

Starbucks instant coffee reviewed, almost nauseating - thomas
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/feb/19/zoe-williams-coffee-starbucks-instant

======
staunch
Pre-ground coffee and a french press is still damn good and damn near as quick
to make as instant. I really don't understand drinking instant coffee at home
-- in a war zone _maybe_ (then again, even in Blackhawk Down I think he got a
brew going, didn't he?)

~~~
moe
_in a war zone maybe_

Well, I _am_ in warzone, I'm founding a startup! ;-) No, on a more serious
note: I'm drinking the instant stuff (Nescafe Gold, fwiw) for half a year
since my coffee-maker broke down - and I actually like it.

I find it tastes merely different, not necessarily worse, than the stuff that
my former capsule machine ("Dolce Gusto") and the regular powder-through-
filter setup spit out.

It's obviously no comparison to a fullblown espresso maker that meals the
beans on the fly but since I can't afford the latter I don't find the instant
stuff much worse than the listed alternatives. All of them merely taste
reminiscent of real coffee anways - so I can just as well drink the cheapest
option.

------
paulhart
It appears to me that SBUX has lost sight of the premise (at least in my
opinion) that what they're selling is an experience, and people pay for the
experience by buying a coffee. As with any other franchise or franchise-like
operation, the "secret sauce" is to make the experience bland enough for it to
appeal to a large segment of the population, and consistent enough that people
will have their expectations met regardless of which location you visit.

I seem to recall that their CEO wrote a scathing internal memo a while back
about where the company has gone, but as a publicly traded entity they've
become conditioned to see profit as their only goal.

BTW, I'm a semi-fan, at least to the extent that I needed to hang out
somewhere for a while today, and the first place that came to mind was SBUX (I
wanted wifi, and coffee was welcome too).

------
jrockway
OT, but the key to instant coffee is to "brew" it with milk. It kills the
acidity and makes it somewhat drinkable.

Of course, if you don't have some sort of way to make one cup of real coffee,
you don't deserve good flavor ;)

(I use this:
[http://www.bodumusa.com/shop/line.asp?MD=1&GID=3&LID...](http://www.bodumusa.com/shop/line.asp?MD=1&GID=3&LID=152&CHK=&SLT=&mscssid=2F1G647M9HPP8GEUTAAGVN0G3KR4BDF3)
... and now you have my session id :P )

~~~
pwk
I've been using the AeroPress: <http://www.aerobie.com/Products/aeropress.htm>
\-- an odd gadget from the inventor of the Aerobie. It's pretty quick to use,
results are off in the direction of an Americano, and it's really easy to
clean. I'm happy with the coffee it makes, though I'm no expert.

~~~
tortilla
I just started using one about a month ago. I love it. Coffee is good to
great. Previously I used a French Press with decent results, but didn't enjoy
the sludge and cleanup.

You can hack the Aeropress by inverting it:
[http://coffeepress.blogspot.com/2006/12/aeropress-
redux.html...](http://coffeepress.blogspot.com/2006/12/aeropress-
redux.html#c116769524051534798)

------
sounddust
Why didn't they just put coffee grounds in a tea bag and sell it that way? It
seems like it would produce instant coffee almost on par with regular drip.
They might have to adjust the density of the bag's paper, but that's about it.

~~~
captainobvious
If you google "coffee tea bag" the first link explains why not: "Unlike tea
leaves, coffee grains release little flavor unless they come into contact with
water that is not only hot but also agitated. The water may simply flow
through a sock filled with ground coffee, or it may be thrust up through a
percolator, but it must be moving. This limitation has traditionally made
brewing coffee by the cup messy and inefficient."

~~~
jrockway
_Unlike tea leaves, coffee grains release little flavor unless they come into
contact with water that is not only hot but also agitated. The water may
simply flow through a sock filled with ground coffee, or it may be thrust up
through a percolator, but it must be moving._

I'm not sure I buy this explanation. How does the coffee know if the water is
moving? Also, the water isn't moving in a french press, but it still brews
excellent coffee.

(I think the real answer has to do with the rate of diffusion and the
saturation of the coffee/water solution. Near the grounds, the saturation is
higher, and that water will extract less coffee from the grounds. Move that
saturated water away, and more coffee can be extracted. I guess the teabag
makes that diffusion even slower, resulting in incomplete extraction.)

 _This limitation has traditionally made brewing coffee by the cup messy and
inefficient._

I also don't buy this. Single-cup french presses and drip aperatuses are not
particularly messy or inefficient. You put a spoonful of coffee in them, add
boiling water, and wait. Rinse, repeat. :)

------
captainobvious
If anyone wants great instant coffee try cold-brew, you can buy it in
refrigerated condensed liquid form, just search Amazon for N.O. Brew, I used
to swear by this stuff. It was also great for making cold coffee drinks.

------
hapless
This could be the best instant coffee ever developed, and it would still be
branding suicide. It would be like Coach bringing out a Wal-mart exclusive
line.

Starbucks is, at its heart, an aspirational brand. There's nothing
aspirational about instant coffee.

Whether the product does or does not suck worse than Nescafe really doesn't
matter. Competing with Nescafe is a problem in itself.

------
Silentio
I don't understand why Starbucks would release instant coffee at a time when
it is being criticized for getting too far away from its core business,
namely, good coffee. The title of this post might as well read, "instant
coffee: almost always nauseating." This is a huge error on Starbuck's part.
It's not going to kill the brand, obviously, but it can't help.

