Talk:Juicero

Contents

we need a source showing the contents of the packs to be pre-shredded, not just cut. the contents appear to be simply the end product of a regular juicing machine, the liquid and the pulp, just not separated. so they dont separate the juice from the pulp, but they do separate the money from the rubes.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There are YT Videos showing the content. It is what you would expect from a regular juicer, but not separated from the liquid. Did the company ever advertise why their product was in any way better than just selling the juice itself? As stated in the article, they claimed it is less messy with their product. Yeah. But so is juice in a bottle. Same amount of plastic waste. Even less mess, because you do not have to supply the drinking glass. And the non liquid can be recycled by the company that makes the juice and does not land in the garbage can of the customer, where it might start to stink. Or was that stuff biodegradeable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.7.102 (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

"A simpler and cheaper implementation, suggested Einstein, would likely have produced much the same quality of juice at a price several hundred US dollars cheaper." Einstein is, to my knowledge, not alive. 109.149.69.173 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Black-Photon

@DGG: This is more complicated than I had thought. The company evidently marketed the contents as being "cut" and reliable sources e.g. happily repeated it The packs, which cost about $5 to $7 apiece, hold the diced up fruits and vegetables that get turned into juice but the later ones are more uncertain about what state the contents of the packs were in e.g. the Bloomberg story which started the downfall says One of the investors said they ... wouldn’t have met with Evans if he were hawking bags of juice and arstechica said Some investors said they assumed the Juicero would press large chunks of fruit and vegetables, but instead... delivered bags of pre-cut pulp. From more recently This says colourful bloodbags of prepulped fruit and vegetables while this says described a supply chain that delivered juice packs significantly less fresh than advertised. From reading sources years ago, I had thought it was clear it was juice, but now I think it is something closer to a smoothie? Frustratingly I can't find anything which really explains their contents. SmartSE (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think including Einstein in there was just a joke. But yeah, it sounds awfully inaccurate. Zatrp (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There are more than one person with the name Einstein. Whole families if them probably. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Tear-down and ANALysis Coomentary by AvE

BOLTR: Juicero, Cold Press Juicer for Rich Weirdos

2A01:D0:F180:0:6934:6C2B:67D6:214A (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Dad

Why have mentions of teardown by Ave been repeatedly removed?

Why have mentions of teardown by Ave been repeatedly deleted? Any edits I've made, accurately and clearly describing this teardown video, with citations, have been promptly removed. This teardown video is far more detailed and thorough than the one currently described in the article, and performed by someone widely recognized as an expert in the subject matter.

I don't understand the arbitrary nature of such reversal of edits, and I don't see any explanation given. AnswerManDan (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

wiki editors have a somewhat luddite tendency to remove anything that acknowledges that youtube videos are sometimes significant sources 2601:642:C481:4640:0:0:0:6DE (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Not enough main content

Why is the article mainly about the failure and criticism of the Juicero press? There should be a section for the actual function of the juciero and how to use it…I would understand if it was never shipped out, but it was sold to consumers, so a section for its function then a section for its criticism and shutdown should be completed. I will add the section needed, pending others opinions? Thebest8382 (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, but there certainly should be a description of what it actually does and how it does it. For a GA nomination that is a big gap. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Juicero/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: OpalYosutebito (talk · contribs) 18:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 05:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a very short article that appears to be ok as far as it goes, but I'm left with a lot of questions that the article does not answer.

• What happened to the company after the 2017 announcement that it was seeking a buyer? Did someone buy its assets? Was it dissolved?
• There must have been reviews of their product, disconnected from the controversy, examining how well it actually worked at what it did (rather than the topic of the controversy, how well you could juice their fruit packets without using their juicer), how easy to clean it might have been, etc. What did they say?
• Do we have any information about sales of their product? Was it ever delivered to customers? If so what happened to the availability of their juice packs after the company went out of business?
• There are many other juicing products. I personally use a countertop lever citrus press after having switched from less-reliable electric rotary designs. One can also find small hand-held reamers and squeezers, reamers with a built-in basin that you put on the counter, blender-style juicers like the nutribullet, masticating juicers, etc. How would this product have fit into this market in things like price point, versatility, ease of cleaning, etc?
• How big was the company? How many employees did they have?
• Was this a flash-in-the-pan internet news scandal or is there continuing coverage that shows that there is lasting interest in the story? That is, can you find stories about this from more recently than 2018? What lessons do they draw from it?
• What fruits and vegetables were in the packs? "limited lifespan of about eight days" from date of picking the fruit, date of packaging, date of delivery, or what? Was the "cost between $5 and $7" an actual sales price, or a projection of future sales prices?
• What was the result of the intellectual property dispute with iTaste?
• To which countries was this product marketed? Was it ever marketed as a product or did the company fall apart before reaching that point?
• The see also section links internet of things. Was this a networked device? If so what use did it make of the network?

The writing and reliability of sourcing seem ok for what is here (I didn't do the full source check that would be required for a full GA review) and the image is relevant and properly licensed but I think this is so far from WP:GACR #3a (broadness of coverage) as being a quickfail. On the other hand if more of this can be fleshed out I think it should be possible to renominate soon. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.