There's this new flavour of coffee in Starbucks!

Sigh.

oh no!! somewhere nice and warm to have coffee and buns and chat!! oh no!!

Let's do emphasize that two of them cost more than my lunch.

Why Is Starbucks Evil?

coffee @ brick lane is much better 'cos it's got nice spacious sofas and you can sink into them and do interesting things and forget that the coffee has spilled down your instep.

Starbucks to begin sinister 'Phase Two' of operation.

kate that google leads to loads of other interweb mentalist messageboards!!

Just like ... erm, My Bloody Valentine and Britney Spears. Wait a minute...

the only difference is that starbucks hasn't put the other coffeeshops in olympia out of business. i wonder if the same will hold true when fucking subway moves in nextdoor to the only sandwich shop in town.

As Jess says, I think the main gripe is that they have put so many mom and pop coffee houses out of business by serving.. better coffee? But this is hardly a new phenomenon. Personally, I'd be more pissed off at someone like Boots (not multinational, I know, but they do now have an almost total grip on the pharmacy market in the UK) and they are expensive and horrid.

Actually I think it's just cause of the name 'Starbucks' - it reeks.

I don't drink in Starbucks cause you can't smoke.

it shd have been called AHABS!!

you can't smoke anywhere in america now N. so it's kind of a moot point. and now it's getting too cold to sit outside.

100,000 ones simply switchs the megacorp evil over to the multinational distributors (haha indie is always a species of collusion not a species of resistance < / popist fanatic soapbox > )

(i mean responsible bio-variation in that sense means switching back to elderberry tea made by yr aunt from deepest derbyshire)

"Everyone I know in the trade is scratching their heads and wondering how they're actually making any money," says Anita Le Roy, owner of the London-based Monmouth Street Coffee Company. "They have such amazingly good sites, where the rental must be huge, and a high level of staffing, they pay well - you'd have to sell an enormous number of cups of coffee to make a profit. But it works."

Maybe they really are a front for something else.

on the news not FIVE MINUTES AGO: "UCLA researchers claim that lifetime coffee drinkers outclassed non-coffee drinkers @ aged 80 in 8 out of 10 mental agility tests"!!

so five months ago, when i first got my laptop, i set about finding a public place where i could go to set up shop and work on my book. to my dismay, the *only* coffee shop in the neighborhood that a) was remotely welcoming and b) had electrical outlets available for customers (!) was starbucks.

to my waning embarrassment (the starbucks stigma - yuppie haven + corporate evildoer - has been inexorably drilled into me), i've spent a significant portion of time in that one spot over the last half year, sometimes upwards of 50 hours a week. (the recent onion headline "guy with laptop always at coffee shop" hurt me in my heart).

of course, there's a generous amount of sunday morning yuppies (four dollar tarts!) and latte-swilling i-banker types frequently swarming around the premises. i expected this. what i didn't expect was to be discover a group of divergent regulars who rank among some of the most interesting people i've met since living in toronto. among them: T - a womanizing Russian amateur comedian with unruly sideburns and multiple sclerosis, K - a South African immigrant/freelance designer with a rich travelogue and an admittedly curious attraction to men who look somewhat fish-like, M - a young actress from Florida with a penchant for astrology and wearing clown noses in public, A - a local filmmaker currently shooting a documentary on T, B - a ponytailed trust fund fiftysomething who rides his bike everywhere and reads newspapers voraciously, L - a middle-aged italian contractor/lawyer who ranks among one of the most charming and deeply unhappy people i've ever met. the list goes on! there's a whole cast of supporting characters who swarm in and out of the scene at random. strange, wonderful things happen frequently, just from people talking.

anyway, i used to drive by and kneejerk: 'corporate evil'. now i only think that way when others shame me into it: "dude, you're at STARBUCKS!?" problem is, i like it there. and nobody else but me seems to worry about the connotation. their collective reasoning is simple: there's nowhere else to go!

The effects of that poll still linger, I see. And "Baby One More Time" is STILL LACKING A HOOK. *awaits cries of outrage*

I'm with Gareth in general. The most coffee I've ever had consistently was in Dunedin, and that was only every other day (in between hot chocolate, beer and wine).

The difference between that and Starbucks is like the difference between the home-cooking restaurant and McDonald's. I don't think that in itself would have been a problem for people if Starbucks' emergence had been a slow shift. But the onward march of Starbucks was sudden and devastating, taking places that really did care about their local coffeeshops in the community fashion and refashioning them into the sorts of places where one Starbucks sits on the other side of a block from another. They're hated mainly for their ability to do that: the fact that they were like a battle front, where people had to sit powerless and watch their immediate coffeeshop environment change drastically and rapidly.

As far as the city/rural thing, well: if you live in a city the Starbucks are bothersome mostly through their ubiquity (seriously, adjacent blocks some places!), but you're more likely to have even options on either side. If you live in a town small enough that you couldn't get a latte before, not much reason to complain, unless you're the sort of crotchety Nebraskan who thinks foamy coffee drinks are part of California's plot to turn the whole nation into crystal-wearing Volvo-driving bisexuals. The real effect is in mid-sized towns, where there is a sense of "community" to coffeeshops and the sudden emergence of a Starbucks has the power to blow that all immediately away.

That said, I've always hated arguments against corporations based on this: the truth is that competition between your local store and Starbucks takes place on a generally even field, and Starbucks succeeds because (maybe sadly), the bulk of people would rather go there -- the free market speaks. And I think Starbucks has accomplished this by mentally reframing our idea of what "gourmet" coffee drinks are about. They turned them into a grab-and-go consumer item; your mom-and-pop could only really survive by turning them into community fixtures, the exact opposite. And since great bulks of cash-weilding people have jobs and homes and kids, their coffee-buying can't involve "community fixture" -- their community fixtures are their own living rooms and televisions. There will always be more consultants grabbing coffee on their way to work than people who care (or can afford) to spend a nice leisurely communal time at the local.

more like a "drip"

which is why i don't drink that shit

next time i go to starbucks, i'm gonna order an americano but ask them instead of adding the water from the tap, to just force it through some coffee grounds at high pressure. i mean, it's the same thing, right?

-- gabbneb, Thursday, April 17, 2008 1:04 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

No, that would be a giant cup of espresso.

lol like anybody can tell the difference

excuse me, next time i go to starbucks, i'm gonna order an americano but ask them instead of adding the water from the tap, to just drip it through some coffee grounds. i mean, it's the same thing, right?

No, that would be a Red Eye (drip coffee with a shot of espresso)

exactly

I like hydration, that's why I drink concentrated orange juice with water added instead of regular orange juice.

Is basically what youre saying.

i wasn't aware that orange juice was dehydrating

I wasn't aware that espresso wasn't.

No, an americano is a diffuse espresso. You're forcing hot water through a fine grind. Drip coffee uses a slightly coarser grind and the water slowly moves through the grinds -- you're not steeping it tea-style, but the grinds get immersed by the dripping and the end product filters through.

You also have the difference of it going through a porta-filter versus it going through a drip coffee filter.

So no, it's not the same thing.

No, it isn't the same thing, but assuming the same volume and roughly the same caffiene content, one drink isn't going to be more "hydrating" than the other.

Agreed, the relative strength (and dehydrating power) of an americano and a cup of drip coffee of the same volume will be equal. The "orange juice from concentrate: versus "fresh squeezed orange juice" analogy is good and I'm not sure why it's not obvious.

pls refer to my 'i would never drink drip coffee' post, k thx bye

the drinks i am comparing are 1) espresso and 2) espresso with ice and water

pls refer to your post where you're all like:

by "burnt flavor," you mean "I like weak-tasting espresso"

..which makes no sense, since you advocated espresso that's diluted right after that. That was after you conflated what we called "burnt" flavor with espresso, when espresso really is only made with darker roasts in some chains, and darker roasts still don't taste burnt.

Origin
One popular explanation for the name is that it was originally intended as an insult to Americans, who wanted their espresso diluted. During the Second World War, American occupational forces in Italy searched for the "cup of joe" they were accustomed to at home, which local baristas tried to emulate for them.[1] If this is the case, many American coffee drinkers are either unaware of or unfazed by the derogatory nature of the name, even in some cases going so far as to misinterpret americano as being a uniquely American way to drink espresso[citation needed]. Regardless of the true origins of the name, it is clear that americano was not popular in the United States until the explosion of chain coffeehouses, such as Starbucks, in the 1990s. Even now, Americano is far from the most popular coffee drink consumed in U.S. coffeehouses.

the drinks you are comparing are in no where referenced on this thread by anyone before you, since we're talking about pike's roast

dude, pls refer to my not giving a shit about making you udnerstand

Ok, I think we can all agree that an Americano is more hydrating than a shot of espresso.

I really, really like a nice watery iced Americano with a little milk on a hot day.

I'm surprised to see people ordering iced lattes in the summer, because the coldness defeats the purpose of frothy milk, doesn't it?

I do like really strong espresso though (wtf is the difference between this and "weak espresso"), and if I'm sitting around a coffeeshop and not just passing through through, that's usually what I order. Espresso shouldn't taste burnt either, although you can do that with the wrong beans, too. Strong espresso flavor == concentrated coffee goodness.

coffee aspies ahoy

conflated what we called "burnt" flavor with espresso

to be fair, MOST places you go and order espresso are going to burn it. Or overdraw it and make it bitter. Or something rong and fucked up.

http://movieimage3.tripod.com/mulholland/mulholland09.jpg

that is actually my college roommate

oh ffs

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i191/fluxion23/mulholland09.jpg

hm. I may be in need of some espresso myself. :(

Chicago-specific tip, but a real tip nonetheless: these kids know what espresso is supposed to taste like.

http://www.metropoliscoffee.com/

And they are young and hip to boot!

I'm surprised to see people ordering iced lattes in the summer, because the coldness defeats the purpose of frothy milk, doesn't it?

this is why i usually order two shots on ice. then add my own milk it's a lot cheaper. iced latte doesn't make any sense cause i don't think anyone steams milk just to put it on ice.

It's possible to pour froth on top of an iced drink, but I agree that it's kind of pointless.

I finally tried Joe recently - pretty good!

Having it around the corner from where I'm going to be in school but having to avoid it because I won't have the money is kind of a yiddish curse.

What makes the Italian blends different? First of all, most are lighter roasted than their American counterparts, sometimes dramatically so. Perhaps more importantly, Italian (and European roasters generally) apply heat during roasting in different ways than do American roasters. Many Italian roasters, for example, interrupt the roasting after the free moisture has been forced out of the beans but before the roast transformation begins (what American roasters call "the dwell"), then resume the roasting after the beans have cooled. The general impact of this practice is to mute acidity, but it doubtless impacts blend flavor profile in other ways as well. Italian roasters also may pursue other practices before and after roasting that doubtless affect sensory profile, like allowing green beans composing a blend to "marry," or sit together and stabilize their collective moisture before roasting, or allowing roasted beans a longer period of rest or degassing before packaging.

Nevertheless, what to me mainly appears to drive the difference between these Italian blends and typical American blends is the character of the green coffees that make up the blends.

Most of these Italian blends (Illy is the exception) clearly make effective and imaginative use of coffees of the robusta species, whereas the three benchmark American blends consist entirely of coffees of the arabica species. Although some American specialty roasters are beginning to make cautious use of clean-profiled, neutral-tasting wet-processed robustas in their espresso blends, many of these Italian blends also appear to incorporate some fruity, edge-of-ferment dry-processed or "natural" robustas, a coffee type so completely relegated to cheap commercial coffee in the United States that an American specialty roaster would be hard put even to find a high-quality version to try in its blends.

The Illy Difference

At the other extreme from the Italian with-robusta camp stands Illy, which uses only coffees of the arabica species and attacks robustas as relentlessly as the Pope attacks contraceptives. However, Illy composes its all-arabica blends with a deft subtlety that escapes most American roasters. Illy buys coffees that are naturally sweet, low in acidity and roasts them lighter than most American specialty roasters roast their drip blends. Above all, Illy makes skillful use of naturally low-acid Brazil coffees, particularly those processed by removing the skin and often some of the fruit pulp before drying the beans - coffee types that Brazilians call respectively pulped natural and semi-washed, coffees that doubtlessly contribute the sort of silky delicacy and cleanly fruity top notes that are a hallmark of the Illy blends.

http://www.coffeereview.com/article.cfm?ID=135

whether it's starbucks or something else, and no matter how much i water it down, i don't want the light, fruity, primarily robusta espresso i might sip at an italian sidewalk cafe, i want the acidic, carbon ("burnt" "over-roasted"), arabica flavor i've been drinking since age 12 in seattle.

this is why i usually order two shots on ice

there are people who think that this is what an americano is and bully some locations into departing from the program

I prefer a good balance of carbon/roast flavor and fruity flavor. Lately I've been using this:

http://portorico.com/store/product1154.html

which I've been pretty happy with.

Starbucks to cheapen brand further with introduction of instant coffee

The real question is, is anyone going to want to pay ten bucks for twelve pre-measured packages of instant freakin' coffee? Instant is instant, and I've resorted to it myself a few times, but only because it's cheap. You have to flex some serious branding muscle if you want to put the words "instant" and "expensive" together.

prefer folgers to starbucks as it is, are they going to pre-scorch the coffee crystals i wonder?

Starbucks is introducing this new 60-ounce drink in New England only -- it's called the Mass Mocha

They're gonna open a coffeehouse-by-day-wine-bar-at-night in Chicago this fall.

http://gothamist.com/2012/01/02/starbucks_bottles_used_as_molotov_c.php

feel like this is a good symbol for the age we live in

, man

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/companies/starbucks-bugs/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3

hahahahahahahahahaha

Wow, that gabbneb espresso/americano debate upthread is some terrible reading across the board.

omg how had I never actually read that before

that is an amazing exchange

way funnier than "Starbucks makes food pink via crushed bugs"

he's been drinking coffee since age 12

in seattle

He's been drinking watered-down, pink bug espresso since age 12.

The water-soluble form [of cochineal] is used in alcoholic drinks with calcium carmine; the insoluble form is used in a wide variety of products. Together with ammonium carmine, they can be found in meat, sausages, processed poultry products (meat products cannot be coloured in the United States unless they are labeled as such), surimi, marinades, alcoholic drinks, bakery products and toppings, cookies, desserts, icings, pie fillings, jams, preserves, gelatin desserts, juice beverages, varieties of cheddar cheese and other dairy products, sauces, and sweets.[29]