Espresso machine in Starbucks? - Page 3

May 17th, 2012, 2:33 pm

My biggest problem with the 'buks is that they had an opportunity to create a business model that could have educated Americans as to what espresso could be AND have a profitable business, but they chose to concentrate on profit and ignore the basic product. Maybe I am a bit touchy having been a teacher to 20+ years, but the missed educational opportunity is a sad thing, and even sadder is their product. They talk a good game, but a large number of their beverages are just unhealthy (sugar and fat).

They can run their business the way they see fit, and the customers can decide whether they want to buy Starbucks drinks or not. I don't see why they would have to educate anyone about coffee. You think their coffee is crap, but maybe royal Starbucks' customers think your coffee is crap. To each his own. I am afraid Starbucks bashing is becoming a fashionable thing to do among coffee snobs simply because it's a cheap and easy way to display one's supposed vast and superior knowledge of coffee. This is not saying there is no valid criticism of Starbucks' coffee or business model, but many that I have seen seems to be more a statement about the person making the criticism than about the thing that's being criticized. I am not saying this is the case with you, just a general observation.

#22: Post by **jonny** » May 17th, 2012, 2:42 pm

Paul to be honest, I think most people that are serious about coffee are over the whole "Starbucks sucks" thing by now. People still dwelling on it are living in the past. Duh, we (specialty coffee drinkers) don't like Starbucks! Why must we keep hashing it over? But as far as taste goes, there will always be personal preferences, so we can't argue what tastes better. But, as far as quality goes, it's obvious, and a dead horse at that. I don't mean to point fingers, but you started it!

May 17th, 2012, 3:48 pm

Paul to be honest, I think most people that are serious about coffee are over the whole "Starbucks sucks" thing by now. People still dwelling on it are living in the past. Duh, we (specialty coffee drinkers) don't like Starbucks! Why must we keep hashing it over? But as far as taste goes, there will always be personal preferences, so we can't argue what tastes better. But, as far as quality goes, it's obvious, and a dead horse at that. I don't mean to point fingers, but you started it!

I think we on this board can agree that Starbucks coffee is not the best tasting coffee. However the rest of the world may not share that view. While I do not agree with them, I see no problem in people preferring to drink whatever they want and professing their love for what they are drinking.

Now, I didn't start this discussion to bash or promote Starbucks. The discussion is supposed to be about the machine used in Starbucks shops. It would be interesting to know the specs of such machines.

#24: Post by **jonny** » May 17th, 2012, 4:07 pm

Just teasin' Paul. Did you see my post on page 2 with the link about the machine? That provides the most technical info you'll find. Not a whole lot of specs. I can tell you though that Starbucks have them set to grind 14-14.5 grams per double, 2 ounces yield in 18-23 seconds, and around 200-201 degrees, but it can drop to 198 with high demand. The boilers are pretty small. Probably around 4 liters total. Not sure what the brew pressure is ran at, but I'd guess a pretty standard 9 bar, but with the taste of the machine, it may be more like 10 bar. The grinders run 64mm steel burrs.

#25: Post by **joatmon** » May 17th, 2012, 4:26 pm

Randy G. wrote:Sure am. And I have a witness - Double-O posted photographic incriminating evidence:
<image>
Things are in motion for me to start teaching a beginners' blues harp class as well...

My biggest problem with the 'buks is that they had an opportunity to create a business model that could have educated Americans as to what espresso could be AND have a profitable business, but they chose to concentrate on profit and ignore the basic product. Maybe I am a bit touchy having been a teacher to 20+ years, but the missed educational opportunity is a sad thing, and even sadder is their product. They talk a good game, but a large number of their beverages are just unhealthy (sugar and fat).

For further damning evidence, spend some time HERE at the "I Hate Starbucks" BB. It is populated by employees using screen names to hide their identity.

You're OK in my book Randy. My 15 year old and I love the blues. He's a guitar player. We've seen Mac Arnold and Taj Mahal the last two weekends. Mac, a local guy, has an awesome blues harp player. Interesting fact - both Mac and Taj are farmers and believe in growing your own food. Mac's own collard greens were served at his show. But, I like other music - Trivium on Thursday night and Roger Waters in a few weeks.

#26: Post by **Grant** » May 17th, 2012, 6:01 pm

cannonfodder wrote:They use to use Marzocco's then got rid of them and went to super auto's. Guess they wanted to go from bad to horrible coffee, and they succeeded.

This is actually the first time I have ever disagreed with you...I think they improved from horrible to bad!

After getting my wife hooked on "good" espresso at home, she still often ends up at *$ with friends/co-workers. One day she commented that the coffee there was "not as bad as it used to be". Sure enough...the local franchises had shifted to the super-autos. After watching the ridiculously poor extractions with the old machines, I think the supers were actually an improvement here....