Marc Lore's Wonder just eliminated one of the most annoying parts of food delivery
Wonder, the food hall startup helmed by entrepreneurMarc Lore, has a solution: Eliminate delivery fees altogether.
On Monday, Wonder eliminated its $1.99 fee on delivery orders, Courtney Lawrie, Wonder's senior vice president and general manager in charge of Wonder's restaurants and delivery experience, told Business Insider.
The company also waived its 12% service fee for orders placed through Wonder+, its $7.99-a-month subscription service.
Delivery fees have become common for many delivery services such as DoorDash and Uber. DoorDash, for example, says that its delivery fee covers "costs associated with getting your order directly to you."
The fees can also provoke frustration from customers when they see their delivery order's price rise as they select the delivery option.
"People are tired of paying fees across all of these marketplaces," Lawrie told BI.
Wonder operates its own food halls as well as its own delivery service, making it more vertically integrated than most of its competitors, which deliver food from an array of restaurants. The startup also acquired delivery service Grubhub earlier this year.
All that means that Wonder doesn't have to deal with middlemen when it needs to get food to customers' doorsteps, Lawrie said.
"We're uniquely positioned to be able to provide that savings to customers," Lawrie said.
Wonder has just under 50 food halls at the moment. Customers can have their food delivered, or, for a 5% discount, they can stop by one of the food halls to pick up their order themselves. Wonder's food halls serve dishes created by chefs including Bobby Flay and Marcus Samuelsson.
At Wonder's New York City locations, menu items range from a fried chicken sandwich with a side and a drink for around $12 to a 16-ounce ribeye for $37.
Its locations span city centers as well as more sparsely populated suburbs.
Wonder sees an opportunity to grow its business among suburban diners by giving them the range of choices in Wonder's food halls, Lawrie said. "They might not have access to the variety that we can provide," she said.
Many consumers are cutting back their spending, including on eating at restaurants, due to worries about a potential recession.
Even so, demand for food delivery — both restaurant orders and grocery hauls — remains steady, companies like DoorDash and Instacart have said in recent earnings reports.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why does Mark Zuckerberg want our kids to use chatbots? And other unanswered questions.
Meta is under fire for its AI chatbots being allowed to talk "seductively" to kids. Meta is investing heavily in AI, and Mark Zuckerberg says "personal superintelligence" is the future. Business Insider correspondents Katie Notopoulos and Peter Kafka discuss why Meta is pushing these chatbots. Peter Kafka: Welcome back from vacation, Katie. You were out last week when Reuters broke a story I desperately wanted to ask you about: A Meta document had been telling the people in charge of building its chatbots that "It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual." It's a bonkers report. A Meta spokesperson told Business Insider it has since revised the document and that its policies prohibit content that sexualizes children. I have so many questions for you. But maybe we can start with this one: Why does Meta want us to use chatbots, anyway? Katie Notopoulos: It was a bonkers report! I imagine Meta sees what companies like or Replika are doing — these companion chatbots that people are sinking hours and hours and real money into using. If you're a company like Meta that makes consumer apps for fun and socializing, this seems like the next big thing. You want people to spend lots and lots of time on your apps doing fun stuff. Of course, the question is, "Are these chatbots a good thing?" Peter: You read my mind, Katie. I do want to get to the Is-This-A-Good-Idea-In-General question. Let's stick with the Is-It-Good-For-Meta question for another minute, though: There are lots of things that people like to do online, and if Meta wanted to, it could try doing lots of those things. But it doesn't. I think it's obvious why Meta doesn't offer, say, porn. (Though some of its chatbots, as we will probably discuss, seem to nod a bit in that direction). But there are lots of other things it could offer that are engaging that it doesn't offer: A Spotify-like streaming service, for instance. Or a Netflix-like streaming service, or… OK. I think I might have partially answered my own question: Those two ideas would involve paying other people a lot of money to stream their songs or movies. Meta loves the model it has when users supply it with content for free, which is basically what you're doing when you spend time talking to an imaginary person. Still, why does Meta think people want to talk to fake avatars online? Do many people in tech believe this is the future, or just Mark Zuckerberg? Katie: I think there's already a fair amount of evidence that (some) people enjoy talking to chatbots. We also know how other big AI leaders like Sam Altman or Dario Amodei have these grand visions of how AI will change the world and remake society for good or evil, but they all really do still love the idea of the movie "Her." Remember the Scarlett Johansen/OpenAI voice fiasco? Peter: OK, OK. I'll admit that I kind of like it when I ask ChatGPT something and it tells me I asked a smart question. (I'm pretty sure that most people would like that). I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time talking to ChatGPT for that reason, but I get it, and I get why other people may really like it. It still strikes me that many of the people who will want to spend time talking to fake computer people might be very young. Which brings us to the Reuters story, which uncovered a wild Meta document that spells out just what kind of stuff a Meta-run chatbot can say to kids (or anyone). Stuff like this, as Jeff Horwitz reports: Horwitz notes that this wasn't the result of some hopped-up Meta engineers dreaming up ideas on a whiteboard. It's from a 200-page document containing rules that got the OK from "Meta's legal, public policy and engineering staff, including its chief ethicist," Horwitz writes. I've read the report multiple times, and I still don't get it: Meta says it is revising the document — presumably to get rid of the most embarrassing rules — but how did it get there in the first place? Is this the result of the Mark Zuckerberg-instituted