I wouldn't be the one to ask about the details, but I think it would be foolish to surmise that two companies taking up 3/4ths of a sector shouldn't go through some anti-trust scrutiny.
While they are an effective duopoly, it would be good to also consider them as monopolistic competition versus a true market split out -- there is very little traditional moat, and almost only network effect due to restaurants accepting their services and menu.
I wouldn't be the one to ask about the details, but I think it would be foolish to surmise that two companies taking up 3/4ths of a sector shouldn't go through some anti-trust scrutiny.
77% of the U.S. 3rd party food delivery is DoorDash + Instacart.
(Nearly all of the remaining amount is Uber Eats.)
So if not a monopoly, then at least a duopoly.
As a rule, two-sided marketplaces are very difficult to disrupt.
The BATNA:
- Other delivery service
- Other task service
- Go yourself
While they are an effective duopoly, it would be good to also consider them as monopolistic competition versus a true market split out -- there is very little traditional moat, and almost only network effect due to restaurants accepting their services and menu.
> almost only network effect due to
"Only" is a massive amount of lifting in that sentance.
Network effects are among the most durable/effect competitive qualities. And they have that network on both sides.
There's literally 100s of apps that provide food delivery service. Just because one is doing really good doesn't make it a monopoly.
So more like a 0.77opoly then