[JumpCrisscross]

> consumers and delivery drivers who will mostly pay for it

The players: restaurants, drivers (current and former), platforms and consumers. Former drivers, those who don’t make the new cut, will lose. Drivers who stay on will gain. Looking at leverage, consumers are less likely to bear the burden than restaurants. Given the new fixed cost of operating a delivery platform, the incumbents’ threat of competition from new entrants is reduced; that will help them.

If I were to make predictions, I’d expect to see some consolidation among the platforms with the winners squeezing restaurants and consumers waiting longer more than paying a higher price. (It is notable restaurants have virtually no representation in this debate.) The pie will be smaller. But the platforms’ role in it will be more stable and secure.

[ysavir]

That seems more like an interim step to me. I imagine what will follow is one of three things:

1. An affected restaurant increases costs for online purchases to compensate.

2. An affected restaurant stops offering delivery. If it's not worth the money, why offer it?

3. An affected restaurant gets its own drivers. That's how delivery used to operate before the gig economy, and it allows them to control costs and fees.

I've already seen restaurants start putting on delivery charges, and often significant ones (a $6 delivery charge doesn't seem unusual where I am).

> But the platforms’ role in it will be more stable and secure.

I don't think it will be. The platforms currently offer discoverability and drivers. If platforms aren't willing to bear the costs of the drivers, restaurants will stop using their driver services. And if the platforms are reduced to just discoverability, it becomes much easier for competitors to enter the market.