Hacker News Reader

Comment by osullish | Hacker News Reader

Not sure if it's an issue localised to Ireland, but I've avoided Starbucks since I started seriously drinking coffee - not because of the price, but any cup I've had (and they're more akin to buckets) has had that bitter finish that over roasted/burnt beans bring to the table. Still the way Dublin is going, it's going to be hard to avoid places like Starbucks, Cafe Nero etc. soon - smaller places being priced out of the market.

View on HN

Don't remember where I heard it, but I was told that Starbucks has actually decent quality beans that they overroast way too far. What a waste. Your experience seems to agree with what I heard.

I think over roasting allows companies to sell beans from different regions/sources as one batch. Can't tell the difference when everything has the same burnt consistency.

That's a pity, sacrificing quality and end user experience to squeeze another dollar out of the system. Reminds me of Cadbury chocolate, when I was a kid it was incredible - a real treat. Now it's waxy mush full of palm oil, all to squeeze more profits.

You can still find beans that are roasted properly from smaller roasters that use smaller batches. When I'm in doubt, I'll go for for light roast or a flavored medium roast. Light will have the most caffeine, but more acidic.

This is so oddly relatable to scaling an internet business. At least it leaves some space for niche players.

Absolutely my experience with Starbucks. Their default Pike Roast drip coffee is black as pitch and tastes like pure carbon. It could very well act as a smelling salt to snap one out of stupor or slumber.

Their lattes are a treat, though. A white mocha, pumpkin spice, or in the winter, a creme brulee latte are all divine. Basically hot milkshakes.

Yep, it is the same in Berlin. There are local roasteries such as The Barn who make amazing coffee drinks from lightly roasted beans. The coffee has almost a fruity taste, it is so good.

I just got back from the US and had Starbucks a few times. The coffee was almost an exact opposite from that. Bitter, bland and burnt. Luckily we visited Seattle that has some good coffee culture still left, but I really don't get the popularity of Starbucks.

Given how popular it is, I have to assume that Americans simply like coffee that way.

I'm an American although not a big fan of Starbucks (I like to brew my coffee at home), but I definitely prefer dark roasted coffee and buy my beans that way.

The open secret is that Americans don’t drink the coffee forward drinks. They drink sugar syrup options.

Starbucks is in the business of selling milk, mainly. That’s where they make the most money. If you’re going to serve someone a “coffee” drink with 30 oz. of dairy, the espresso has to be as black as tar or it won’t be tasted at all. This is the main reason Starbucks roasts the coffee as they do.

The second reason is cheap consistency: it’s harder to do a medium roast blend and get a reliable flavor profile than to just burn everything to ash.

I hear this complaint a lot but Starbucks has done a ton of testing and studies to arrive at their process. They may not appeal to “serious” coffee drinkers, but it is engineered to appeal to the general public. Personally I’ve found their coffees “fine” and inoffensive, and the consistency has given it a place for me.

That said, I do think it’s getting too expensive for what it is. Maybe there are good reasons like living wages for workers or whatever, but it also means I am more likely to just have coffee at home.

The problem is not only with Starbucks though, personally I see lots of commercially roasted beans were over roasted and thus the brews resulted are just brownish bitter water.

What about Blonde Roast? It's whole lot smoother in my opinion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com