire an employee from the time you learn they're pregnant, to like a year after they come back from maternity leave. Unless they broke into your office and took a shit on the desk, the default opinion of every judge is going to be "I read about this exact scenario while studying for the bar, literally textbook".
Comment by cowlevel 2 hours ago
Comment by etc-hosts 2 hours ago
Comment by chaosharmonic 2 hours ago
When COVID hit, I got sick and had to spend several days inside ordering delivery. And more than once, the store was missing half my order. So I then had to make new orders for the food I wasn't able to get the first time -- while they refunded me only for the items they didn't have, leaving me to eat the (multiple) delivery fees and driver tips.
Comment by patentatt 4 hours ago
Comment by paulddraper 3 hours ago
Corporatist hellhole was your reaction to that too I imagine.
* Technically resigned, but there was significant pressure from Mozilla.
Comment by crote 2 hours ago
Comment by Sparkle-san 2 hours ago
Comment by crote 2 hours ago
Comment by lloydde 2 hours ago
Comment by paulddraper 1 hour ago
But in any case, your point is “it was damaging the company, therefore it makes sense to see them gone.” And there’s your parallel.
—
In reality, whether corporate agnosticism is right depends almost exclusively on your feelings of the underlying cause.
Comment by charcircuit 4 hours ago
Comment by darkstar999 4 hours ago
Comment by wpm 4 hours ago
Comment by 233mhz 3 hours ago
For example in the US it's totally legal to spy on your employees with key loggers &co, in most of Europe it isn't
Comment by sheepscreek 4 hours ago
Not a lawyer but my intuition says there might be some legal grounds here favouring the wife.
My take is someone even higher up found out later and did not like it. Now it’s entirely possible the individuals who gave their blessings were supportive of the party the wife was standing for, and the ones above them weren’t? Still whoever blessed the campaign did so in their capacity as a senior officer of the company. A total shit show nevertheless.
To the original commenter: sorry this happened to your wife. Hope she’s able to find another job that treats her right. Also congrats on the baby, hoping parenthood makes up for all of this and more. Sending the best of wishes your way.
Comment by njovin 4 hours ago
Comment by Humorist2290 3 hours ago
Comment by GormHouj 3 hours ago
Comment by JonathanAgosto 2 hours ago
Comment by SoftTalker 4 hours ago
Comment by charcircuit 4 hours ago
Comment by avs733 4 hours ago
Comment by SoftTalker 4 hours ago
Comment by gavinray 2 hours ago
For example: Suppose you hire someone to help you move furniture.
You can decide you dont like the color of their shoes and tell them to kick rocks.
You dont owe anyone a job, and labor for pay is a contractual agreement, nothing more.
Comment by malicka 2 hours ago
Buuut it’s probably better for society to not kneecap ordinary folks just for trying to run for office. Otherwise, you only get folks in office with deep pockets who can take the hit.
Comment by gavinray 2 hours ago
Should you be racist? No. Should you call someone fat and ugly? No.
But personal liberty and freedom require we allow people to make choices and have opinions we don't personally agree with.
Comment by Sparkle-san 2 hours ago
Comment by latexr 2 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
https://www.thealmightyguru.com/Wiki/images/2/2e/Paradox_of_...
Comment by gavinray 2 hours ago
> "a just society should generally tolerate the intolerant, reserving self-preserving actions for only when intolerance poses a concrete threat to liberty and stability."
Freedom of speech and self-expression applies to just that: wordsIf intolerance or hate poses a physical threat, or in any way infringes on the liberty and personal autonomy of others, a line has been crossed and must be swiftly dealt with.
Comment by westpfelia 2 hours ago
Comment by drewbitt 4 hours ago
Comment by thinkindie 4 hours ago
Comment by PyWoody 4 hours ago
Comment by SoftTalker 4 hours ago
If a person made a large contribution or gave other public support to an extremist candidate, an employer might not want any association with that.
If running for an office is going to take up a significant amount of one's time, such that it might impact availability for work during normal hours, an employer would care about that.
In this specfic case, if she was featuring "I work for Instacart" in any way in her campaign they might care about that.
If she was saying anything inflamatory or controversial, Instacart might not want to be associated with that.
So running for a nonpartisan office such as a local council or school board or similar would normally not be any issue. Anything where party politics feature prominently is going to be riskier.
Comment by bombcar 2 hours ago
So most states you can be fired for voting wrong.
Comment by thinkindie 4 hours ago
Comment by shimman 3 hours ago
Let's not forget that many of our "founding fathers" deeply hated democracy and when speaking of the "democracy problem" of the 1780s in America it was mostly referring to commoners in Massachusetts participating in civic duties.
This tradition has never went away and is still practiced today.
Comment by seizethecheese 3 hours ago
It seems totally reasonable to both have a law that protects a citizen’s right to run for office without losing their job, but it also seems reasonable to require some sort of coordination with an employer.
(Knowing nothing about this, it is seems like it should work roughly like an extended jury duty.)
