[ypzhang2]

It's obvious there is value, otherwise these companies wouldn't exist, no matter how much VC money is pumped in.

For consumers:

Ability to order from multiple restaurants through one consistent interface / payment flow. This cannot be undercut by every restaurant with a phone and a teenager with a car.

For restaurants:

A marketing / lead generation avenue that provides, ideally, incremental volume that is profitable. If it was not profitable, then they wouldn't do it, obviously.

Delivery itself, is just a method to deliver these value adds.

The argument can be made whether this value is worth a tech infrastructure and the human labor cost of delivery. It might be worth it in China, where delivery is actually more ubiquitous, but in America, where worker compensation / expectation / norms are higher, its debatable.

[AlexandrB]

> It's obvious there is value, otherwise these companies wouldn't exist, no matter how much VC money is pumped in.

Would you say this about WeWork a year ago? VC-style central planning has had a great distorting effect on the supply/demand information function of the market.

[ghaff]

Oh I think there was some value in WeWork. OfficeSpace-as-a-Service that was hipper than Regus and offered consistency across many cities. But obviously far less value than the money being pumped into WeWork would suggest.

[ypzhang2]

Yes there is value in the product, its like fancy Regus, which is a real business. Its not worth what it was worth.

[lovich]

You should add increased number of options there as well. I know there's a ton of resturaunts near me that didn't care to get into the delivery business but had no problem working with a delivery company like uber eats. This may be a much smaller niche though as I'm paid enough that the time savings I get from delivery are worth the extra 20-30% I pay from going to pick it up myself