Need a Buzz? DeLonghi Espresso Machines Are Up to 39% Off
If there's an empty space in your kitchen right next to your wooden sign that reads 'But first, coffee,' now's the time to fill it with one of these beauties. De'Longhi's sleek espresso machines are made for the real coffee head — the true bean bros. If you're unfamiliar with De'Longhi's game, the small appliance manufacturer was born in Treviso, Italy in 1902, and is well-known in the coffee industry for its many models of well-designed espresso machines. When it comes to espresso, trust Italians. It's their thing!
At-home baristas, buckle up to go full script on that java, baby! That was an internet joke, but for real, we've always wanted one of these bad boys — and now seems to be the time to add to cart. Here are a few that deserve that coveted spot on your counter.
This handsome, multifunctional stainless steel espresso machine is 35% off right now. Only $149.95 for a primo espresso maker? I'm buzzin' — and will be taking full advantage of its milk frother, temperature control function, and ability to make on-demand espresso martinis (!).
The original price on this luxe, do-it-all bad boy is $749.50, but right now, you'll save 33% and take it home for under 500 bucks. Looking for a built-in grinder, cold extraction technology, and easy to clean, dishwasher-safe parts? Move quick.
This versatile machine is for those who like to switch it up between coffee and espresso drinks, hot and iced. At the touch of a button, it brews four different cup sizes with a heat up time of just 25 seconds, and as an added bonus, it comes with an Aeroccino3 milk frother. At 35% off, it's likely at its best price of the year.
If you've been wanting to finally get into espresso, but fear keeps you from being your truest caffeinated self, the Stilosa is the perfect starter machine — ready to save you many, many dollars on lattes and cappuccinos. At just $99.95 — down from $149.95 — this is the time to buy.
Short on counter space? You can still make espresso at home, mate. This petite but powerful machine is perfect for a small kitchen, and doesn't skimp on features, from Advanced Thermoblock technology to a steam wand that makes gorgeous microfoam every time.
[Alarm clock noise] At 39% off, this is the best discounted price for a De'Longhi espresso machine on Amazon right now. The Magnifica Evo really lives up to its name, with tons of built-in functions and touch-of-a-button settings that will have you sipping on an iced coffee, latte, or macchiano in minutes (and with pretty much zero effort on your end). The automatic milk frother, Lattecrema system, and personalizable latte memory are just the beginning — and yes, you're saving a whopping $350 right now.
Head over to Amazon to see all of De'Longhi's buzzy Prime Day deals , and catch our full rundown of the best early Prime Day deals here . See More: Add to Cart
Buy This Thing
Eater at Home
Shopping and Pantry Guides
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
26 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Natuzzi Announces Appointment of Non-Executive Director
SANTERAMO IN COLLE, Bari, Italy--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Natuzzi S.p.A. (NYSE: NTZ) ('Natuzzi' or the 'Company') announced today that Mr. Pietro Labriola has formally accepted the appointment as a non-executive director of the Company by way of co-optation, effective August 6, 2025, further to the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors on July 29, 2025. Mr. Labriola will remain in office until the next Shareholders' Meeting, at which time it will be submitted for confirmation by the shareholders. Mr. Labriola currently serves as Chief Executive Officer and General Manager of Telecom Italia S.p.A. (TIM), one of the leading telecommunications companies in Europe. He has over 30 years of experience in the telecom and technology sectors, having held senior executive positions in both Italy and abroad, including as CEO of TIM Brazil. He holds a degree in Business and Economics from the University of Bari and a Master in Management of Innovation and Technologies from Tecnopolis, the Scientific and Technological Park of Bari. He is a member of the board of GSMA, the organization that brings together mobile network operators worldwide, and a member of the General Council of Confindustria, the main representative association of manufacturing enterprises and services in Italy, where, since May 2024, he has the mandate for the Digital Transition. He is also President of Asstel, the Italian trade association within Confindustria that represents the telecommunication sector. In the TIM Group since 2001, he has held increasingly senior roles in the field of Marketing for the corporate and consumer segments in both fixed and mobile telephony services. Before joining TIM, he worked at Infostrada, then Boston Consulting Group, Cable&Wireless, and France Telecom. The Board of Directors believes that Mr. Labriola's extensive international executive experience and deep knowledge of innovative technologies and services, combined with its strategic vision and operational expertise, will contribute to driving the Company's digital transformation and sustainable growth. ***** CAUTIONARY STATEMENT CONCERNING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS Certain statements included in this press release constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These statements may be expressed in a variety of ways, including the use of future or present tense language. Words such as 'estimate,' 'forecast,' 'project,' 'anticipate,' 'likely,' 'target,' 'expect,' 'intend,' 'continue,' 'seek,' 'believe,' 'plan,' 'goal,' 'could,' 'should,' 'would,' 'may,' 'might,' 'will,' 'strategy,' 'synergies,' 'opportunities,' 'trends,' 'ambition,' 'objective,' 'aim,' 'future,' 'potentially,' 'outlook' and words of similar meaning may signify forward-looking statements. These statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties, as well as other factors that may be beyond our control. The Company cautions readers that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement. Such factors include, but are not limited to: effects on the Group from competition with other furniture producers, material changes in consumer demand or preferences, significant economic developments in the Group's primary markets, the Group's execution of its reorganization plans for its manufacturing facilities, significant changes in labor, material and other costs affecting the construction of new plants, significant changes in the costs of principal raw materials and in energy costs, significant exchange rate movements or changes in the Group's legal and regulatory environment, including developments related to the Italian Government's investment incentive or similar programs, the duration, severity and geographic spread of any public health outbreaks (including the spread of any future epidemic), consumer demand, our supply chain and the Company's financial condition, business operations and liquidity, the geopolitical tensions and market uncertainties resulting from the ongoing armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war and other conflicts in the Middle East, the inflationary environment and potential increases in interest rates and energy prices, as well as protectionist trade policies, tariffs and related retaliatory measures. The Company cautions readers that the foregoing list of important factors is not exhaustive. When relying on forward-looking statements to make decisions with respect to the Company, investors and others should carefully consider the foregoing factors and other uncertainties and events. Additional information about potential factors that could affect the Company's business and financial results is included in the Company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Company's most recent Annual Report on Form 20-F. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this press release. About Natuzzi S.p.A. Founded in 1959 by Pasquale Natuzzi, Natuzzi S.p.A. is one of the most renowned brands in the production and distribution of design and luxury furniture. As of March 31, 2025, Natuzzi distributes its collections worldwide through a global retail network of 610 monobrand stores in addition to galleries. Natuzzi products embed the finest spirit of Italian design and the unique craftsmanship details of the 'Made in Italy', where a predominant part of its production takes place. Natuzzi has been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since May 13, 1993. Committed to social responsibility and environmental sustainability, Natuzzi S.p.A. is ISO 9001 and 14001 certified (Quality and Environment), ISO 45001 certified (Safety on the Workplace) and FSC ® Chain of Custody, CoC (FSC-C131540).