vibe shift from the beginning of the year, when he said Meta was going to stop listening to Big Government and just build without constraints? Is there some other idea at work here? And why do I keep thinking about this meme? [A Meta spokesperson shared the statement they gave Reuters, which said: "We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors. Separate from the policies, there are hundreds of examples, notes, and annotations that reflect teams grappling with different hypothetical scenarios. The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed."] Katie: My real issue here is even if Meta makes it so that the chatbots won't talk sexy to kids — does that make it "safe" for kids? Just because it's not doing the most obviously harmful things (talking sex or violence or whatever), does that mean it's fine for kids to use? I think the answer isn't clear, and likely, "No." Peter: We both have kids, and it's natural to focus on the harms that new tech can have on kids. That's what politicians are most definitely doing in the wake of the Reuters report — which highlights one of the risks that Meta has anytime a kid uses their product. I think it's worth noting that we've seen other examples of AI chatbots — some accessed through Meta, some via other apps — that have confused other people, or worse. Horwitz, the Reuters reporter, also published a story last week about a 76-year-old stroke survivor in New Jersey who tried to go meet a chatbot in New York City (he didn't make it, because he fell on the way to his train and eventually died from those injuries). And talking about kids eventually becomes a (worthwhile) discussion about who's responsible for those kids — their parents, or the tech companies trying to get those kids to spend their time and money with them (short answer, imho: both). I'd suggest that we widen the lens beyond kids, though, to a much larger group of People Who Might Not Understand What A Chatbot Really Is. Katie: Have you seen the r/MyBoyfriendIsAI subreddit for women who have fallen in love with AI chatbots? I am trying to look at this stuff with an open mind and not be too judgmental. I can see how, for plenty of people, an AI romantic companion is harmless fun. But it also seems pretty obvious that it appeals to really lonely people, and I don't think that falling in love with an AI is a totally healthy behavior. So you've got this thing that appeals to either the very young, or people who don't understand AI, or people who are mentally unwell or chronically lonely. That might be a great demographic to get hooked on your product, but not if you're Meta and you don't want, say, Congress to yell at you. Peter: Katie, you've just made the case that Meta's chatbot business will appeal to very young people, people who don't understand the internet, and people who are unwell. That is, potentially, a very large audience. But I can't imagine that's the audience Meta really wants to lock down. So we're back where we started — I still don't know why Meta wants to pursue this, given what seems to be limited upside and plenty of downside. Katie: It leaves me scratching my head, too! These chatbots seem like a challenging business, and I'm skeptical about wide adoption. Of all the changes I can imagine AI bringing in the next few years, "We'll all have chatbot friends" — which Mark Zuckerberg has said! — just isn't the one I believe. It's giving metaverse, sorry! Read the original article on Business Insider Play Farm Merge Valley
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A couple started buying real estate to free themselves from 80-hour workweeks. After scaling to more than 100 units, they work part time and travel half the year.
Letizia Alto and Kenji Asakura started buying investment properties together in 2015. For years, they worked 80-hour weeks in the hospital and wanted to buy back time. They scaled to over 100 units, hit financial freedom, and now teach other doctors how to do the same. At the height of their medical careers, Letizia Alto and Kenji Asakura had to block off time on their calendars if they wanted to see each other. "We would schedule out a month in advance, days that we could spend together because it was so busy," Alto told Business Insider. "And this was without us having kids together." They were each working more than full time as hospitalists, logging 80-hour weeks. When they took a step back and considered what they wanted their future to look like, the grueling workweeks didn't fit in. "Kenji asked me: 'What do you really want for your life? Presume there are no limits. What would you want to do?'" recalled Alto. Her answer was specific: She wanted to spend months out of the year in Italy, producing olive oil and hosting friends. "And that was obviously very different than the path we were on." It was an interesting thought experiment that ultimately shifted their mindset. About six months later, while traveling in a camper van through New Zealand on their honeymoon, they passed the nights reading what Alto had recently downloaded to her Kindle — "Rich Dad Poor Dad" — and some of the author's core themes resonated. "It was really powerful. We were like: 'Oh, my gosh, this is it: We're employees, we trade our time for money, we're never going to be able to be in Italy for three months at a time because we're always going to have to be working,'" Alto said. "This future that I had kind of visualized six months before didn't work. The only way it works is if we have another source of income, outside medicine, that can replace part of our salaries so that we can have the freedom to take time off." The couple decided right then and there that when they returned home to Seattle, they'd start investing in real estate. Putting off a primary residence to buy investment properties Creating additional income by investing in real estate made sense for Alto and Asakura for a few reasons. One, Asakura already had experience. His parents were investors and, as a kid, "I remember going to rental properties, picking up checks, seeing my dad talk to tenants, things like that," he said. "I grew up with real estate, and pretty much as soon as I had money, I started investing." That came after medical school, when he worked as a management consultant for McKinsey & Company for a few years before completing his residency. Using savings from his salaried job, he and a friend started building a joint portfolio in the early 2000s and, like most property investors at the time, made a lot of money. "Real estate just appreciated