I don't generally post here about non tech or entertainment stuff anymore, but I'm going to today to hopefully save a few people from a big hassle I just had to go through in moving. This post will be discussing the horrible experience using Move AAA.

As some of you know, I recently moved from San Diego from San Francisco. Having never done a long distance move where I had to take stuff with me, I turned to the Internet to look up movers. I put my name and contact info into one of those free moving quote sites and within a few days I had about 20 calls all wanting my business.

I ultimately decided to go with one that wasn't the cheapest but also wasn't the most expensive. I figured that was a fairly safe bet. I did the usual Google search to see if there was anything bad about the company I chose: Move AAA, but couldn't find anything of note. Hopefully with this post, people will be directed here when they search for the company.

The experience with Move AAA was awful. No, worse, it was bullshit. It started off well enough, I talked to a very nice woman on the phone and set everything up. The problem came when the actual movers came.

First of all they were supposed to notify me 24 hours before arrival -- they never did. Instead, they called me when they were at my door the morning of my move. I had tried calling the company the day before to say I never got a confirmation, never heard back. Luckily I was ready to go on the day of the move when they showed up.

It was two movers, both of whom spoke hardly any English (I'm fairly certain one spoke no English at all), which wouldn't be a problem except if I had a question about something, which I did. Once they had everything loaded up in their van (which wasn't very much stuff, I only had a studio apartment), they informed me it was going to be an extra $400+ above the quote.

I tried to argue that I laid everything out in my conversation/estimate when I got the initial quote, the mover basically understood nothing of what I said. Since everything was already in the van, what was I going to do, have them unload everything and wait another few weeks to find someone else? Couldn't do that, I needed to be out of there. So I basically just said "screw it" and gave them another $400+. Stupid, I know, but I was on a tight schedule.

I figured I could chalk it up to experience and realize that I should never use a company that hires out for its movers ever again. Sadly, that was hardly the end of my problems.

I got up to San Francisco the next day and the movers showed up the following morning. This time at least they called an hour beforehand (if only to tell me they were lost). They eventually found the place and this is where I got hit with another $100+ round of charges above my estimate and the extra $400+ I just gave them. According to them, my apartment had stairs. It did, and I told them that in my estimate. I think what the movers were actually trying to say was that it was too far back from the street, but they just kept repeating "stairs."

My efforts to argue this point kept getting met with "stairs." It was pointless.

So my initially estimated move for $1,056, was all of a sudden surging past $1,600 -- again, for a studio apartment. Once again, I just thought to myself, "whatever, I won't have to deal with moving again for a while." Unfortunately, the worst was yet to come.

The movers moved everything in as quickly as possible. I felt bad for them, it was a very hot day here, over 90 degrees, and they did have to move my stuff up stairs. Once they got done I gave them the money that I owed, tipped them, and sent them off telling them I'd set everything up (which I think they were supposed to do, but whatever, I just wanted it over).

So they left and I started moving stuff around. This is when I really started getting pissed off. Nearly everything was broken in someway or another. Boxes were almost completely smashed, the steels base of my TV stand was bent beyond repair, the legs of my couch also bent, my computer desk had one leg completely detached (these are undetachable legs), one chair was completely taken apart (and it wasn't supposed to be), my coat rack was utterly destroyed, 3 stand-up lights: destroyed.

Best of all, my desk chair: missing. Another table I had: missing.

Naturally I tried calling the company to let them know about all of this and to hopefully get some of the insurance on it. I heard nothing back. I emailed them. Heard nothing back. I would not be surprised at all if they simply changed the name of the company now -- but in case they don't, consider this post a warning to anyone else out there: DON'T USE MOVE AAA.

I had expenses that went almost 50% over my initial estimate. I had no notification calls when the movers were coming. The movers who broke nearly everything I gave them. And they did not get back to me at all when I complained. It's a nice little scam.

Had I known all of this I simply would have left everything there and bought all new stuff up here. It seriously wouldn't have been that much more expensive -- and nothing would have been broken.

