Under that model, wouldn't drivers only want to work for the busiest restaurants?
With delivery apps, a restaurant can have just a few orders per night and still be open for delivery.
I would bet that there's an order of magnitude more deliveries happening (and drivers working) these days vs pre-Uber.
It doesn't take many orders to keep an individual driver busy. Typically the restaurants would manage how many, and which, drivers worked each night. If the night was unexpectedly quiet then a driver might finish early.
> With delivery apps, a restaurant can have just a few orders per night and still be open for delivery.
Yeah, the main benefit of delivery apps is enabling restaurants who primarily serve sit-in diners to deliver also. The overall benefit to delivery focused restaurants is much more tenuous.
> I would bet that there's an order of magnitude more deliveries happening (and drivers working) these days vs pre-Uber.
Perhaps, but if a driver was already busy all night under the previous model, then they're potentially harmed by the current model.
The main drawbacks to these services are the outrageous fees they charge to make money, and that there's more than one so drivers and businesses have to manage an array of phones or tablets. This would address both of those things.
In the UK, outside of corporate chains, it was largely a cash in hand operation for both the restaurants and drivers.
Drivers would typically be paid a small sum for showing up on the night and then keep the delivery charge and any tips. The cost to the restaurant was pretty much negligible.
The middle-men, in addition to their own cut, have likely lead to a larger tax burden on many of the drivers and restaurants.