Talk:Nespresso/Archive 1

List

I merged all the blends to one list. There would be equal sense in cutting out the decaf tastes as in cutting out the lungos. And what about the pure origins? There are many possible sublists, the easiest solution is one list with the lungos and decafs mentioned as such. Pizzaman79 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Weaknesses of the concept

It is true that most of the text reads like an advertisement for Nespresso. To balance this I had started a section called "Weaknesses of the concept" that had been polished by several users until it got wiped away by 83.250.202.216 in April. What does the Wikipedia community thinks from this?

User:160.39.38.223 22:54, April 30 2007

Some of the content of the above section has been added to a new section "A novel philosophy". The aim of this section is to compare the nespresso concept, user, market to the traditional expresso market.

User:160.39.38.223 20:14, May 11 2007

Thanks for your contributions, although the name did not meet Manual of style standards, I have renamed this section 'Criticisms' and moved it to the bottom of the article, per other articles raising criticism. I also took the opportunity to re-align some point-of-view issues I had with it. This may not be perfect, but it's on its way. M0RHI | Talk to me 09:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(Nespresso pro). I have to agree, even though the coffee looks fantastic, it isn't terribly good. it is just plain flat. and all of the different "flavors" taste more or less the same, the only real difference seems to be the degree of roasting, caffeine content, amount of coffee in capsule and color ;) --83.243.187.80 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Caption

Please put a caption on the image at the top. It seems to be an intact Nespresso capsule, but I wouldn't want to guess at it. Lou Sander 15:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nespresso quality

Most of this reads like publicity for nespresso - there are allegations out there that the contents of the capsules aren't as high quality as nestle make out (they don't seem to claim any of their blends being "100% arabica") and that they are producer-unfriendly.

My own nespresso machine seems to artificially froth the crema as well.

If anyone has some evidence or references as to how the nespresso system works it would nice to read here.

The crema is produced by first the brief flow of air then water through the capsule. There is absolutely nothing fake or artificial about it. The fine crema, or "lid" is how you judge the quality of espresso. Do a simple sugar test - sprinkle a few grains of sugar over your Espresso's crema. It should stay in place and not let the granules through for at least 10 seconds. Good luck finding a crema that will stay around for 10 seconds -- unless you have Nespresso. Nespresso uses a closed system - meaning that they can grind the coffee precisely to match the exact pressure/temperature of the machine it is used in. this is unique to Nespresso. I have machines both at work and at home. I refuse to drink coffee anywhere else unless prepared by a Barista (they have Nespresso at home too btw)

81.153.171.117 19:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Without evidence to corroborate allegations, speculation cannot be included. DJR (T) (WC) 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that was my point. As for the artificial frothing - I appear to be able to see that with my own eyes. 86.140.210.44 19:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Reads to me like some junior marketing monkey from Nestle's been given some homework. rcrowdy

We have a nespresso pro system at work. The coffee produced by the system looks great and also has the right texture to it, however the taste is not fabulous. I think adding a text like "The system is of fairly high quality, but there are disagreements as to the quality of the coffeeblends offered". Any text about "premium" blends I would strongly disagree to. --Godal 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Capsule size

How about something on the approximate size of the capsules, and the amount of coffee in each? (I'm having trouble visualizing this from the photos provided -- and is a capsule good for one cup, for ten cups, or ????) Lou Sander 22:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One capsule is 7 grams of freshly ground hermetically sealed coffee. One capsule/One cup.

Good coffee

I have 2 Nespresso machine, and I don't know for a fact, but by experience, this is the best home made espresso system. The coffee is never too bitter. The artificial look of the froth is produce by the unusual high pressure of the water is (19 bar). This is usually only seen on professional machines like the ones in restaurants.

The capsules are for each cup.

Monopoly position

This really does read like an advert. It makes no reference to the fact that Nestlé have gained a monopoly position over users of this product, since users have to purchase their coffee capsules (a complement good). Nestlé seem to be giving extremely good deals to retailers to stock the machines (retailers are lined wall-to-wall with the machines) in order to gain outrageous profits on the capsules. It seems very unfair and unreasonable that Nestlé don't at least license out the technology to others (Cafédirect???) to enable them to produce their own coffee. [Perhaps they do - I have no idea.] In my mind, the price of the capsules is a MAJOR criticism that doesn't get a mention here. But since I know next to nothing about this topic (other than what I have observed in stores), I won't edit the actual page.

I don't think the term monopoly can really be used against a manufacturer being the only supplier of consumables for their product. Wikipedias own definition mentions this is the case when there is a lack of viable substitute goods. This is obviously not the case in the pod coffee market. Thus I don't think it is reasonable to mark Nespresso as a monopolised market. Jtowler (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a pity that Nescafe (also a Nestle brand) is producing incompatible coffe machines (Dolce Gusto) with different (but available in more shops) capsules. I haven't found any information about them in Wikipedia.

