Hey, awesome to hear your perspective and your multiple reasons! I had already written about multiple points how I either didn't agree or saw some points that kinda lost their merit, but I accidentally closed out the tab before finishing the comment properly.
In order to keep it brief, I thought I'd just give a quick response to the points I said before. Sorry if it's too short. I don't expect you to take the time to write back to begin with, but if anything is unclear on my end, feel free to point it out :D
It's convenient. I don't have to think what I'll prepare for the dinner tonight, because I don't have a fantasy for it, but I don't like to eat the same meal that I know how to cook over and over.
I felt that it isn't exclusive to ordering food to begin with. If anything, the argument loses its merit since you also have to cook it. The entertainment that comes from cooking is obviously separate from the convenience, I'd say.
With boxes, you have a new recipe every time, and you have an exact amount of food, spices, butter, sour cream, etc. No food waste. No need to think about what to cook, no need to create a shopping list, and after that, no need to cook from leftovers.
Totally agree, main reason these services are so appealing.
I also can tell if you live alone, it's not worth it for most people, so I think couples and families — main customers.
I had a look at the prices beforehand and yeah, either it's for a family of four or two people, which is a bit more than just limiting.
About takeouts from cafes: you have to leave tips anyway, even if it's a takeout + you don't know what's exactly inside (some "healthy food" even contains sugar or sweetener, lol) + and the main problem: food from Blue Apron is much tastier (ofc, it's subjective). So, I don't find it nor healthier nor cheaper. Only quicker.
My point here was basically that healthy restaurants are a dime a dozen these days thanks to the market shifting to healthy alternatives. These subscription services literally exist solely because that trend exists. If this wasn't a thing, Blue Apron wouldn't be either. Plus, you can ask for nutritional info and ingredients from those locations. If they don't respond, you can just move on to another place, if that truly bothers you as much. If that truly is a problem, then Blue Apron should scare the hell out of you to begin with since as far as I'm aware, they never even tell you where they source things and they don't have all the information on each single ingredient. Perhaps I'm wrong here though, but the website didn't seem to say they did.
As for not being quicker... since when can you cook a meal in 1 minute? Or is it unfair if you order a meal, but fair if you order Blue Apron?
As to the price, you're in the US, so that's basically just 50 different countries inside each other, so prices can fluctuate a lot. But if the total averages have anything to do with it, then the prices are either equal or just a few cents cheaper (if you took the 3-per-week package, not even the 2-per-week, which would make the service definitively more expensive, except in the top 7 most expensive parts of America)
When someone compares Blue Apron's meal's cost with going to the restaurant: well, what can I say.. McDonald's is a restaurant too..
It's a non-argument. If a Tesla's a car, it doesn't make it less of a car when a Trabant's also a car. If all it takes for you to write off an entire classification of businesses, then you're literally so screwed because using that method with anything else would also lead you to this point. You can't get a Blue Apron delivery now because drug mules are technically in the delivery service, so scratch that off your list.
Anyway, with 3 meals per week subscription, you have chances to do and takeouts, and go to the restaurants, and cook for yourself, so it's not like 'only Blue Apron and nothing else in your life'.
I mean, fair enough, but if this is the case, then odds are you're in an upper-middle class situation to begin with, in which case money isn't a real object for these smaller payments, in which case the restriction it would place on others would not be an issue for you anymore. Of course, doesn't make the point less valid, but what you're describing isn't a realistic option for most of the US.
About packages: what's inside the box — easily comparable to an average person's amount of plastic bags and packs from a grocery store. You get most vegetables without additional plastic bags (unlike when you go to a supermarket), but yeah, you got 100g of rice in a separate package. But you can recycle it with other plastic bags anyway.
I mean, there's a lot wrong here. Perhaps America's legit that much different, but since when is that the case? Can you not buy things more than one at a time there or something? Like, when you get a carrot, that you maybe get a second one and put it in the same package? If that can happen, then you've immediately killed the argument because the amount of waste produced was sliced in half. A literal 50% drop. Perhaps America really does things that terribly, but I just can't see that happening when half the dietary problems in your country are caused by enlarged portion sizes.
Plus, recycling isn't some magic process where things just get fixed. A huge portion of plastic bags can't even be recycled and obviously they don't really decompose. Just saying "I'll recycle" after creating multiple times more waste is not a bandage to what's happening. At least food waste decomposes at an extremely rapid rate compared to the extra plastics. (though obviously still not a good alternative)
I appreciate the response however. It's good to hear new perspectives and just because I don't agree with everything, doesn't mean we don't have common ground or that we can't just respect each others ideas and thoughts. Thank you :)
