Does it really come from the battle between VCs though? My understanding is that these VC-backed companies of Uber type are designed to run at a loss until a) the market dominance is achieved, at which point the prices are raised to get to profitability; b) it's clear that the market dominance won't be achieved any time soon, at which point the funding is pulled and VCs leave for greener pastures. Such companies aren't designed to compete in your typical sense, i.e. by improving service or reducing operating costs. Instead it's about which VC is ready to lose more money before their competitors go bust. Am I being too cynical here?

I think the innovations in this space just take a long time as they are capital intensive or require huge usage, like cloud kitchens, effective multiple delivery routing, and autonomous vehicles/delivery drones when they arrive.

There are still two large costs that may not be there in the future. The human driver and the heavy restaurant overhead of being located in premium retail space instead of behind the gravel pit.

I agree, especially the biggest problems I had with Uber hasn't changed for years: drivers either cancelling on me because they don't like where I go and Uber shows it to them only after they finished the last ride, or waiting for me to cancel because they have time and want me to pay cancellation fee.

I don't know what Uber software engineers are doing, but it doesn't seem to me that they really care about user experience (not UI, which I don't care about, as that doesn't make me late for a hospital appointment).