I'm somewhat perplexed at all the fuss about Nestle's proprietary capsules, and I think it's not worth including this in "criticism" at all. It reads like the sour grapes complaints of disgruntled consumers and is not encyclopedic. Nestle made their own R&D investment and patented the technology, which gives them the right to use the technology as they choose. Having proprietary coffee pods is no different than Gillette requiring you to use their blades for the razors they manufacture, or HP requiring you to use model-specific printer cartridges. If you don't like it, go buy another coffee machine. Geenfietsen (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Vendor lock-in wikipedia page. This is an economics concept which better captures the issue mentioned above than the term "monopoly". I feel this is an uncontroversially accurate description of the Nespresso system, and it is also true that Nespresso is regularly criticised for this -- so whether or not we ourselves want to criticise Nespresso, it is appropriate to include reference to this issue in the Wikipedia entry.FrenchieAlexandre (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Coffee Amounts

Another issue: Nespresso machines do not allow users to fine-tune the strength of a beverage as can be done by a traditional pump espresso machine, which allows more control over the amount of ground coffee used per shot. Nespresso users do, however, have the option of making a 'long' or 'short' espresso with any of the blends.

I'm sorry but I disagree with this. I own two machines, I can even put the models here so you can see that this is untrue at least for two of them and I'm sure it's untrue for all the models. One of them you have to press the button as long as you want the coffee and in the other you can do exacly do the same thing (or even adjust the whole long and short ammounts you speak off) even though it has two pre-programed ammounts (Those that are recommended).

Actually, I think you missed his point - you are only able to adjust the water on a Nespresso machine (I know, I've also owned two models). But you can't change the amount of ground coffee you use because that's fixed in a Nespresso pod. Geenfietsen (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Article is Bias

I believe the article is bias. It constantly mentions how you must buy the capsules from Nespresso and the negatives but this article does not state a lot of positives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.170.51 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the three nespresso machines I have used all allowed this functionality - and i didn't get the low end one as it is 'manual' i.e. forces the operator into choosing amount of water. Jtowler (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As many others have commented here, this article is more like an ad than like an encyclopædian entry. Neither the tone or choice of aspects to include seem neutral. At the very least, the alternative capsules NexPod (www.nexpod.ch) should be mentioned. Akita86 (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is biased. I read that there have been edits to prevent it from sounding like an advertisement, but now 'criticisms' takes up more than a third of the article. This is a consumer product not a weapon!! The whole entry needs reworking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.248.212 (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Limited Edition Capsules

Is it worth copying the information from the Nespresso's Limited Edition page into the Limited Edition Section? amoss12000 05:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained, non-constructive edits

An anonymous editor has recently reverted, without explanation, several thoughtful, well-explained edits by SiobhanHansa. I propose to restore version 236017975, which was SiobhanHansa's most recent version. Before restoring it, I seek comments from others. Lou Sander (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I say restore away! -- SiobhanHansa 01:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Article issues

Somebody put a tag on the article asserting that it has many "issues." Unfortunately, they didn't explain any of it here. How can we know what they are talking about? I'll wait a while for explanations to appear, then I'll remove the tag. (BTW, I agree that there are issues. But if you're going to tag the article, we need you to be more specific.) Lou Sander (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Over a month has passed, and there has been no further elaboration of the "issues." I am removing the tag. Lou Sander (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The real issue is very emotional at Nestlé. the History has been re-written. the invention is from Batelle and Nestlé waited 10 yrs before launching. Big flop. Wanted to close down business. When JP Gaillard arrives it was to be closed. He somehow forced Nestlé to keep it open for 2 yrs "probation". Transformed an office-coffee mundane product into what we know today. In 04 2008 JP Gaillard founded Ethical Coffee Company. i.e. Biodegradable Nespresso compatible Capsules, Huge success in France, more countries to come. Fundes By Bentton, 21 Partners private equity, Rotshild, Expand a.s.o powerful investors...Nestlé hates it even though competition is fair. ECC caps are available in 5 blends in supermarkets and street corner food shops. 25 % cheaper. Smart buying based marketing. Nestlé suing but very limited, almost no chance to win...i.e.Microsoft...According to consumer test by Kurt Salmon Associates, 56% consuner preference over Nespresso. jp Gaillard. All facts are at Wiki's disposal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.172.132 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Waste

I am missing the topic "waste". The capsules are made of aluminium. Most people just throw it away - so the aluminium cant be recycled. A Recycling-System for the capsules is only offered in Swizerland by Nespresso. --91.115.170.162 (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

