Comment

Comment by Tim Noble on March 30, 2008 at 10:30am

"mmm, now that's good coffee."
That's the ash tray, sir.
"Hmm, let's run with that."

Comment by Jason Dominy on March 29, 2008 at 7:23pm

Yeah, rightttttt.....You see, about that.....

Comment by Matt Milletto on March 29, 2008 at 7:22pm

mmmmm ... if you could have those Clover Net reports to me asap, that would be greeaaat. oh, and peter, if you could work head bar shift on saaaaturday, that'd be great ... :)

Comment by Tim Noble on March 29, 2008 at 6:44pm

WORD.
Does anyone else think Uncle Howie looks more like Bill Lumbergh, a la "Office Space" every day?

Comment by kara d. ("kd") on March 29, 2008 at 6:42pm

I believe the feelings of betrayal come from feeling like a critical player on your team, who held the game book and knew all of your secrets, just traded teams. And for money.

The lesson learned is that every indie shop should have had stock options in CoEqCo which would have made the $11k price tag a tad bit better, knowing that if CoEqCo won ($$$) so would the very early adopters who embracesd and educated and sold their customers on the concept of Clover...and in that, took a HUGE financial risk in such a purchase.

And now they are left with a $11k machine (who has made their ROI on the machine yet?) that most Starbucks will now have.

Comment by Chris/Dale on March 29, 2008 at 6:34pm

you know what they say mace...mo clovers ...mo problems

Comment by Tim Noble on March 29, 2008 at 6:24pm

I guess I'll forever be the Biggie Smalls to your Tupac, Trish.
[flashing East Coast sign]
Bygones.

Comment by Tim Noble on March 29, 2008 at 4:18pm

"Zander had a responsibility to them. Everyone else just bought a machine."
Trish, this is the fundamental issue in disagreement. I think you'd agree that CoEqCo is/was part of the specialty coffee industry, and their decision to sell to SBUX was, in total, detrimental to that industry, even if only by the act of removing an excellent tool for making coffee. I think there are other factors as well- the kneecapping of the 'clover menu' as marketing tool, for example.
You feel that the free market reigns? I see a bit more responsibility being due to an industry to which you belong.
I didn't mean to imply you didn't get it. But I'm pretty sure that I was clear about "the little guy" being put out of business was due to the practices of SBUX in clustering, buying leases of indie shops, their pressure on mutual suppliers, etc. not the indie shop's machine choice.

Comment by trish rothgeb on March 29, 2008 at 12:02pm

All's fair, including your opinion, Tim.
Just so you know, I was pretty clear about what you wrote the first time.
But thanks anyway.
(the little guy shouldn't be put out of business due to a machine choice unless they are in the machine business)

Comment by Tim Noble on March 29, 2008 at 11:17am

Everyone who bought a machine was also sold a bill of goods. I'm personally not saying it's wrong for them to make a profit, but they did it at the expense of every indie shop that bought an exorbitantly priced machine on the theory that the service would be there, and that would give them an edge in beating out the 5 Starbucks locations that surround them.
For CoEqCo to sell to Starbucks- knowing that SBUX was sequestering the Clover to keep it away from indies, is a slight to independent coffee house owners who were going up against a corporation that uses predatory and underhanded methods of putting the little guy out of business. Now, you wouldn't take that personally? For the independent owner, business is personal. CoEqCo knowingly made it that much harder for us to gain an edge, and they profited from that. They suck for that. So Trish, I hope this clears it up for you. IMHO, of course.

I call Shenanigans on CoEqCo and SBUX! ;>)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page