Actor Everett labels Starbucks a 'cancer'

HarryKeogh said:
They have one location.
Click to expand...

[NITPICK]Technically that doesn't answer the question. They may have opened innumerable locations in the past few years, only to close them.

Also, the current open location may or may not have been opened in the past few years.[/NITPICK]

Aaron
 
Polaris said:
I said to myself, f*** you guys, I'm gonna go home and brew my own damn coffee, so I can save the environment, my hand, and some money.
Click to expand...

It's a shame you didn't say it out loud (minus the profanity). You might have saved them a chapter 8.

As I get older, I've become more and more likely to honestly answer the question the cashier almost always asks, "So how was everything?" But if they don't ask, I don't tell. I'm nice that way.
 
CFLarsen said:
Oh, this thread. I'm sure it's just an oversight on your part.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't answer your questions because I din't see them as advancing any dialogue.

Typically, engaging you ends discussion in any thread, so I only engage you when the topic is something silly like bombing funerals or fabricating pork based weaponry.

In that thread, I declined to respond to your questions because I didn't want to get into an endless spiral of being asked question where only you perceive the relevance or digging into minutia of word meanings that only you seem to have a problem with.

CFLarsen said:
Two contradicting claims obviously cannot both be true.
Click to expand...

That's only true if you believe in absolutes. Real life is much more complicated that than.

Obviously small business can compete with national chains. Obviously if it were not true, we would never have any new businesses.

At the same time, it's also true that national chains have advantages over small business, and make it very hard for them to compete.
 
Memphis didn't have coffee shops before Starbucks came. In fact, Starbucks created the market for fast-gourmet-coffee in Memphis. Too bad more coffee shops don't try to replicate that success and get a piece of that market instead of just trying to legislate Starbucks out of business.

That said, I don't get the allure of coffee for 5 bucks. I was looking at the growth of starbucks outlets since the last recession and its exponential. I'm guessing they will be a victim of the next recession.
 
CFLarsen said:
Originally Posted by Geckko View Post
I assume by you mean to imply that Betamax was a "superior prouct" to VHS. Do you have any evidence to support that claim?
Click to expand...
Of course:
...albeit Beta has superior video quality to VHS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

"Superior video quality" and "superior product" are two different terms meaning two different things. Even assuming that the superior video quality claims are true, that does not automatically mean it was a superior product.

CFLarsen said:
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/onl...881780,00.html
Click to expand...
Historical revisionism by a Luddite. Feh!
Click to expand...

Revisionism because it disagrees with you about "superior video quality" or because it points out VHS features other than video quality that were superior to Beta?
 
Mycroft said:
No, I didn't answer your questions because I din't see them as advancing any dialogue.

Typically, engaging you ends discussion in any thread, so I only engage you when the topic is something silly like bombing funerals or fabricating pork based weaponry.


In that thread, I declined to respond to your questions because I didn't want to get into an endless spiral of being asked question where only you perceive the relevance or digging into minutia of word meanings that only you seem to have a problem with.
Click to expand...

You are free to answer any question put to you, of course. But if you think that a clarifying question about what it is you are arguing against is not seen as advancing a dialogue, perhaps you are not interested in a dialogue at all. Especially when you tell us that you only engage with people if you think the topic is something silly.

Mycroft said:
That's only true if you believe in absolutes. Real life is much more complicated that than.

Obviously small business can compete with national chains. Obviously if it were not true, we would never have any new businesses.

At the same time, it's also true that national chains have advantages over small business, and make it very hard for them to compete.
Click to expand...

But that's not what the point was: How can a small shop win over a big corporation, if what KingMerv said was true?

Bob Klase said:
"Superior video quality" and "superior product" are two different terms meaning two different things. Even assuming that the superior video quality claims are true, that does not automatically mean it was a superior product.

Revisionism because it disagrees with you about "superior video quality" or because it points out VHS features other than video quality that were superior to Beta?
Click to expand...

The product has a specific function: To record and show video. If superior video quality does not mean it is a superior product, then you are placing the value on something else than what the product does.

It's like saying that Toyota makes better cars because there's better AC in their cars.
 
CFLarsen said:
...snip...

The product has a specific function: To record and show video. If superior video quality does not mean it is a superior product, then you are placing the value on something else than what the product does.

It's like saying that Toyota makes better cars because there's better AC in their cars.
Click to expand...

Where you are mistaken is in understanding what the product's specific function was. The function of home video recorders was not just to record video; the specific function was much more complex then just the recording and playback of video. One of "specific functions" was to play rental movies, an area in which VHS had a clear "superior quality" (i.e. only required one tape). Stating that the only function of a home video recorder is and was to record and playback video is incorrect.
 
Darat said:
Where you are mistaken is in understanding what the product's specific function was. The function of home video recorders was not just to record video; the specific function was much more complex then just the recording and playback of video. One of "specific functions" was to play rental movies, an area in which VHS had a clear "superior quality" (i.e. only required one tape). Stating that the only function of a home video recorder is and was to record and playback video is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Renting videos is a subset of playing a video.
 