Moving is a huge hassle and most companies out there know that. They know that you'll be willing to put up with a lot of bullshit just as long as everything gets done. The Internet had made this problem even worse because there are now so many companies out there and it's really hard to tell who is good and who isn't. Move AAA isn't. I highly doubt that any other company that hires out for movers is very good either. Try to find one that has its own movers, it might be a little more expensive, but it will be worth it.

Don't use MOVE AAA.

Some of you have noticed that updates here have been uh, lacking over the past several weeks. Never fear, the drought is nearly over. Really for the past two months I've been completely consumed with traveling between San Diego and San Francisco and then figuring out the logistics of a move up to the Bay Area.

It's over now. I'm here. All my stuff is here (though some of it not in one piece). It's (mostly) all set up. And it's hot as hell here (in the 90s the past couple of days). I'm now officially a San Francisco resident.

I'm excited. In my few weeks here on and off I've already met so many tech industry people who I had known only either via online social sites or just by reputation. There is literally something going on every night here.

I've been here permanantly now for 3 days, with a car, and have yet to use it once other than to drive to get a parking permit. It's certainly different from any other place I've ever lived in.

And yes, that is the view that I see looking out my window from my desk.

I kind of like what the term "Bitchmeme" has evolved into. Most of the time it's not quite so serious, it's just a way to explain everyone talking themselves in circles about something rather silly. But there is and always has been something more meaningful behind it: the absurdity of bloggers constantly bitching about other bloggers and the way they do things.

I'm not going to give any examples because that would just turn this post into bitching about other bloggers too, and there really is nothing specific I have in mind here, but I think most of you will know what I mean. There are a lot of examples out there.

I see people left and right complaining about the way one site does things, or who writes what. Then we have those who try to tell others what they should write, and what's worthy of a post or story. It's all nonsense.

In my opinion the sheer act of bitching about what someone else is doing, whether that be in a post or in a comment or via Twitter or FriendFeed, etc, is far worse than whatever the supposed infraction was. The bitching party also has to realize that while they may not find whatever it is they are bitching about of use, someone else might.

And really, even if no one else in the world does, who cares? Why bitch?

I think of the scene in Fight Club where Brad Pitt is arguing with Ed Norton in a diner trying to explain that his material life is stupid. Then Pitt just stops and says "Do what you like, man."

Everyone should do what they like. Who is anyone to try and dictate what someone else does? If you don't like the way an author writes or the way a site runs things, don't read it. No one is forcing you to. If you think Techmeme is an echo chamber (the subject of the initial Bitchmeme post), don't read it. No one is forcing you to.

These posts and comments that offer nothing but to bitch and attempt to instill their beliefs - they're tiresome. They do little but distract from any kind of real conversation about an actual topic. Instead people get all worked up about what that person is saying and a Bitchmeme is born.

I really don't want to see Bitchmeme evolve into a full-fledged Bitchosphere.

I don't really know why I write about Starbucks as often as I do - I don't even really like coffee all that much (though I do like iced coffee). But here I am again today writing about Starbucks.

Earlier today I was in one and the barista made me take one of their prominently displayed MyStarbucksIdea feedback cards to give them an idea of what they can do better - she actually wanted me to complain about something. I remembered reading about this initiative and how despite seemingly being just another hollow appeasement strategy at a corporate meeting - its actually working.

Get this: Starbucks is listening to what its customers want and trying to fulfill those requests. Seems obvious enough, but so many companies would never do any such thing.

I started bitching about Starbucks in January, wondering if it wasn't time for them to cut the price of their coffee and make some serious changes amid plummeting stock prices. Well, the stock has yet to turn around, but the company seems to be.

A few days after I wrote that article, Starbucks fired their CEO and brought back original founder Howard Schultz to run things. A few weeks after that, Starbucks started promoting a new $1 cup of coffee.