like crazy, all the way up to around 2006, 2007, when things started slowing down," said Asakura, who was mainly buying and flipping land. "I'd buy a piece of land for like $100,000 and, six months later, I would sell it for $300,000. It was that crazy. It was just like 'The Big Short.'" When the recession hit, "my properties didn't cash flow, and I got stuck with a lot of mortgages, insurance payments, and property taxes. I was pretty much upside down on my properties," he said. The experience didn't deter him from reentering the real estate world years later alongside Alto. "I wasn't scared. If anything, I had confidence just because we had a plan. Mistakes are an expensive education, but it's the best education." In addition to Asakura's experience, the couple had the capital to invest in property. They'd planned to buy a primary home together and had already set aside cash for the down payment. But, after returning from the New Zealand trip in early 2015, they asked their agent to switch gears and help them find a rental property. They had a new, clear vision. "We wrote down our portfolio goal," Alto said. "We were like, we're going to own this many units and we're going to make this much cash flow." Buying and holding cash-flowing properties When Alto and Asakura started purchasing investment properties, their strategy revolved around two main principles: cash flow and forced appreciation. They use a cash-on-cash calculator that allows them to input metrics such as purchase price, expenses, and projected rents to predict a property's performance. They're less interested in how it's performing under the current owner. "What's really more important is knowing how it's going to run after you're done with it," Alto said. "We regularly buy properties that are negative or have really low cash-on-cash returns with the current owners. What we see is the potential for what it can become." They learned from Asakura's early investing days to never rely on market appreciation. They'd rather force appreciation on the property through improvements and upgrades, which isn't dissimilar to a flip, he said: "The difference is, a flipper sells, whereas we're holding. The other difference is that a flipper typically buys a property that'll never cash flow, whereas we're buying properties that are good flip projects but also cash flow." In 2015, using their down payment savings, they bought two duplexes outside Seattle, filled the units with tenants, and started generating rental income. They continued buying small, undervalued multifamily properties, used tax strategies to shield their income from taxes, and rolled their rental income, savings, and tax refunds into more properties. By 2017, they said, they were bringing in over six figures of rental cash flow. The next year, they started their blog, Semi-Retired MD, which would evolve into an online course specifically geared at doctors and high-income earners looking to invest in real estate. By 2021, they owned more than 150 personal units, and they partially own hundreds of other units through a handful of syndication deals. BI confirmed their property ownership, which consists of multifamily properties, commercial properties, and the syndication deals, by reviewing deeds and operating agreements. The couple were tenants themselves up until 2022, when they moved to Puerto Rico and bought their first primary residence together. They were never chasing big cash flow goals to sit on the beach all day. "Our goal was to buy ourselves time-freedom and to continue to contribute to the world and have purpose," said Alto, who worked in the hospital up until 2020 and now spends a chunk of her days running Semi-Retired MD. Asakura, who scaled back to part time in the hospital in 2015 to focus on real estate, spends his days managing their portfolio, and they now have more time to dedicate to each other and their kids. "I think about what my life could have been right now: driving to work, spending 12 hours away, and coming home late at night when the kids are asleep," Asakura said. "That's not how our lives are." Alto added: "We have our kids homeschooled. We travel six months a year as a family. We hang out with our kids in the mornings, we see them for lunch, and we see them for dinner every night. We never would have had any of that freedom." This story was originally published in June 2025. Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Reid Hoffman says vibe coding won't 'wipe out' productivity software
Reid Hoffman discussed vibe coding during the latest episode of his "Possible" podcast. Hoffman said the AI-generated coding practice won't "wipe out" productivity software. He said people "overpredict, in the new things, the death of the old." Vibe coding won't be a death sentence for productivity software. At least that's what LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman said during an episode of his "Possible" podcast released on Wednesday. Vibe coding, a term coined by OpenAI cofounder Andrej Karpathy this year, involves developers prompting AI to generate code. The trend has gained traction in Silicon Valley in recent months, and some companies have begun listing vibe coding as a necessary skill on job listings. While responding to a question about whether the longevity of technology, Hoffman said people "overpredict, in the new things, the death of the old." "Like, a classic one is when mobile started growing, people said PCs are over. And what happens is PCs grow—like mobile grows a lot more — but like PCs have continued," Hoffman said. Hoffman said new technology can coexist with older systems, and they can, in some ways, enhance each other. "For example, one of the memes right now is vibe coding is going to wipe out productivity software," Hoffman said. "What I think you'll see is productivity software will continue, and then vibe coding is going to add on to it." He added, "But it's not going to be like suddenly productivity software is going to go away. That's the pattern that people need to understand." Hoffman, a partner at venture capital firm Greylock Partners, also spoke about it from an investor's perspective. "'I want to bet on mobile, or I want to bet on, maybe, vibe coding," Hoffman said. "But it's a very standard pattern that what happens is, it persists for a while. And then, by the way, when it dies, it dies very quickly, in a smaller number of years." Representatives for Greylock Partners did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. Read the original article on Business Insider
