Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time Magazine Starbucks rant

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Time Magazine Starbucks rant

    Ok, fess up.  Which one of us is moonlighting for  Time Magazine?  This "post"

    http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...593723,00.html

    seems to have all the acerbity of a Coffeesnob rant.

    --Robusto

  • #2
    Re: Time Magazine Starbucks rant

    Love it! ;D

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Time Magazine Starbucks rant

      What self respecting snob would drink that stuff anyway?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Time Magazine Starbucks rant

        Originally posted by Wushoes link=1172553130/0#2 date=1172554551
        What self respecting snob would drink that stuff anyway?
        Excellent point, Wushoes.

        But I say that being guilty of having condemned before trying. Many colleagues also tell me McDonalds is good -- again, I may never be in a position to prove them wrong. Or right.

        --Robusto

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Time Magazine Starbucks rant

          Ordered a ristretto from HQ at Monash Uni today. Almost cremaless swill. Wasnt the worst Ive had. They have a line of girls in a production line; one pulls shots, one steams, one pours. They use the red Espro tampers and 3 LM FB70s lined up. Looks impressive. But I was disappointed...the standard there is usually quite good even though they pump out coffees like machines. There was a decent barista there who used to pull good shots...but has since left.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Time Magazine Starbucks rant

            it seems like his main problem is that he cant have his starbucks coffee cause everyone wants it. I have tried starbucks once. I ordered a latte and it came in a 400ml paper cup, I could barely taste the coffee in it. was soooo milky, never again.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Time Magazine Starbucks rant

              Originally posted by robusto link=1172553130/0#3 date=1172554828
              Originally posted by Wushoes link=1172553130/0#2 date=1172554551
              What self respecting snob would drink that stuff anyway?
              Excellent point, Wushoes.

              But I say that being guilty of having condemned before trying. Many colleagues also tell me McDonalds is good -- again, I may never be in a position to prove them wrong. Or right.

              --Robusto
              Well... I was in Fitzroy on Saturday, waiting for my car. Spent hours window shopping. Went to McDonalds to use the ladies and felt obliged to buy something. I can now safely condemn the McDonalds coffee, having tried it. ;D

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Time Magazine Starbucks rant

                Just out of curiosity, Judy, what was it like?

                --Robusto

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Time Magazine Starbucks rant

                  Originally posted by muppet_man67 link=1172553130/0#5 date=1172561074
                  it seems like his main problem is that he cant have his starbucks coffee cause everyone wants it. I have tried starbucks once. I ordered a latte and it came in a 400ml paper cup, I could barely taste the coffee in it. was soooo milky, never again.
                  Yes I have been a victim there also, not only is it such a large cup it comes at a minimum temperature of scalding hot! So not only can you not taste that coffee you cant taste anything for the rest of the week. Last time I went to one I wanted to do some college work somewhere so I bought an OJ, from the bottle so they couldnt get it wrong

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Time Magazine Starbucks rant

                    Last I remembered, Maccas uses superautos.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Time Magazine Starbucks rant

                      When will someone invent a superauto that cleans its own steam wand?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Time Magazine Starbucks rant

                        The cafe part used to use semi-auto machines but now even they seem to be using some form of super-auto. The regular maccas have always used super-autos behind the counter though which dont even have a steam want. They put the milk in first than the shot in those machines as well (or maybe jsut later in the process but definately not first).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Time Magazine Starbucks rant

                          It also depends on the individual Maccas store. The one close to us does a decent drinkable coffee -- to a certain standard. And I guess that this is the point with such places: if you dont expect a boutique coffee house professional barista-made coffee, then you wont be disappointed. The important thing here seems to be expectations and whether they consistently produce the coffee to whatever the standard you expect from that type of establishment.
                          At my Maccas, I expect a lower standard than from the cafes I frequent, but I expect a higher standard of broth than the burnt-mud-scolded-milk-muck one gets all too often from no-name takeaway shops (and most cheap restaurants). What I like is that it is consistantly to that middle standard. While it is never fantabulous (as if!), it is never crap, either. It took me a while to work out that Maccas served two very similar, but crucially different ways of making coffee. The Pronto coffee that is more common is fully automatic including the milk frothing. The McCafe coffee is the same as the pronto, but a person hand-froths the milk, and this is where the quality can vary by individual store. My store has obviously trained its staff how to do this properly, but the next nearest store is not nearly so reliable.

                          I can understand how starbucks is popular in the US -- and even I am drawn by the name and the look of the stores and all the paraphernalia on sale -- but the coffee... yikes!!  :P
                          Gloria Jeans has a better look in its decor, but again... why pay so much for consistently burnt, weak, scalding hot blagh that youve got to dump 15 sugars into to make drinkable!?
                          And (why not do the full rant, Ive already gone this far!) it peeves me the way they demand your first name, make you order at one end of the counter (heaven forbid you try to order at the wrong end of the counter!) and then leave it on that little platform at the other end -- for you to finish off!! The first time I ordered a cappucino and it was dumped there without the chocolate powder -- I had to do it myself -- I felt decidedly put out. A very novel idea for promoting what was then a new franchise: offer the customer lower standards -- that should pull them in by droves! Strangely... it did. For some reason we like to go to Gloria Jeans, we like to be seen in Gloria Jeans 8-). We just dont like the coffee!  :-?

                          Well, thats it for now. All ranted out.  

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Time Magazine Starbucks rant

                            Well some places leave chocolate on the bar so u can have the option of dusting it yourself or having an italian style no choc business

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Time Magazine Starbucks rant

                              Good rant, Meanbean. Hopefully it was a cathartic experience which has lightened your emotional baggage! Coffeesnobs can be therapeutic.

                              --Robusto

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X