Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Interesting take. I've always said Impossible tastes more like meat, but has a bad texture match, and Beyond tastes less like meat but has a better texture.

With that said, I think the flavor and quality of Beyond is higher, for me. Impossible still hovers around low-grade, poor texture ground beef. I want them both to be successful because the more options we have the better.

I think Impossible is likely to be more successful targeting current meat eaters, though, so you may be right about their longer term success.

I've found the variance of each burger to be highly dependent on the preparation, so I think a real fair test would be made-at-home side-by-side. I enjoy the Beyond patty made at home on a skillet without much extra besides a bun and catchup and mustard, this says a lot.

I'm a recent vegetarian (4 years).



Have you tried the Impossible 2.0? It's noticeably better.

I agree that preparation has a huge impact on quality. I once had an Impossible 1.0 that was so badly prepared I ate 1/3 of it and then gave up.

I am wondering if Impossible will come up with a specialized cooker (imagine a waffle press sort of thing, but for burger patties) that will automate temperature management and cook time in order to reduce variability. But I assume their final goal is to just make their substitute cook exactly like real beef.


I’ll have to double check. I had an impossible burger recently but didn’t see the version. It was similar enough to previous ones that it’s safe to assume it was 1.0.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: