i have a new understanding of the mcdonalds coffee case now

[DrewKaree]

DrewKaree, before you berate someone get your own facts straight. McDonalds main products are hamburgers, not coffee. If you really want to compare you should count the number of cups of premium coffee they sell, leaving out the drip coffee since Star Bucks doesn't sell that. Starbucks has 42% of the US premium coffeemarket with no close competitor (http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Starbucks_(SBUX)). McDonald's is gaining but does not sell close to the number of cups that Starbucks does. Dunkin' Donuts is a good competitor too.

I'll help you out, since you're clearly thinking about something else.  The conversation was about the PROFITS of McD's on coffee alone.  Show me - point me to the spot - where you saw "the judgement awarded her $X based on McD's profit of PREMIUM coffee per day".  Then point me to where shmokes OR myself were delving into the intricacies of the different "levels" of coffee. 

If you really want to compare, you compare the product.  If YOU want to separate levels of the products, fine, but before you "berate someone, get your own facts straight"   The conversation that you can clearly go back and read had no such delineation, and was comparing product to product. 

If you're going to be pedantic to win an argument, fine.  Just spare us when trying to interject it in the middle of the conversation.  The point that is still hovering over your head hoping to be noticed is that it's entirely possible (and probable) that McD's sells more coffee than Starbucks.

Per your own daft logic, I'll also parse the argument further, as you seem to want to do.  I claim the victory that McD's sells more NON-"premium" coffee than Starbucks.  That work for you?   Based on that "fact" that you've made darn near indisputable, McD's then makes more PROFIT on that "non-premium coffee" than Starbucks.  I win again.  Point, set, match.

If you're going to fly your pretentiousness flag, try to deal with what's currently going on in the conversation, not some pedantic "win" you see a chance to snag.  Lastly, before you try to feign surprise at this, spare me the notion that you weren't able to follow the conversation and thought it should be comparing "premium" coffee.  Still brown?  Still hot?  Still scalding when poured on someone's lap?  Still talking about comparing profit per day on the brown hot scalding liquid that comes in cups and is called "coffee", and not "premium coffee"?

 

[boykster]

With all that hot air, why is it you're not a lawyer or some ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- instead of wasting your time flipping burgers 

[Singapura]

Shall we go back to topic? No use debating with someone who doesn't have a clue. 

[mccoy178]

Shall we go back to topic? No use debating with someone who doesn't have a clue. 

Bah, you'll get used to it.  Drew berates everyone at some point.  Typing is his drug of choice, but he has bad trips a lot.

[DrewKaree]

Shall we go back to topic? No use debating with someone who doesn't have a clue. 

I felt the same way, yet you were compelled to post your initial nonsense.  Perhaps you were confused by the dazzling usage of your own rationale against your argument to hammer the point home.

At least you got McCoy to dust you off and get you back on your feet.

[psik0tik]

Whatever happened to the kid that crapped in the pinto beans at Taco Bell?

[patrickl]

Technically, McDonald's should have moved for the case to be thrown out because the lady tampered with the burn safety device (the lid). She could have put the creamer in thru the sip opening.

I once ordered coffee from McDonalds and they had trouble finding a lid. I said it was OK and tried to take the coffee from them without the lid. They would not let me take it. They said it was fine if I took off the lid later, but then it was my problem. They claimed they would be held responsible if they gave it to me without a lid and I spilled it during my walk to the table.

So indeed they claimed the lid was their way of covering their responsibility.

[danny_galaga]

What killed Mickey D's was the fact they had over 700 prior complaints about the coffee being too hot.

and the fact that initially she was asking for $20k to cover medical expenses, and they offered $800.  $20k is a heck of a lot less expensive than the bad PR they received from this, let alone the monetary costs of the payout and modifying their packaging / process.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but 180F is a bit hot to be serving coffee.  I'm sure there was a marketing reason for it...serve it hotter so it stays hot longer, or some such silly thing.  Sure, it stays hot longer, but you have to wait 10 minutes before you can drink it.

zachary! i used to assume she got millions and had asked for that from the outset. never knew she had third degree burns and asked basically for medical expenses plus a little extra. i did not know they offered her $800 for such serious injuries. hence i am glad i dont have to feel sorry for mcdonalds! tommy, third degree burns to your genitals would result in removal of them. as billf said 'what are they worth to ya?'

[ChadTower]

The best thing about this case is that there's so many snarky opinions on both sides that it leads to endless arguing.

[ChadTower]

That pic was directed at the snarky people, not you. 

[Justin Z]

This reminds of when I bought a new car 6 years ago and one of the things I had to sign when buying the car was a waiver saying that they had explained to me how cruise control works.  I asked them why I had to sign such a stupid thing and they told me there was recently a lawsuit where a guy bought a motorhome, went driving down the road, set the cruise control, and then got up from the wheel to make coffee in back.  Apparently the guy was under the impression that cruise control actually drove the car for him and when he crashed, he sued the dealership for not explaining how cruise control works.

As it turns out, that story is completely false.

http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html

This guy runs a newsletter where you'll periodically get writeups about the latest real lawsuits that he comes across.

One of the funnier ones I read about was a guy suing Nike and Michael Jordan because he had a likeness to Michael Jordan that caused him grief and personal hardship or something to that effect.  He was suing both for like 5 mil.

[AtomSmasher]

This reminds of when I bought a new car 6 years ago and one of the things I had to sign when buying the car was a waiver saying that they had explained to me how cruise control works.  I asked them why I had to sign such a stupid thing and they told me there was recently a lawsuit where a guy bought a motorhome, went driving down the road, set the cruise control, and then got up from the wheel to make coffee in back.  Apparently the guy was under the impression that cruise control actually drove the car for him and when he crashed, he sued the dealership for not explaining how cruise control works.

As it turns out, that story is completely false.

http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html

This guy runs a newsletter where you'll periodically get writeups about the latest real lawsuits that he comes across.

One of the funnier ones I read about was a guy suing Nike and Michael Jordan because he had a likeness to Michael Jordan that caused him grief and personal hardship or something to that effect.  He was suing both for like 5 mil.

Ah, well like I said I didn't know for sure if the guy was telling me the truth, its just what he told me.  I wonder what the real reason I had to sign that waiver was.

[ChadTower]

He was a car salesman.  I wouldn't believe him if he told me lead is heavy.

[AtomSmasher]

He was a car salesman.  I wouldn't believe him if he told me lead is heavy.

Heh, well there was no reason for him to lie after I already filling out the paperwork to buy the car.  My guess is it was just a story floating around the car dealships at the time which they believed to be true.

[Justin Z]

Heh, well there was no reason for him to lie after I already filling out the paperwork to buy the car.  My guess is it was just a story floating around the car dealships at the time which they believed to be true.

Heh exactly.  It's an urban legend so pervasive, that even car dealers fell for it!

Thank goodness it's fabricated though.  I was just thinking how cool it would be to have an RV that did that though -- LOL

[shardian]

Heh, well there was no reason for him to lie after I already filling out the paperwork to buy the car.  My guess is it was just a story floating around the car dealships at the time which they believed to be true.

Heh exactly.  It's an urban legend so pervasive, that even car dealers fell for it!

Thank goodness it's fabricated though.  I was just thinking how cool it would be to have an RV that did that though -- LOL

There is technology out there right now in the middle stages of development that allows a car to drive itself. I've seen specials on tv about it, and read various articles in popsci dealing with it.

[ChadTower]

That has been developing for 50 years.  Won't happen.

[shardian]

That has been developing for 50 years.  Won't happen.

Yes, but now it works. Just not near ready enough for end-user use.

EDIT: apparently Opel already has a car ready for market that can operate itself up to 60mph.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=107011

Several cars already have intelligent cruise control that senses objects in your path, or adjusts for following distances, and monitors road lines.

Plain and simple, your blanket statement is outdated and wrong.

[ChadTower]

I still say it won't happen.  They can make it perfect.  People won't trust it.  I wouldn't.

[SavannahLion]

I still say it won't happen.  They can make it perfect.  People won't trust it.  I wouldn't.

I sincerely hope it won't happen. Think about it. In the U.S. too many people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions. What's going to happen when this gets introduced to the masses.

"But judge! It wasn't me that ran over my ex-wife! It was the car!"

Edit: Snagged the wrong quote

[patrickl]

They had a Mercedes on top gear that would stop on it's own. That sounds freaky enough to me.

[billf]

Think about it. In the U.S. too many people don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

Yep, like spilling hot coffee on their lap and suing the a corporation for it. 

[shardian]

It's not the car driving that worries me, I fully trust it can do its job. It is more the undiscovered recalls that cause the car to malfunction and swerve off of a cliff thru no fault of the automation programming.

[ChadTower]

Being a long time software engineer, it's the ---smurfing--- software I don't trust.  I don't like the idea of my family cruising along at 60mph at the navigating mercy of some jackoff's buggy software.  Gah.

[shardian]

Being a long time software engineer, it's the ---smurfing--- software I don't trust.  I don't like the idea of my family cruising along at 60mph at the navigating mercy of some jackoff's buggy software.  Gah.

How you think I feel in any building being an engineer? How the ---fudgesicle--- any building gets built right with all the outrageously horrible architectural plans I've seen is still a wonder to me.

[patrickl]

Being a long time software engineer, it's the ---smurfing--- software I don't trust.  I don't like the idea of my family cruising along at 60mph at the navigating mercy of some jackoff's buggy software.  Gah.

Do you fly? You're at the mercy of software if you go in a plane too. From what I understood, most landings are automated these days. let alone the flight itself.

Actually even in most modern cars you are at the mercy of software (and hardware) already. I had a client who's car computer went berserk now and then. It ended when the car just took off on it's own, went across the road and dove into a field besides the road. Luckily the guy didn't get hurt and he didn't hit anyone.

[ChadTower]

Yeah, but a car's current software isn't navigating, it's just keeping the car running properly.

As for airplanes, I rarely ever fly, and even then an airplane is not a consumer item rushed to market and made in the tens of millions, revised every few months.

[patrickl]

Yeah, but a car's current software isn't navigating, it's just keeping the car running properly.

In his case it was in control of the throttle and that's a pretty important part of navigating.

As for airplanes, I rarely ever fly, and even then an airplane is not a consumer item rushed to market and made in the tens of millions, revised every few months.

Still, people do give their lives in control to a machine. They don't really boast around that they do so though. Personally i found it more shocking to find out that  they let co-pilots train landing. Obviously they need to learn, but still, rather not on my flight.   I'll take a computer over a pilot in training

Would be cool if the car could drive itself. At least you could drink your coffee safely.

[danny_galaga]

Would be cool if the car could drive itself. At least you could drink your coffee safely.

 

[saint]

I like french fries.

Freedom fries you insensitive bastard.

[saint]

I still say it won't happen.  They can make it perfect.  People won't trust it.  I wouldn't.

The next generation will. They'll wonder what the big fuss was about it.

[shmokes]

Hell, I'd do it.  ---goshdarn---, I just drove from Salt Lake City to Miami.  Bloody 40+ hour drive.  It would have been so nice to just sleep.  And you're kidding yourself about the danger.  In your heart of hearts, you must know that accidents will steadily plummet as these things replace regular cars.

[shmokes]

Starbucks sells WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY more coffee than McDonald's, Drew.

Methinks that's the amount of effort you've put into thinking about this:  "all they sell is coffee, so they HAVE to sell more than them".

http://www.caterersearch.com/Companies/33902/mcdonalds-restaurants-ltd.html

http://www.caterersearch.com/Companies/33917/starbucks-coffee-company-ltd.html#ProfileData

Three times as many units.  Sheer volume.  I get the feeling you believe that I think they outsell Starbucks by brazillions.  I'm simply telling you that in sheer volume, they sell more.

You express amazement that McD's makes that much profit on coffee alone and wonder why Starbucks doesn't make that much.

Is it impossible that you can't put two and two together simply because you've got this mental stumbling block of "but all they SELL is coffee!?!?!?!"  Or does it just boggle your mind that McD's is able to figure out how to sell coffee at a higher profit than Starbucks?

One way or the other, McD's is better at it than Starbucks.  No matter what you believe to be true.

Drew, nobody is better at it than Starbucks.  They grow all their own beans.  In fact, when you buy a coke from McDonalds, you are most likely buying a Starbucks product, because Starbucks provides more than 50% of the world's (or at least the U.S.'s) caffeine for softdrinks. 

McDonald's, according to your link, serves 50 million customers per day.  They don't serve anything like 50 million cups of coffee per day.  The vast majority of their customers are there for lunch and dinner.  Most of them are getting a coke with their burger and fries, not a coffee with their McGriddle.  For that matter, not everyone in the morning is even ordering coffee.  A good many of them are ordering orange juice or water or no drink at all.

Both of us are working off a great deal of speculation and gut instinct.  Mine is just right, while yours is misguided.   

edit: p.s. BTW, McDonald's profit for 2004 was approximately $400 million.  So, can I just reiterate that it's somewhat unlikely they make a $300 million per day profit on coffee?  It's just kinda tough for the average per-day profit on coffee to equal 3/4 of the entire corporation's per-year profit. 

[patrickl]

edit: p.s. BTW, McDonald's profit for 2004 was approximately $400 million.  So, can I just reiterate that it's somewhat unlikely they make a $300 million per day profit on coffee?  It's just kinda tough for the average per-day profit on coffee to equal 3/4 of the entire corporation's per-year profit. 

They probably take a huge loss on the burgers (selling them cheap) just to get people in the restaurant so they will drink coffee 

[shmokes]

They probably take a huge loss on the burgers (selling them cheap) just to get people in the restaurant so they will drink coffee 

Just when I think I've got the whole thing sussed, Patrick comes along and turns everything I thought I knew on its head. 

[billf]

edit: p.s. BTW, McDonald's profit for 2004 was approximately $400 million.  So, can I just reiterate that it's somewhat unlikely they make a $300 million per day profit on coffee?  It's just kinda tough for the average per-day profit on coffee to equal 3/4 of the entire corporation's per-year profit. 

Why do you keep mentioning $300 million per day profit on coffee?  That wasn't mentioned anywhere except in your speculation.  I previously posted this, but here it is again:

The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

It has nothing to do with profit.  The $2.7 million awarded was the estimated amount McD's sold in coffee for 2 days.

[shmokes]

Because, billf, those are the numbers Drew and I are talking about.  Regardless of whether they are correct, which they clearly aren't, that's what I thought the initial verdict was for (a common myth . . . just do a Google search and you'll see that a lot of people believe the same thing).   Anyway, that may be wrong, but nevertheless when I said that there was no way McDonald's makes that kind of profit in one day, Drew begged to differ.  In my more recent post, where I mentioned the numbers again, I was responding to Drew regarding whether it was possible that McDonald's really could make that kind of profit. 

Just to get it out in the open, though, you appear to be entirely correct.  It looks like she was awarded $2.7 million, which was then reduced by the judge to like $640,000 or something.

The upside of this, for me, is that if McDonalds is doing only $2.7 million in coffee sales every two days, that means that they're doing about the same in coffee sales as Starbucks is doing in profits on their sales every year!  Take that Drew!   

[danny_galaga]

the question that no one seems to be asking is 'why on earth would anyone drink mcdonalds coffee anyway?' even kava tastes nicer 

[boykster]

the question that no one seems to be asking is 'why on earth would anyone drink mcdonalds coffee anyway?' even kava tastes nicer 

Funny you should say that. Round these parts (Pacific Northwest) McD's proudly serves SBC coffee....SBC is owned by Starbucks.  So a portion of McD's daily coffee sales, you guessed it, goes right into SBUX's pockets 

Their coffee suppliers are regional however, so it varies depending on where you are.

[danny_galaga]

so a mcdonalds coffee in Java should be freakin awesome!