"Here, there are services that make life easier but not necessarily better, and that lose money every time they do business but exist thanks to their deep-pocketed investors."

It sounds like Prim did exactly what it was supposed to do: test the market. If there was indeed a strong enough market, they could work on creating a more efficient business without the need for outside capital. Investors are not in the business of throwing money away so people can get their laundry done, yet that seems to be exactly what the author is trying to say.

"Perhaps that money could be better spent helping people in need, and maybe so could the founders’ time."

Startups are incredibly capital efficient at testing needs. Even if there is nothing there, a lot of experience and knowledge is attained. Could such capital have been better allocated elsewhere? Probably not when you look at the potential upside.

If you think technology-enabled laundry service in San Francisco is a good idea, you might give Rinse (https://www.rinse.com) a shot. We have a focus on making sure the price and product work in a competitive market, and on using spectacular customer service and quality assurance to build a solid brand.

It's surprisingly difficult to build an efficient delivery service. To succeed you need knowledge of the peculiarities of the delivered goods, effective management of the delivery staff, and of course clever software. Route optimization and dispatch are interesting problems, but quality tools for drivers and other staff are just as important!

Through Prim, these Stanford grads invented low paying jobs with long hours, even by YC standards. I wish somebody would have told them what a terrible idea this is in advance--but more likely than not it would have fallen on deaf ears. People fall in love with the idea of being a startup founder and only hear what they want to hear.