Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing competition in the food delivery market, likening it to a war where companies are heavily investing to increase market share and order volume, with a focus on the strategic implications of this "war" for the industry as a whole [1][2][3]. Group 1: Market Dynamics - The food delivery market is experiencing intense competition, with companies planning to invest over 50 billion yuan to increase daily order volume from 100 million to 250 million [1]. - The competition is characterized by aggressive subsidies and marketing strategies, leading to concerns about the sustainability of such practices and the potential for market bubbles [2][5]. - The profit margins in the food delivery industry are low, with total industry profits last year amounting to 30 billion yuan, significantly lower than the 600 billion yuan in e-commerce profits [5][6]. Group 2: Strategic Positioning - Meituan, as the market leader, emphasizes its operational efficiency and ability to provide subsidies at a lower cost, positioning itself as a rational player in an irrational market [2][6]. - Competitors like Alibaba and JD.com are portrayed as challengers willing to disrupt the existing market structure through aggressive capital investment and subsidies [7][8]. - The article suggests that the competition has evolved from a focus on food delivery to a broader battle for control over local life infrastructure, likening it to controlling a city's road network [8][9]. Group 3: Future Outlook - The article posits that the current state of competition may lead to a "trench warfare" scenario, where the outcome depends on the efficiency of resource consumption rather than quick tactical victories [11][12]. - The potential for a ceasefire is contingent on the realization of unsustainable costs associated with continued competition, as companies face pressure from both internal and external factors [17][20]. - The concept of "sunk costs" plays a significant role in the decision-making of companies, making it difficult for them to withdraw from the competition without acknowledging previous investments as losses [18][21].

Group 1 - The article draws a parallel between the current food delivery market competition and the historical context of World War I, emphasizing the escalating nature of the competition among major players like Meituan, Alibaba, and JD [3][11] - Meituan's core business leader, Wang Pu Zhong, highlights the significant financial investments exceeding 50 billion yuan planned by competitors to increase daily order volume from 100 million to a record 250 million [3][12] - Wang argues that the ongoing competition is harmful to the industry and suggests that it leads to unsustainable practices, ultimately resulting in market bubbles [4][9] Group 2 - Meituan claims a competitive advantage in operational efficiency, allowing it to provide subsidies at a lower cost compared to its rivals, which is a result of ten years of experience [5][7] - The article discusses the strategic conflict between incumbents like Meituan, who aim to maintain stability and profitability, and challengers like Alibaba and JD, who are willing to use aggressive capital strategies to disrupt the market [11][26] - The competition has evolved from merely capturing the food delivery market to controlling the infrastructure of local life services, indicating a shift in strategic objectives among the players [12][14] Group 3 - The current competition is characterized as a "trench warfare," where success depends on efficiency and resilience rather than quick tactical victories [15][18] - Meituan's strategy involves leveraging its system capabilities to target subsidies effectively, thereby minimizing costs while maximizing impact [19][20] - The ongoing battle is complicated by internal and external pressures, including the need for companies to justify their substantial investments and the potential for regulatory intervention in cases of market distortion [30][31] Group 4 - The article concludes that the power dynamics in the competition are fluid, with no single entity holding the "ceasefire power," as all players are caught in a cycle driven by their investments and market pressures [33][34] - The potential for a ceasefire will arise when the costs of continuing the competition outweigh the benefits, but currently, the balance has not been achieved [25][28]