[shaftoe]

Actually, free markets do lead to better products. But they cost more than the worse products.

Look at coffee. The gradual shift from Arabica to more Robusta beans over a generation. Each year, an imperceptible shift was taken that, over decades, lead to coffee that tastes terrible. Opening the door for companies like Starbucks and a ton of gourmet roasters to compete.

But properly roasted, single origin coffee costs more than Chock-full-o'nuts. So you have options.

[hinkley]

I react poorly to some coffees and not others. I've been told by people who claim to know that some people can't stomach Robusta as well as they can Arabica. And I'll be damned if I know how to track which one I'm actually getting.

I've surrendered and just drink tea and chai now.

[amelius]

The only thing that Starbucks did for coffee was that children now also love to drink it.

In fact their coffee doesn't taste like coffee, but more like mocha/hazelnut ice cream.

[noirbot]

Are you talking about their black coffee? Or their other sorts of drinks that are often less than 50% actual coffee? Because if anything, the usual complaint about literal coffee at Starbucks from people who like coffee is it tastes too much like coffee, in the sense of being over-roasted and uninteresting. Even their blonde roast is still at best a medium roast at any other modern roaster.

[Retric]

Today’s Starbucks is well removed from its origins. Starbucks was never great coffee, but I’ve heard it started out pretty decent.

Much like how McDonalds, KFC, etc started by making decent food so did Starbucks. Add 40+ years of optimizing for the bottom line and the average person’s pallet and you get a very different product.

[hinkley]

I am a bitter taster. It took me years of having chocolate in my coffee to work up to a latte. And even then I tended to adulterate it with hazelnut.

Cold brew is better, but not as much as afficionadoes sold me on. I can still taste the bitters.