|
|
|
|
|
by Cd00d
3149 days ago
|
|
I'm taking (off topic) issue with the notion that Starbucks is not particularly high quality. Before Starbucks the options for coffee were almost universally limited to weak or burnt and stale bland Columbian beans. Starbucks is excellent at consistency (that was in the manual actually; I worked as a Starbucks barista for a year after college), to the extent that they replaced their skilled/training-required espresso machines with push button devices, but that does not diminish the overall more-than-acceptable quality. |
|
Starbucks is much better than the average Folgers-type diner coffee (in that it's not both totally burnt and weak), which was the previous point of comparison for most Americans. At best, a cup of Starbucks is merely strong. However, it's not remotely as good as something from a coffeeshop which tailors the whole process to highlight the quality of the ingredients and attention to detail in the process.
Of course, I perhaps do not appreciate the challenges of managing a global supply chain and making it scale to the size of Starbucks, but I would agree with gp's assertion their coffee is not particularly high quality.
[1] https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Starbucks-considered-bad-by-cof...