> What is the incentive really?
> I would maybe understand, but they aren't even available in a wider than a small radius around your house, so it is always more convenient to walk/cycle/drive to wherever you would order that food anyway.
I know that you mentioned the incentive from the customer perspective, but since I've worked in 2 of the top 5 world food delivery companies, I can have some insights about it beyond people's laziness.
1) Availability of different cuisines regardless of distance: If you're talking about a bikeable, small-sized European capital or city with a limited number of restaurants, yes—you can place your order in person without any issue. But if you're in a mid-sized city with a high variety of restaurants, like Berlin, that’s not feasible. Most of the time, people don't use the app to order from the local pizza place; they use it to get a nice Indian, Japanese, Nepalese, or Thai dish from a restaurant 6 to 10 km away, especially on a rainy Friday.
2) It’s hard for restaurants to coordinate table bookings with walk-ins: Many restaurants join the platform because, while they can manage bookings and some fixed demand, they also risk losing walk-in customers (dynamic demand) when there's no space available. What restaurants do now is manage both bookings and walk-ins without worrying about losing revenue—because delivery can make up for no-shows or frustrated walk-ins.
3) Food delivery removes waiting logistics: If you walk, cycle, or drive, you incur the full logistics cost plus the opportunity cost (e.g., if you're organizing an event and need to set aside an hour for food). With delivery platforms, you can "actively wait"—you place the order through the app and do other things while waiting. You’re paying for both the logistics and the saved opportunity cost.
4) Restaurants can optimize menus and kitchen efficiency instead of real estate: This relates to point 2. In my experience, restaurants are becoming more like a front-end experience for dine-in customers, but many are transforming into what could be called "kitchens as a service." Customers order remotely, and a highly optimized kitchen, in terms of logistics and execution, prepares a specific dish. One thing I've noticed—and personally feel conflicted about—is that restaurants are betting on hyper-optimization by selling more of what I call "pre-mounted standardized dishes." In other words, instead of restaurants thinking about increasing their space to accommodate potential walk-ins, they will move towards maximizing kitchen efficiency.
Example:
In Brazilian food restaurants, they have preset portions of rice, beans, French fries, and salad, and just reheat pre-cooked steak. For Thai food, they keep cold dressings in containers, and all noodles are pre-cooked and stored in warmers, and so on.
> 1) Availability of different cuisines regardless of distance:
That is my main problem, it doesn't work that well in my place. Food delivery apps here only propose me stuff that is in a 3 km radius or so and not the 6 to 10km ones away. So in the end if I want something different than what is in a walking/cycling distance in my neighborhood I need to move myself.
I know that you mentioned the incentive from the customer perspective, but since I've worked in 2 of the top 5 world food delivery companies, I can have some insights about it beyond people's laziness.
1) Availability of different cuisines regardless of distance: If you're talking about a bikeable, small-sized European capital or city with a limited number of restaurants, yes—you can place your order in person without any issue. But if you're in a mid-sized city with a high variety of restaurants, like Berlin, that’s not feasible. Most of the time, people don't use the app to order from the local pizza place; they use it to get a nice Indian, Japanese, Nepalese, or Thai dish from a restaurant 6 to 10 km away, especially on a rainy Friday.
2) It’s hard for restaurants to coordinate table bookings with walk-ins: Many restaurants join the platform because, while they can manage bookings and some fixed demand, they also risk losing walk-in customers (dynamic demand) when there's no space available. What restaurants do now is manage both bookings and walk-ins without worrying about losing revenue—because delivery can make up for no-shows or frustrated walk-ins.
3) Food delivery removes waiting logistics: If you walk, cycle, or drive, you incur the full logistics cost plus the opportunity cost (e.g., if you're organizing an event and need to set aside an hour for food). With delivery platforms, you can "actively wait"—you place the order through the app and do other things while waiting. You’re paying for both the logistics and the saved opportunity cost.
4) Restaurants can optimize menus and kitchen efficiency instead of real estate: This relates to point 2. In my experience, restaurants are becoming more like a front-end experience for dine-in customers, but many are transforming into what could be called "kitchens as a service." Customers order remotely, and a highly optimized kitchen, in terms of logistics and execution, prepares a specific dish. One thing I've noticed—and personally feel conflicted about—is that restaurants are betting on hyper-optimization by selling more of what I call "pre-mounted standardized dishes." In other words, instead of restaurants thinking about increasing their space to accommodate potential walk-ins, they will move towards maximizing kitchen efficiency.
Example: In Brazilian food restaurants, they have preset portions of rice, beans, French fries, and salad, and just reheat pre-cooked steak. For Thai food, they keep cold dressings in containers, and all noodles are pre-cooked and stored in warmers, and so on.