> They take around 30% of restaurant revenue

I see many people complain about the commission they charge to restaurants, but how much restaurants save by not having to serve customers on premises?

After all, if restaurants sign up to work with Deliveroo they must have done their homework and concluded that they were still in the black.

> After all, if restaurants sign up to work with Deliveroo they must have done their homework and concluded that they were still in the black.

Or a VC backed firm with zero profits was created with a sole purpose of securing enough market share that any restaurant that doesn't hand over their 30% is immediately squeezed out of the market.

I'm not saying it's illegal, but it's crappy and the stock market has apparently had its say. At least for now.

I don't know what people want though. If taking 30% and paying £2/hr (I'm suspicious of this) is still unprofitable, who's to blame?

Is it the company, or the customers that won't pay enough?

Is it the company & customers, or the government that doesn't mandate a price floor so that all companies now have to pay riders more and take less commission? And if that were to happen, and all food delivery companies went under, is that a better out come for consumers and riders?

Something has to give—it's not like these companies are making money hand over fist—the customer needs to pony up for the true cost of delivery; they're the problem.

> against gig economy companies that provide little to no actual value in the public marketplace.

the value they provide is great to both workers and investors. immense to clients.

All these business seem to be barely profitable only if they bypass the regulatory costs other equivalent business have to take.

Example, if Airbnb had the same fire regulations as hotels or paid the same tourism tax to city councils the price difference would likely dissapear.

If Uber had to garantee vehicle maintenance, mandatory driving breaks, insurance etc. The ride price difference would likely get eaten away.

Sure, and if I would swap bus for a Ferrari I would have no money. Nobody disputes that it is fair or not, as a customer I care about service price and quality. And those companies deliver both.

Your ferrari analogy is just reduction to absurdity.

This is not about fairness it's about rule of law. You either accept that regulations and taxes exist for a reason and they therefore carry an upfront cost for anyone doing business. Or you accept that everything should be deregulated to avoid non-competitive business from bypassing those that are forking regulatory costs.

Regulate for everyone or regulate for no one but you can't have it both ways.

Citation needed. Having worked as a deliveroo cyclist during my masters, I can assure you that it's a community composed of desperate people (often undocumented). Rather than happy liberated workers. I wonder what your own experience of working for a below minimum wage gig economy company was like?

What's the alternative? If a customer won't pay a higher delivery fee, what's deliveroo / uber eats to do? Just not offer you the job at all?

I feel like government needs to solve this. Maybe UBI?

Some of them no doubt.

The ones who leach off the vulnerable and pay less than minimum wage after realistic considerations need kicking out of society.