CFLarsen said:
Renting videos is a subset of playing a video.
Click to expand...

So is having a well designed case, so is having more then a play button, so is... many things can be called "sub sets" of playing a video and it may depending on the product be a consideration.

However for home video recorders VHS had at least one (initial) superior technology to Betamax - longer play and record length tapes. Therefore for the product called "home video recorders" VHS could equally be described as the "superior technology".
 
brodski said:
Maybe you should learn a little about the motives and actions of the Luddite movement before you call other people historical revisionists.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should learn a little about how to recognize a tongue-in-cheek comment.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Actually, there is no evidence that Wal-Mart has ever driven a single retailer out of business.
Click to expand...

There is some evidence that they contributed to some of their suppliers having to file for bankrupcy. Specificaly I heard about vlasic pickels.

What happened was as bassicly a gimic they started to sell galon jars of pickels in walmart. The profit made by either company on this was mabey 2 cents. But so many people purchased the gallon instead of the old quart jars as it was only a little more expensive.

THis ment that they where selling more pickels than ever and making less money, and walmart would not let them renegotiateing a contract that neither of them where making money on.

Now this might not have been the only reason it declaired bankruptcy.

So between that and most of the jobs being utter crap jobs interms of hours and benifits and such.

Now the issue is this, is it possible to act legaly but immoraly in the US? And is making money immoraly wrong?
 
Since ponderingturtle brought up the Vlasic issue, I'll repost this. No one responded last time.

While I'm not as witty or articulate as others in this forum, I hope that folks don't have me on ignore!:o

Katana said:
I am providing this link in response to some of the comments about whether Wal-Mart has put other companies out of business. It is three years old. Yes, I know that, but it is an interesting story about how Wal-Mart's practices giveth and taketh away.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

Whether or not this is evidence that Wal-Mart is putting companies out of business, I'm struggling with. Ultimately, I agree with others in this thread that it is the behavior of consumers that has driven Wal-Mart's success and ultimate power over its suppliers. People want stuff more cheaply, so they go there.
Click to expand...
 
CFLarsen said:
In which case, Voodoo Doughnut should not be able to outcompete the big corporations. Why do they?



Again, how can VD win over the big corporations?



The numbers are what you argue. You have to show what you compare them to. Otherwise, you are merely making a vapid statement, devoid of content and meaning.



Not at all. I am merely asking why it is argued that the Small Shop can win over the Big Corporation, if what you are saying is true.

We seem to have contradicting claims here. They can't all be right.
Click to expand...


If I may jump in here I think you are trying to make something a mere binary choice when that is not the case.

Bigger Corporations have certain advantages such as supply lines, price control, name recognition. A local corporation may have an advantage in local name recognition, perceived superior product physical location.

As Damon Runyan said - the race may not always go to the swift nor the battle to the strong - but that's the way to bet.

IN microcosm lets take my own habits - I like espresso coffee. I have tried many different places here and some were better than Starbucks but the majority were slightly or strongly worse.

On my commute in this morning I wanted (aka desperately needed) a double espresso so I'm faced with a choice - either remember which coffee shop I stopped at that had espresso that thought was better and thus drive by three or four Starbucks or stop at the next Starbucks and get an espresso that I know I will enjoy.

No contest.

Yay for Starbucks I say.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
There is some evidence that they contributed to some of their suppliers having to file for bankrupcy. Specificaly I heard about vlasic pickels.

What happened was as bassicly a gimic they started to sell galon jars of pickels in walmart. The profit made by either company on this was mabey 2 cents. But so many people purchased the gallon instead of the old quart jars as it was only a little more expensive.

THis ment that they where selling more pickels than ever and making less money, and walmart would not let them renegotiateing a contract that neither of them where making money on.

Now this might not have been the only reason it declaired bankruptcy.

So between that and most of the jobs being utter crap jobs interms of hours and benifits and such.

Now the issue is this, is it possible to act legaly but immoraly in the US? And is making money immoraly wrong?
Click to expand...

First, I'd like to see the actually references to this...just to satisfy myself that the case as stated is in fact the case. The Walmart issue has become a little political and it helps to know the actual facts.

Second, even as stated, Walmart didn't force anyone into bankruptcy. Vlasic was stupid, and like Forest Gump sez, "Stupid is as stupid does".

That walmart may or may not have been making a 'profit' on the deal is completely and utterly 1) beside the point and, 2) subjective.

P.S. They appear to still be in business.
 
Rob Lister said:
First, I'd like to see the actually references to this...just to satisfy myself that the case as stated is in fact the case. The Walmart issue has become a little political and it helps to know the actual facts.

Second, even as stated, Walmart didn't force anyone into bankruptcy. Vlasic was stupid, and like Forest Gump sez, "Stupid is as stupid does".

That walmart may or may not have been making a 'profit' on the deal is completely and utterly 1) beside the point and, 2) subjective.

P.S. They appear to still be in business.
Click to expand...


OK. Now I'm convinced that Rob has me on ignore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom