Their customers want easy delivery options that's definitely true. But if you could ask them if they think restaurants deserve a chance at fair negotiations they would probably also say yes.
All the bill is asking for is cooperation up front, not afterwards if at all. It's not criminalizing the business model of DoorDash and friends, it's just forcing them to treat their business partners like business partners.
I think it's fair to say I have some bias here though. I am a little bit too cynical toward these companies to believe they're just out here trying to better the world. They're doing their best to spin a buck before going public and peacing out. Case in point, DoorDash just IPOd with no profit and no projection for profitability, even in it's best case scenario (massive increase in online ordering).
So obviously the service is extremely useful, people find it useful while it's subsidized but no one has yet bared the full cost of these platforms.
In my opinion we need to protect existing businesses who are profitable and thus have a proven place in the economy, while these disruptive companies flail about free from the shackles of actually fitting into the economy, just in case it turns out they wouldn't.
If you’ve sold something, why would you expect to have any right to negotiate what the buyer plans to do with it? The delivery businesses have simply found some value that customers are willing to pay for. If the restaurants want to capture that value for themselves they have every right to attempt to do so.
It’s also silly to say that these delivery apps are trying to make the world a better place. They’re just providing a service to consumers. They’ve certainly changed the takeout food market significantly (and in a way that is very beneficial to consumers). But they’ve also made it harder for takeout food businesses to operate, because they’ve massively increased the competition they face. Takeout restaurants used to only compete with other nearby take out restaurants, for the business of customers within a convenient distance from their location. Now they have to compete with businesses from miles away too.
This is fantastic for consumers, which is generally who should benefit most from these sort of regulations. This law is an absolute affront to consumers, and serves only to protect bad businesses from having to address innovation. It’s understandable that these businesses want a slice of that value, and I’m sure you could tell a very sympathetic story about them. But they did nothing to create this value, and the law shouldn’t exist to shield them from competition.
All the bill is asking for is cooperation up front, not afterwards if at all. It's not criminalizing the business model of DoorDash and friends, it's just forcing them to treat their business partners like business partners.
I think it's fair to say I have some bias here though. I am a little bit too cynical toward these companies to believe they're just out here trying to better the world. They're doing their best to spin a buck before going public and peacing out. Case in point, DoorDash just IPOd with no profit and no projection for profitability, even in it's best case scenario (massive increase in online ordering).
So obviously the service is extremely useful, people find it useful while it's subsidized but no one has yet bared the full cost of these platforms.
In my opinion we need to protect existing businesses who are profitable and thus have a proven place in the economy, while these disruptive companies flail about free from the shackles of actually fitting into the economy, just in case it turns out they wouldn't.