Then they announced something near and dear to my heart: the freeing of the Internet. I live about 500 feet from a Starbucks - the only thing that would stop me from being in there regularly was that they had that ridiculously expensive T-Mobile Internet. You're already paying $4 for a cup of coffee, why on Earth would you pay $10 to use the Internet for an hour? Starbucks seems to have realized that as well. Very shortly, the Internet will be free for paying customers in their stores.

Next Starbucks made a "perfect coffee" pledge - stating that customers' drinks should be perfect every time and promising to put more care into the making of said drinks. They even shut down all of their stores nationwide for a few hours one day to retrain employees in the art of coffee making. I tested their pledge out. Tasted pretty good to me.

Now, with the company asking for even more feedback from its customers and launching a new "best-of" blend dubbed Pike Place Roast, I'm officially impressed.

I'm not sure how all of this is helping the company's bottom line, or if the stock will stop falling. But it seems to me these are some of the exact moves a company should take when trying to turn things around. Lets remember where Apple was when it too brought back its founder to run things again. Lets look at where they are now.

The video embedded below is a prime example of why the Internet is great. You've maybe heard by now that the girl Hillary Clinton used in her "3 AM" commercial is actually a Barack Obama supporter, but now, thanks to YouTube, we have a response to the video - from the girl. 20 years ago this would never have been possible, now it will go viral (it already has quarter of a million views in two days).

Incidentally, it's nearly impossible to find Clinton's actual "3 AM" ad on YouTube or even through a basic Google search right now - everything is either about the girl responding to it or a complete spoof of it.

If only this would have made the rounds before the Ohio and Texas primaries a few weeks ago - Hillary Clinton might be sitting at home right now.



"I reject the politics of fear that Senator Clinton uses to drum up votes. Long before I even saw this ad, I had embraced hope and volunteered for Barack Obama as a precinct captain in Washington state."

"I'm Casey Knowles, and I approve this message - and not the other one."

Daaaamn. Burn.

Maybe Hillary should respond with this video:



This reminds me as well of the incident from last year when it was revealed that Rudy Giuliani's daughter was actually supporting Barack Obama for President - and it was her Facebook profile that gave it away.

[via Elapsed Time]

By now everyone has probably read Mike Arrington's piece/rant on blogs raising money, the inevitable rise of blogging networks and the politics associated with such things. I'm not going to say much on it, but I do have a few thoughts as someone who has made the jump from a personal blog to one of the larger blogs. This is of course my own perspective and in no way indicates how others I work with at VentureBeat feel.

I think Arrington makes some great points, namely on the blurring line between blogging and business as well as the politics of linking. That said, I'm not sure the end game here has to be a massive "dream teaming" of blogs into super networks. I completely understand why that makes sense, but I also thinks it runs somewhat against the principals of blogging. That, of course, leads to another debate, which Frederic mentions, as to what is blogging vs. what is more traditional journalism -- something which I am getting to know more and more about.

When I was writing the majority of my thoughts here, at ParisLemon, some other writers and myself did have this whole B-list group thing going on as Louis Gray mentions. But it was never anything formal, and there were certainly no rules on linking to one another or anything like that. We all just sort of gravitated around the same stories and it was interesting to see one another's perspectives on things.

I think that is the innocent side of all of this. Perhaps Arrington is right that if we all were to get larger and more money was involved, it would have gotten political and things may have potentially grown sour between some of us - it's probably naive to think that wouldn't have happened in some regards despite the fact that a lot of that stuff is awfully petty and really distracts from interesting conversations. Still, when it is your livelihood, it is your livelihood.

Exactly why we need a Bitchmeme.

I'm finally back home from SXSW - it was a great time. I met so many people that I had contact with on the Internet only - or knew of through reputation only. I wouldn't say a bad thing about a single one. I won't go into a massive name-dropping session here, but there were a lot.

I really don't think I can emphasize enough how important an event such as this is to go to for bloggers out there who are trying to make it on their own (which, as I noted in a previous post I no longer am, but still). Everywhere you go you'll make contacts that will be helpful to you in the future.

Making contacts was especially true at night. It was absolutely no exaggeration to say that SXSW is like the 'Spring Break for the Internet'. Albeit, a Spring Break where you work a ton during the day and then party/network at night (emphasis on party).

Having followed the coverage of the event last year on various blogs, I can tell you first hand that SXSW is really something that needs to be seen to be believed. Sure, some of the panels aren't great, some of the booths are boring, it can be annoying as hell using the WiFi that 15,000 other people are on -- all reasons perhaps some say to take in the "best-of" back at home following on the computer. But there is something about being there, about being a part of it.

Yes, it's pretty expensive to go - and securing a press pass can be hard without a big blog/site backing you, but believe you me, you'll meet so many people there who will be able to hook you up with various ways to get into functions, etc... It's worth it.

See you next year at SXSW 2009?

Dear readers, I'm happy to finally be able to announce that I've formally joined the team over at VentureBeat as a full time writer. Under the guidance of VentureBeat founder Matt Marshall, myself, Eric Eldon and Dean Takahashi have launched a new wing dubbed 'VentureBeat DigitalMedia'.

We plan on using this new site to cover the tech world in our various fields of expertise as well as branch out into some new ones including fast-growing tech-infused markets in Los Angeles and New York. We have a lot of great stuff planned, and I really hope that everyone who has frequented ParisLemon over the years will check out VentureBeat DigitalMedia.

As many of you have noticed and asked about, posting has slowed down at ParisLemon as I've been transitioning over to VentureBeat. While I certainly will not be able to keep up the torrid pace at ParisLemon that I have been over the past several months, I hope you will still stick around to read what should be different, perhaps more opinionated takes on tech and new media here.

I sincerely want to thank all of you readers out there who have made it possible for me to move into doing this as a career. I would not have been able to do this without your support and readership.

As always feel free to email me or send me Twitter messages and I will do my best to respond in a timely manner given what my inbox looks like now (a joke). For those Google employees out there reading, perhaps an expansion of the 'star' system in Gmail is in order soon? I really don't want to have to switch to a desktop email client.

As a reminder, I will be at SXSW in Texas starting tomorrow for the week. Anyone else there who wants to me up, Twitter/email/stop by - I'll be at the Sheraton downtown.

I'm excited to work with Matt, Eric and Dean (who has a great introduction post here) - as well as VentureBeat's other writers Anthony Ha, Chris Morrison and David Hamilton. Oh yeah, Jacob Mullins, VB's director of business development and sales, is a pretty cool guy as well when he's not making me walk through torrential downpours in San Francisco.

Exciting times lay ahead.

I'll be leaving in a few days for the SXSW festival down in Austin, TX. This will be my first time at SXSW, and in fact my first time in Texas.

My time is quickly filling up down there already, but anyone who wants to meet up, shoot me an email or get ahold of me via Twitter.

Coincidentally, it was at last year's SXSW that Twitter broke out and became a must-use app among early adopters. ReadWriteWeb has some thoughts as to what will be this year's breakout app at the conference.

As many of you know by now Starbucks closed almost all of its U.S. locations yesterday for 3 hours to school its baristas on how to make a cup of coffee. They now claim "your drink should be perfect, every time. If not, let us know and we'll make it right."

A pretty bold statement in a country where people like to complain, but it's a smart move by Starbucks to counter the fast-coming competition from the likes of McDonalds - and the growing consensus that Starbucks was dropping the ball in the coffee business.

I just got back from a Starbucks where I put this pledge to the test. The result - pretty good I think. I usually frequent Starbucks a few times a week and each time I would get my cafe latte in about the same amount of time - a couple minutes. Today, however the barista seemed to take just about twice as long to make it - as I watched them grow through the process with seemingly much more care.

Granted it is day one of this process and everyone gives 100% on day one - but the perception of trying harder should help Starbucks regardless of if the commitment sticks.

