181–190 of 303 posts
Alternatively, we could stop wasting so much packaging and take 5 minutes to make a pot of coffee.
But this way I have 5 more minutes to code.
Another solution is to not buy Keurig machines.
I paid $11 for my drip coffee maker, in the local branch of a national chain grocery. I've had it for two years. It makes one to twelve cups of any kind of coffee you care to put in there, from $5 store brand to dont-even-ask café whose beans were grown on a free-trade farm in Guatemala under the supervision of the executive committee of Juan Valdez' estate's charitable trust and staffed by former independent coffee…
I'm not saying that it's bad, simply that you cannot compare the two, they don't produce the same coffee.
Apart from that, what Keurig is doing (Nespresso is doing the same in Europe) is just plain wrong and should be prevented on a legal level. In France we have this "interop" law that allows us, for the sake of interoperability, to reverse-engineer a patented system to use with non-standard consumables. We have these capsule-based espresso cups, but anybody can sell the capsules.
If you want a real espresso, though, one that doesn't lock you up in a franchise and DRM-ed capsules, just buy a normal espresso machine.
One way to look at the razors and blades business model that Keurig is doing here is like so: 1. The consumer purphases product A (here the coffee maker) on the normal consumer market we're all familiar with. 2. Doing so forces the consumer to purchase product B (here K-cups) on a different market. Keurig's goal is to control the second market. By making having all the market power, they can jack up prices to the con…
Loss-leader market models don't HAVE to abuse customers. We're just not comfortable with licensing vs ownership arrangements. Often market forces put us here. Locked, subsidized cell phones with contracts or DRM printers are sold to get people into the market; they wouldn't buy it at full rate. I don't want to be part of that deal so I buy the unlocked cell phone and DRM-free coffee machine. The alternative is very n…
When you buy a thing, you own the thing. The manufacturer may have sold the thing to you at a loss, because statistically this works out for them in the long run, but it's not your responsibility as the consumer to ensure that that deal works out for them.
Take another example: suppose I want to buy a cheap printer to hack up for some kind of robotics project. Can we seriously propose that this would be "very nearly theft"?
Or another: several cruise lines are really inexpensive because the cruise line expects to make most of their money from alcohol and gambling. I don't particularly enjoy alcohol and gambling. Am I stealing from the cruise line if I cruise with them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That depends. Does Keurig even consider this to be DRM and protected under the DMCA? Or is that just what we call it because that is what we talk about on HN.
The relevant clauses in the DMCA read: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." "[..] is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof" Just about any software DRM exist…
Anyone who uses a Keurig needs to: 1) punch themselves in the nuts, 2) go plant a tree. If you drink it out of a styrofoam cup, plant 2 trees.
1) It's a decent one-shot coffee maker. 2) You can buy reusable cups[1]. [1]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0051SU0OW
Not anymore you can't:
Not compatible with the Keurig 2.0
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably if it factors in how much R&D went into the DRM, the production price per unit increases. Nothing else about it is terribly complicated.
The Boston Globe Magazine had a pretty good piece on them a few years back. It was far easier to read in print, but I think this the article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/2011/0807/ Most of the R&D went into the cups themselves. Simple as they seem, it appears the company went through a lot of iterations to get the right gas mixture and volume right to have fresh coffee with long shelf-life.
EDIT: single page.
This is not what the future was supposed to be about. The future was supposed to bring us infinite possibilities through the means of technology. It was meant to be awesome.
It was not meant to be artificially limited through the means of technology which could have been used to make our lives better instead.
Where did we go wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would happen if there is no water in the reservoir and you turned on the heating element?
Assuming the thermister isn't very close to the heating element you'll be heating air for a while and the heating element might burn out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I paid $11 for my drip coffee maker, in the local branch of a national chain grocery. I've had it for two years. It makes one to twelve cups of any kind of coffee you care to put in there, from $5 store brand to dont-even-ask café whose beans were grown on a free-trade farm in Guatemala under the supervision of the executive committee of Juan Valdez' estate's charitable trust and staffed by former independent coffee…
Yeah, well, it doesn't compare at all. You're talking about a filter coffee machine whereas Keurig sells an espresso machine. Your filter doesn't put out the same coffee as an espresso machine; there's pressure involved, temperature, etc.. Your coffee will be "longer" (more water) and contain way more caffeine. You also won't ever be able to produce the foam and taste of an espresso with a filter machine. I'm not say…
Discussing "licensing" in a thread about coffee. Fuck. This is not what the future was supposed to be about. The future was supposed to bring us infinite possibilities through the means of technology. It was meant to be awesome. It was not meant to be artificially limited through the means of technology which could have been used to make our lives better instead. Where did we go wrong?