Comment by 63stack 4 hours ago
Comment by another_twist 3 hours ago
Comment by input_sh 3 hours ago
> Lisa Vedernikova Khanna, a candidate in Virginia, says in a lawsuit that the mobile shopping giant cited concerns her bid could hurt the company with President Donald Trump.
Comment by willio58 4 hours ago
Comment by herval 4 hours ago
Comment by outside1234 2 hours ago
Comment by freejazz 2 hours ago
Comment by thatwasunusual 3 hours ago
Comment by mondomondo 4 hours ago
Comment by reticulates 4 hours ago
Comment by jkaplowitz 4 hours ago
Can you criticize them instead for firing her for something that their Chief Corporate Affairs Officer explicitly gave her permission to do? If it was a matter of pragmatism, they could have declined her request for permission. (One might separately argue about whether this should be a matter of right vs a matter of permission, but regardless, she did seek permission and was granted it.)
Comment by afavour 4 hours ago
Comment by reticulates 4 hours ago
Comment by skeeter2020 4 hours ago
Comment by afavour 4 hours ago
Comment by skeeter2020 4 hours ago
That's a terrible attitude that's resulted in some of the worst behaviour of capitulation history has ever recorded. What will you call their "pragmatism" when your the target?
Comment by worldsavior 3 hours ago
I think it's a fully justified reason. If I'm in a senior position and I say something that in someway hurts the company reputation/income, I would be fired. If the company liveness depend on me being fired, the I think the decision is justified.
Comment by ishouldstayaway 2 hours ago
Comment by thatwasunusual 3 hours ago
Ok, but _should_ you be fired? And - if so - why?
Comment by SomaticPirate 2 hours ago
Or are people so antisocial now that going and grabbing groceries yourself is too much to handle?
And fwiw, I’m not against delivery. I use Amazon fresh frequently but I would argue that is much more efficient. Dedicated drivers and warehouses optimized for grocery is societally useful.
Paying an immigrant worker half a dollar to drive some tacos to a member of the upper class when the math has never worked out in the immigrant’s favor seems… bad? Or atleast a good way to turbocharge inequality
Comment by Aurornis 1 hour ago
I gift meals to people in other cities when they're in need (sick, childbirth, death in the family) and I'm not nearby to help.
I've had intense working situations where an extra hour of work was worth paying someone $30 to deliver my $100 of groceries.
We've frequently used DoorDash and other services for small business meetings where we wanted to provide lunch, or in some situations where we had to stay late (security incidents, etc) and wanted to provide the team with something better than pizza delivery.
However it's also scary to watch some people who will DoorDash whenever they feel like it without regard to the cost. I watched some eye-opening conversations among college students comparing how much they had spent on DoorDash in the past year, even though they were not in a financial demographic that should have been indulging in delivery.
Comment by ssharp 2 hours ago
Maybe you don't have kids or that busy of a schedule?
Comment by leecoursey 1 hour ago
Comment by mm263 2 hours ago
Comment by mithr 1 hour ago
> are people so antisocial now that going and grabbing groceries yourself is too much to handle?
> Paying an immigrant worker half a dollar to drive some tacos to a member of the upper class when the math has never worked out in the immigrant’s favor seems… bad? Or atleast a good way to turbocharge inequality
Ok, but then...
> I use Amazon fresh frequently
So... you do seem to understand who uses these (it's exactly people like you), and you have an actual use case for using a grocery delivery service (since you use it yourself), but you just think that Amazon Fresh is a completely different experience and ecosystem than Instacart, that does not promote inequality, and isn't antisocial? Can you elaborate on your reasoning/sources? I wouldn't say Amazon is exactly known for its humane treatment of low-wage workers...
Comment by Justin_K 1 hour ago
Comment by apparent 28 minutes ago
We also think it's important not to have our kids grow up thinking that everything is just delivered to them at their beck and call.
Comment by cryptoegorophy 2 hours ago
Comment by Maxatar 1 hour ago
Like most things in life, it's not a matter of difficulty, as if I am so incapable of going to a grocery store to buy groceries and the undue hardship it will cause me. It's simply a matter of how I like to budget my time. I judge that the 30 minutes it can take to do groceries is better spent doing other things with my life.
Comment by notwhereyouare 2 hours ago
Comment by ijiutrfiur 1 hour ago
When our kids were babies we were sleep deprived and their sleep schedule made it hard to randomly go out. Having delivery was so helpful during those years.
And these days I’ll order delivery if I’m feeling sick or just tired.
Comment by xienze 1 hour ago
Comment by ijiutrfiur 1 hour ago
Now they have the freedom to get what they want, when they want.
Comment by Razengan 2 hours ago
Comment by YuriNiyazov 1 hour ago
Comment by subarctic 1 hour ago
There's also times when you have people over and don't want to leave to pick something up.
And times when you are too tired or sick and don't want to leave the house
Comment by wrongdirection 1 hour ago
Comment by noida 3 hours ago
Comment by aloukissas 1 hour ago
Comment by Zestymarble45 4 hours ago
Comment by josefritzishere 3 hours ago
Comment by timodesks 3 hours ago