Frankly the "perfect" coffee doesn't matter that much anyway in my opinion - people either are addicted to Starbucks coffee, or absolutely hate it. The more important moves for the company are the ones they already made: putting Howard Schultz back in at CEO, launching cheaper drink options, stopping their rapid expansion efforts, and announcing that free WiFi is coming to its stores.

That iPhone QuickOrder app will be nice as well.

What on Earth is up with Starbucks recently? They appear to actually be making smart decisions to help their company.

Not long after they promise to slow their ridiculously fast expansion, and then promise to bring cheaper options to customers, today they've announced that they are teaming up with AT&T to launch free Wi-Fi in their stores.

Okay, it's not exactly free, you do have to purchase an item at which point you'll get a card good for 2-hours of free Wi-Fi usage, but still, this is infinity times better than their previous $3,000-a-day option (only slight exaggeration was used in this sentence). After your two hours are up you can buy 2 more hours for $3.99 - again much better than their current $6-an-hour fee. They'll also still offer monthly passes for $19.99 which will include any of AT&T's 70,000 worldwide hotspots.

There is also a nice bit for iPhone users (and other AT&T wireless customers): Starbucks "will soon extend the Wi-Fi at Starbucks to its wireless phone customers" - so perhaps a purchase won't even be necessary.

This new free Wi-Fi should begin rolling out this Spring, which means in a few months I'll be spending a lot more time in Starbucks. Like Frederic, my choice of coffee shop has been almost completely dependent on if they have free Wi-Fi; I'm shocked that Starbucks got away with not having it for this long.

It's now officially Super Tuesday. If you happen to live in one of the states holding a primary today (I do, in California) I'd urge you to go out and vote - no matter which candidate you are for or what party you side with. While it's beyond cliche to say that voting is one of the most important rights we have, too many young people are apathetic about it and as such we are quite often lead by elected officials who are completely out of touch with the world as we see it.

*Now I'll begin a rant which you can by all means skip if you do not at all wish to hear my thoughts on such topics.*

That being said there is one candidate who has seemed to bring out not only the youth thus far in the primaries, but has inspired large numbers of individuals of all ages who would not normally vote - in a primary no less - to get out to the polls. That candidate is the one I plan on voting for, Democrat Barack Obama.

Let me just say first of all that I very much dislike the idea of political parties. The notion that everyone has to align the majority of their thoughts along one of two party lines is completely absurd to me. Why can't you just believe in what you believe in?

This is certainly one aspect that draws me to Barack Obama. He has made it very clear that he is willing to work with members from both political parties to get a task done. He is a uniter.

Hillary Clinton is a uniter as well - a uniter of the Republicans who hate her. While I would never suggest that anyone vote for a candidate simply as a means of voting against another one, the fact that she is more of a uniter of the Republican party than any of their actual candidates still in the race is troubling to me.

Also troubling to me is the idea that if Hillary Clinton were to be elected and won two terms in office, this country will have been led by a member of either the Bush or Clinton families for 28 straight years. Think about that for a second. 28 years.

The United States was not set up to be an oligarchy. It is set up so the best person can be elected to its highest office every four years. I have a hard time believing that the best person for over two decades has coincidentally been from one of two families.

People argue that Hillary Clinton helped her husband win his election in 1992, and I think that is a very valid point. That does not however mean that she should be President. Were it not for her husband being President, she would never have been a Senator from New York and in position to becomes the next Democratic nominee for President.

While it is a nice story that so many woman are inspired by her candidacy, an election is still about voting for the best person for the job. Not the best person of your same sex or your same race, the best person. Period. It is something that is too important to use your vote as a symbolic gesture towards.

I say this because I know of a number of women both young and old who have admitted they are going to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because she is a woman. That is preposterous. I'll repeat again, this is about voting for the person who you think is best for the job. Period. Man, Woman, White, Black, throw those all out the window. Best person. Period.

If you think that person is Hillary Clinton, that's great, vote for her - but please don't vote for her just because she's a woman. Best person. Period.

That best person I do believe is Barack Obama. I have read his books, listened to his podcasts (yes he has them on iTunes), and now listened to each of his debate performances. I am completely confident that he would be the best person to lead this country right now.

Some people think he's too young. But if elected he would be older at the time of election than Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, and yes, Bill Clinton.

Some people think he's too inexperienced. The last Illinois official to serve only one-term in Washington before seeking the Presidency? Abraham Lincoln.

That kind of 'too young' or 'too inexperienced' talk is nonsense anyway in my opinion. That is all based on a lot of preconceived assumptions. Every person is different.

Along those lines, I've heard some talk that "it's just not his time yet". Again, ridiculous. This is the Presidency of the United States and people talk about it as if it were a akin to a junior being named Prom King rather than a senior. Best person. Period. The Presidency is not a lifetime achievement award.

Granted I'm a person who works in a rather liberal profession, living in a rather liberal part of the country, but the amount of passion and excitement that Barack Obama draws out of people that I've had the opportunity to interact with is incredible. I have conservative friends not just planning on voting for him, but donating to his campaign. I've had conversations with completely apolitical friends about his rousing speeches. I've never seen so many people genuinely excited about a political candidate.

He's a uniter. He's an inspirer. And in my opinion Barack Obama should be the next President of this country.

[photo: flickr/cfishy]

People were rightfully in awe when they heard the number that Microsoft was throwing out there to attempt to purchase Yahoo - $44.6 billion dollars. It certainly makes their huge-at-the-time deal last year to buy aQuantive seem fairly small at only $6 billion. The thought of $40+ billion changing hands is crazy. That's why it's kind of shocking to me that more people aren't really up in arms when they hear Exxon Mobil made over $40 billion dollars in profit last year alone!

Yes, on the same day that was ruled by Microsoft/Yahoo news, Exxon announced they had set new records for both quarterly and yearly profits with $11.66 and $40.61 billion dollars respectively. They made just about $1,300 every second of 2007. This just a year after they set the previous record, $39.5 billion in 2006.

While I certainly respect a companies right to make money in a capitalist society, doesn't $40.6 billion dollars in profits for one year seem just too much? Especially when gas prices are at the highest they've ever been at? When one of the largest companies in the world, News Corp. can't afford to bid by themselves on Yahoo because their total value is only around $60 billion, a company raking in $40+ billion a year in pure profit just seems a bit extreme to me.

Just as the razorblade manufacturers can get away with charging whatever they want for razorblades (seriously how much do those cost to make?), oil companies can seemingly now afford to charge whatever they want for gasoline because people are not going to stop driving, even with gas approaching $4.00 a gallon in some parts of the country.

I understand several factors play into rising gas prices, but one of the major ones is that we don't have enough oil refineries in the United States - and that will happen when despite there being millions of more drivers, we haven't built a new refinery since 1976! Yes, it's difficult and very costly to build ones nowadays that will appease the EPA, but when you're making almost $12 billion dollars in profits a quarter - and when specifically you're making $2.27 billion dollars in profit a quarter on your refining operations alone, I think you can afford to build some new ones.

I think it's ridiculous that everyone gets all hyped up over a potential $40+ billion dollar deal to purchase the entirety of one of largest Internet companies out there, but no one really bats an eye when another company in a different industry is making that much in profit in a single year.

[photo: NARA/EPA via pingnews]

Today the major U.S. airline Continental announced that they would begin offering "free Wi-Fi" to passengers starting in January 2009. I put "free Wi-Fi" in quotes because they really shouldn't call it that. It's not like you can surf the web on your computer or even on your cellphone, instead with their service you basically can just use select smartphones to check your Yahoo Mail, connect to Yahoo Messenger, or connect to the BlackBerry network.

While this is certainly better than what we currently have - which is nothing - it's ridiculous to put these restrictions on a service. Air travel absolutely sucks. Something like Wi-Fi might actually make it tolerable, but only if it is actually Wi-Fi where you can, you know, use the Internet.

I agree with CrunchGear though that the 36 channels of DirecTV is a good deal - even if it's $6 for economy fliers (free for first-class). It might also mean that they may actually have to make some new planes other than the 1970s throwbacks that I swear I've flown in every single time I've gone anywhere the past 10 years.

I got a lot of feedback - most of it in agreement - when I wrote the post entitled "Is It Time For Starbucks To Cut the Price of Coffee?". You can read the post for yourself, but basically it was about Starbucks' recent economic troubles and how they might shake things up.

In what was no doubt coincidental timing, a few days later The Wall Street Journal had an article with some of the same basic ideas. A few hours after that, Starbucks CEO Jim Donald was fired and replaced by original founder Howard Schultz.

The main idea behind my post was this:

Now with a worsening economy and rapidly rising gas prices some people may finally be catching on - and Starbucks may have to do something about it stop the bleeding. Maybe they should cut some prices or release new coffees at a lower price.

Well guess what? The Wall Street Journal is now reporting that Starbucks is testing a $1 cup of coffee and free refills in some of its Seattle-based stores! It's a small, 8 oz "short" cup, but it sure beats the pants off of a $4 cup any day.

How about a gift card for laying out the advice Starbucks?

Starbucks stock has been getting absolutely slammed for over a year now, and recently its gotten even worse. On October 6, 2006 Starbucks sat at a lofty 38.41, just off its all-time high - yesterday the stock closed at 18.70 a level it hasn't been at in nearly 4 years. Analysts are slashing ratings and concern is growing.

You'd think Starbucks would be a good stock to own, those cups are ubiquitous, some cities have 2 Starbucks per block - but that's part of the problem, they started growing way too fast. The other part is that the competition caught on to their game. For too long Starbucks was selling "gourmet" coffee at a premium price, now other chains such as McDonalds are realizing that they too can sell "gourmet" coffee - and if they do so at a lower price, might just woo some customers from Starbucks.

Starbucks coffees usually range from $2 - 4 dollars which is really ridiculous when you think about it - $4 for a cup of coffee? Say you average buying one a day (some days you get none, somedays two, etc...), that's almost $1,500 a year spent on coffee! For someone making $100,000 that might not seem to be that much of a problem, but someone making $30,000, that might be two or even three months worth of rent! Again, on coffee.

You can buy some really nice coffee makers for $100-150 bucks. While that may seem like a lot for one purchase, if you're saving yourself over $1,000 a year after you buy the ground coffee for it, it's a huge savings. So why doesn't everyone do that? The same reason they don't buy those new more-efficient light bulbs. Most people simply refuse to realize that spending a little more upfront might save them a lot of money in the long run.

Most people of course don't think about how much money they are wasting at the time of purchase for a small item. It's $2-4, big deal. But it adds up quickly. Now with a worsening economy and rapidly rising gas prices some people may finally be catching on - and Starbucks may have to do something about it stop the bleeding. Maybe they should cut some prices or release new coffees at a lower price.

$4 for a cup of coffee is absurd - Starbucks has gotten away with that for far too long. It's when money gets tight that people start to realize that - and money is starting to get tight for a lot of people...


[UPDATE 1/7/08]: And 3 days later here's The Wall Street Journal saying the same basic thing...

[UPDATE 1/7/08]: Starbucks CEO Jim Donald has been fired and replaced by founder Howard Schultz. Good move. Now about those prices...

For those unaware the big "story" blowing up the tech blogging world right now is Dave Winer's new application, 'FlickrFan'. If you want to read about it go here and check out any of the dozen or so posts. Be careful which one you choose though, because you could either get one exalting it, or ripping it to shreds - there really aren't too many in between, though a few try to take a more politically correct approach.

And this extreme polarization has really overshadowed the actual application here. Is it a "clunky screensaver" as Mark 'Rizzn' Hopkins notes? Or are its possibilities "wide-reaching" as Louis Gray notes? Or maybe Winer has basically made a $600 dollar (for the MacMini this app is said to work best with) "slide show maker" as Steven Hodson notes. I don't even want to try it because I have a feeling I might get angry at whatever side I don't agree with.

I'm going to go ahead and alter my original definition of 'bitchmeme' to move it beyond simply bitching about Techmeme on Techmeme, to bitching about anything - or one another - on Techmeme, as most of these posts do a great job calling out other posts. Please just take a minute and read some of the comments on these posts, some are from Dave Winer, some from people who watch Scoble's live demo of FlickrFan, many are rebuttals from the authors of said postings. It's spreading to Twitter. It's great drama. It's Bitchmeme.

Should this be the top headline on Techmeme? Probably not, but it's a slow time of year and it is what a lot of people are talking about, in fact many of the biggest names in blogging. Techmeme doesn't discriminate against bullshit, if people are talking about it, up the ladder it goes - something which I am of course perpetuating with this very post - by talking about people talking about something - but it's not like all this hasn't been at the top of Techmeme for hours already.

Now everyone just calm down. Maybe FlickrFeed is a glimpse of the future, maybe it sucks, or maybe everyone should just take a few days to step back and get some perspective as Frederic tried to do (though for the record he still weighs in on the debate with a couple quick "screensaver" jabs, ha ha).

All that being said, I think it is great to still see true differing opinions within the blogosphere - and that there are those who aren't afraid to speak out. That is very important no matter who is right or who is wrong. When everyone is saying the exact same thing, that's when the blogosphere dies.

It's almost the new year, 2008 is probably going to be better than 2007 was as long as the economy doesn't completely collapse. I've had at least some contact with most of the people I'm linking to in this post and its been nice "working" with all of you.

Can't wait to see what the first 'bitchmeme' of '08 will be.


[UPDATE]: And here's a transcript of the live chat during Scoble's demonstration of FlickrFan - you'd be hard pressed to find a positive comment, or a handful that make sense. Ah the Internet...

[photo: flickr/victoriapeckham]

And now for some good green tech news on a subject dear to my heart: beer. A new method for brewing beer coming out of the UK will allow energy consumption in the process to be cut by 40% as well as reducing waste produced.

All you need to know about the new process known as PDX are the words 'steam', 'blast', and 'hypersonic speeds'. "The steam rips the liquid apart completely to form tiny, atomised droplets" says Jens Thorup, the technical director behind the process. Carlsberg of Denmark among others may soon begin using the process.

Awesome, subatomic beer that helps the environment. Sold.

On a stroll around the Internet tonight I randomly found that my site was referenced in an article on Fox Business. I say "randomly" because the article itself doesn't use hyperlinks for the sites it references, so unless people reading that page did a web search on that very page and click on your site from there, you're probably never going to see where that traffic is coming from (if that traffic even bothers coming having to go through the task of copying and pasting your URL or god forbid remembering it).

Setting aside my hurt ego that a site would reference me but not link to me (or even bother to let me know), this should be a cautionary tale for any site owners/bloggers out there: you could be being referenced a lot more than you know - and will likely never know it. I was actually able to find this link by using Topix, a great news aggregator that has a very solid keyword search.

I have an email into the Fox Business people asking why they're not using hyperlinks for the sites they reference. I'll update when I have an update.

In the past I've written about saving loose change for a few months and then taking it to either a bank or a Coinstar machine to convert what seems like a pile of useless change into some tangible currency - well I've just been alerted that Coinstar has a pretty nice deal going on until November 4th. If you take at least $30 worth of change to a Coinstar machine and opt to receive your money in the form of an Amazon gift card (which is already a better deal in itself as they don't take out a fee as they do for getting cash back), you will get a free $10 bonus gift card to Amazon.

So $30 worth of change turned into $40 to Amazon - if you shop at Amazon anywhere near the amount I do, it's a great deal. Too bad I just took in a jar full of change last month...