> Many restaurants are small independent businesses having business owners taking a lot of financial risk and investing a ton of time to grow that business. They aren't interested in becoming de facto subsidiaries to delivery services. They want to serve their patrons directly while making a living in a sustainable way.

Precisely because restaurants are already so risky, one more source of variable demand shouldn't be a problem. It's a rare restaurant that would want to turn down customers today because they might not be there tomorrow. As long as DoorDash are paying what you ask, take their money, just as you would if there were a bunch of people in town for a music festival or whatever.

> Isn't this how Amazon entered and acquired the book market, by positioning themselves as a book broker at first and then gradually outbidding book stores?

I don't think so, unless it was in the very early days? Certainly they were positioned as a mail-order bookstore long before they reached the size that DoorDash is now.

> One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Sure, but I really can't see delivery putting restaurants out of business as a whole, can you? I can see some getting knocked out, I can see price rises, but I can't imagine the category disappearing. Restaurants have always come and gone; there are definitely some that I'll miss that have already shut for good due to the pandemic, but that's always been the way of things.

> Agreed. Is it to the benefit of society at large if an existing socio-economic circumstances turn more precarious for an increasing group of people?

I'm not convinced it will be worse for them, on the whole; DoorDash et al will do the absolute minimum they're required to by law, but they will know and follow the law in a way that existing players in that space often simply don't. It'll be bad for illegal immigrants and healthy young men, but it'll also eliminate some very abusive situations.

> Isn't that contradictory if the opportunity doesn't exist... because the expenses associated with investing in quality outstrip your competitive advantage with other low-cost competitors?

> Sure, you could aim at a high-end niche of customers - e.g. four star restaurants - but those are small and the competition is murderous. That's why there's, comparatively, only a handful of Michelin star restaurants with chefs with a reputation.

I mean, if you're a commodity you're in trouble, but if you're a commodity you've always been in trouble. If your business model is being the cheapest place to get food in town then yeah, your lunch may be about to be eaten - but your lunch was probably eaten by McDonalds decades ago. I actually think the big chains are far more at risk from DoorDash etc. in the long run, because the likes of say Chipotle have already commodified themselves to a large extent.

If you can offer quality that is recognisably a cut above the lowest common denominator then there's plenty of space for that, even at a higher price. Yes, the top end is competitive. But again, it always has been.

> Granted, everyone needs to eat. It's a vast market after all. I just do not see how this particular business model applied in the delivery business is a net positive for everyone involved in the long run... except for DoorDash and their ilk.

The way I see it, DoorDash won't change the high end, but it'll offer a smoother, more consistent, more reliably non-terrible experience at the low end, and that was already a commodified space where big companies had a large presence. Will some restaurants on the margins get squeezed out? Undoubtedly. But I don't think this is a threat to restaurants that actually offer some kind of unique appeal, and more churn as another chain moves into the commodity part of the market is something that's already been happening for years.