As much as consumers would love the idea of non-profits sweeping in and doing the same service as businesses sans the profit margin, this is simply not what we observe in real world very often. Running an organization is hard, and people doing that usually want to be compensated for their efforts.

> people doing that usually want to be compensated for their efforts.

Non profit does not mean free. People can be paid salary, but the business does not need a 30% Profit margin.

If anything non profits have a somewhat of a reputation for being a way to pay the top people big salaries without the pressure of having investors pushing for more profits & getting the image of being "good" mostly for free since it's a non profit.

Most of the food deliveries services are running using VC funds. I don't think there's much scope of profit here for a ~$5-$7/delivery charge having someone someone pickup and deliver a package along with other costs like building/maintaining the system, credit card charges etc,

Frankly, I feel something like peach which bundles multiple orders from a few restaurants is the way to go if you want to make money as a food delivery service.

Remember before uber, yellow cabs had their own app. The experience was shitty. Nonprofits are not known for great software products and operational skills.

Yellow Cab Company is the furthest thing in the world from a nonprofit. They recently went bankrupt, but a century of monopoly tactics and mafia ties preceded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Cab_Company

It will probably be hard for a non-profit to do all of that (especially ethically like paying fair wages) considering Uber, Grubhub and Doordash are all losing money while charging 30%+ for the current services.

Non profits don't need to make money for investors.

Just enough to pay their workers and themselves.

Very good point. I hadn't considered this, transparency allowing for potential competitors to differentiate.