[dehrmann]

> we guarantee that only over-capitalized predatory businesses can compete in the space.

Assuming you can't make money at 10%, why would even a well-capitalized company that's OK with having a loss leader enter that market? The Uber strategy has been to enter a market fast, drive competitors out (possibly taking a loss), then (and looking at their earnings, this never happened, probably because there's a competitor in most of their markets) raise prices and finally turn a profit. If you can never turn a profit, why would you enter the market?

[amelius]

> If you can never turn a profit, why would you enter the market?

Because you can still raise money, sell your company, and make money in the process. An extreme form would be a pyramid scheme where early investors make lots of money, leaving later investors with the problems.

[andrewla]

Because they want to make a bet on the future being different. Or they just want to pump up the company's value enough that the initial investors can get out with their cash and leave the shareholders/acquirer holding the bag.

If the delivery companies start shifting the burden to consumers, or if they start forcing bicycle couriers to comply with the rule, or if they can successfully contest it in court, then it makes sense to some degree to stay in the fight.

[dingle_thunk]

Because you’re funded by investors who have been lied to about eventual automation.

Netflix delivered DVDs at a loss to build a brand and content licensing for their streaming service.

[nsl73]

Was that really the case? Netflix delivered DVDs for a decade before it started online streaming.

If I remember correctly Netflix’s original business model was more like a gym membership than brand building for an online platform that was a decade in the future.

[lenkite]

AFAIK Netflix still delivers DVD's at profit.

[wnevets]

>Netflix delivered DVDs at a loss

source? I've never heard that one before