"Another issue..." doesn't provide a source. Probably it should go. Lou Sander (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Criticism section by its nature invites opinion. Maybe it can just be removed and the factual part ("Nespresso does not allow the customer to purchase coffee from any source other than Nestlé") be moved into another section. --Scott.kelley (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Another issue is that the system leads to much aluminium waste because of the amount of packaging per coffee unit. I addition few people tend to recycle the used capsules because of the few returning points. Johanroed (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Criticism section, just like all the others, requires the citation of sources. It isn't the place for editors to voice their own original research. Lou Sander (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions to the criticisms section are inappropriate, IMHO. They seem to be trying to advance the point of view that Nespresso capsules represent a serious amount of recyclable material. The opinion page of an Australian coffee company is hardly a reliable source for this sort of thing. I want to revert it, but there ought to be a chance for discussion first. Lou Sander (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph on the Australian company (it was I who put this information there, I am not related to that company); however I have left the parts about consumer trying to mitigate the environmental impact of the capsules, as it is, IMHO, a trend and a valid point that could / should be documented here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.202.70 (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no citation for the so called "Hard evidence of exploitation" Please provide a source now, as i would be interested to read it. If you don't have source remove the paragraph ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AshNrulz (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

NexPod

I have an issue with the statement "This innovation has given customers more choice and flexibility using the nespresso system". Mentioning NexPod is fair enough but this sentence sounds like an advertisement and is a statement of opinion rather than fact. There is no proof submitted to back up this statement. It is also an unnecessary statement as it is obvious that such a system has the potential to increase choice and flexibility (assuming that it works well and that take-up is significant). It is simply not necessary to say so. I propose that this sentence is deleted. Marek1975 (18:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

sounds good. got for it! --Scott.kelley (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Delete it. Lou Sander (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Instant coffe?

Inside the capsules is normal coffe or instant coffe? This needs to be made clear. It seems that Tassimo uses instant coffe, but Nespresso uses normal coffe. Any views on this, and clarrification in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.51.65.37 (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No source, and I'm not going to waste any capsules on original research :-), but it should be obvious to anyone who has ever made espresso with a real espresso machine that there's no reason whatsoever for them to use instant coffee.

I work for Nespresso and the coffee is not instant - they are ground coffee beans that have been roasted. Instant coffee has been freeze dried. Additionally, Nespresso makes no claim as to selling only "100% arabica". We use a blend of arabica and robusta beans for most of the Grand Crus because this creates flavour variation (when coupled with different degrees of roasting etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.208.95 (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The impression that Tassimo uses instant coffee has been left behind. It should be understood that they do not. I have no knowledge whatever of the Nespresso systems but I do know unequivocably that Tassimo uses ground roasted coffee beans. Keurig does as well. The infused drinks such as hot cider and cocoa or hot chocolate are dissolvable media.

Number of Employees varies

Depending on the source, the number of Nespresso employees varies considerably. The main article here claims 4500, but a Feb 27, 2009 press release from Nespresso at http://www1.nespresso.com/mediacenter/pressRelease.php?id_pressrel=830 claims 2500 while the June 18, 2009 corporate backgrounder at http://www.ecolaboration.com/mediacenter/pdf/corp/2009_06_18_Nespresso_Corporate_Backgrounder2009.pdf claims 3900. Nherber (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

I don't have a source, but I am pretty sure my Nespresso capsules (and not just the Lungo ones) contain 7g, not 5.5g as the article claims, of coffee. I've used a balance that has a 1g precision, and the weight of a full capsule oscillates between 7 and 8g, while an empty capsule is between 0 and 1g.

I don't know, maybe Nespresso have changed this in recent times? LjL (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I work for Nespresso and can verify that there is a slightly higher quantity of coffee in the lungo capsules (close to 7g). The coffee grind is also slightly coarser allowing for a longer extraction than the espresso blends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.208.95 (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethically Sourced?

Is there any evidence on how far back the origins of the coffee in the pods can be traced? Are there any alternatives that are ethically sourced and/or carry certifications such as Fairtrade or Rainforest Alliance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.131.199 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Statement?

The opening paragraph of the "Capsules" section strikes me as only one-third fact, citation notwithstanding: "Nespresso capsules are sold exclusively by Nespresso and are more expensive than portions of ground coffee purchased 'loose'. The cost per serving is up to three times higher than that of alternative brewing methods.[7]". The citation is not only inaccessible; the wording is so imprecise as to be meaningless, while imparting a highly critical tone.

At a minimum, shouldn't arguments about value be moved to the Criticism section? PScooter63 (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)