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
The end of the mega-employer
In June, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy had a blunt message for his 350,000 corporate employees: There were going to be fewer of them in the near future, thanks to the "efficiency gains" he expected from AI. The proclamation generated big headlines and an uproar from staff. But it struck me as merely honest. He was acknowledging something that pretty much every CEO who sits atop a large white-collar workforce is quietly hoping to achieve sooner or later. After all, Jassy hasn't been the only executive to hint at a future of lower headcount. The head of JPMorgan's consumer and community business predicted in May that AI will reduce the number of employees in its operations division by 10%. That same month, the CEO of Klarna said that the company's investments in AI has already driven the company's headcount to shrink by 40%. And the CEO of Ford — a company that employs tens of thousands of white-collar professionals — declared that AI will wipe out "literally half" of all white-collar jobs. Meanwhile, Kian Katanforoosh, the CEO and founder of the software startup Workera, tells me that he never wants to have much more than the 80 or so employees he has today, no matter how successful his business ends up becoming. "I truly believe we can go super super far without growing more," he says. "I'm an engineer. I don't want to have to manage so many people if I don't need to." It's not like CEOs ever enjoyed shelling out for the salaries or navigating the personnel headaches that come with the sprawling bureaucracies they employ. But for more than a century, armies of office workers were a necessary cost of doing business. To grow from tiny upstarts into titans of industry, companies needed an ever-multiplying number of HR reps, accountants, marketers, engineers, analysts, and project managers. In recent months, that 100-year-trend is starting to come undone. Everywhere you look, AI appears to be helping leaner teams take on work that used to require more people. And executives are talking about their large workforces — once their greatest competitive advantage — as if they're an unfortunate holdover from a bygone, bloated era. If today's corporate giants shrink their ranks, and if tomorrow's giants never need to bulk up in the first place, we may well be witnessing the end of a defining feature of corporate America: the mega-employer. That could give rise to a whole new generation of nimble companies that innovate faster — but also leave workers navigating a world of diminished career paths and fewer jobs. Before the Industrial Revolution, most Americans worked for themselves as farmers or craftsmen. And those who didn't worked for very small operations — say, a few journeymen training under a master shoemaker. The resulting economy was a patchwork of all these tiny businesses. That started to change with the advent of capital-intensive industries like textile manufacturing, which required organizing larger groups of people under a single employer. Then came railroads in the late 19th century. With projects that took many years to realize and stretched over thousands of miles, vast numbers of workers needed to be on the same page. "If you mess it up, there's a big explosion," says Louis Hyman, a historian of work and business at Cornell. "You needed to really coordinate your mechanisms and make sure that people are doing things exactly the same way." As mass production developed, Hyman says, many of the most consequential innovations during this time weren't so much technical breakthroughs: They were social inventions to coordinate the labor of all the people it took to get the most out of the new machines. The assembly line broke down complicated work into simple, repeatable, standardized tasks; scientific management emphasized the importance of monitoring, measuring, and optimizing everyone's performance; and the M-form corporate structure created a blueprint to manage sprawling bureaucracies through a clear chain of command. In the 1930s, about a tenth of the labor force worked for businesses that employed at least 10,000 people. By the end of World War II, that share had surged to about a third. By the 1970s, some of that bigger-is-better ideology started to change. A new management philosophy set in, normalizing layoffs that took aim at bloat. And as robots automated many blue-collar jobs, IBM mainframes and word processors eliminated a whole set of white-collar clerical roles as well. Still, there was plenty of work that technology couldn't automate, which meant that companies needed large teams of college-educated professionals to keep them going. Even the most tech-forward companies saw their people — especially their coders — as mission-critical to their success. "Hiring great people — especially engineers — is one of the biggest challenges that any technology company has," Mark Zuckerberg lamented in 2013. "Our country doesn't produce the volume of engineers that the companies would want to hire." Tech giants often hired more than they needed to make sure they had a steady supply of talent, and to attract and retain the best of the best, they treated their employees like gods. If you were to pinpoint one moment the gods turned mortal, it would probably be November 9, 2022 — the day Meta laid off more than 11,000 employees. From there, virtually every tech company followed suit, with employers across other industries close behind. At first, the cuts were chalked up to overhiring in the pandemic. But two and a half years later, the layoffs haven't stopped and hiring is still down. More and more, AI appears to be driving those austerity measures. In an industry that once hoarded talent like gold, the shift is striking. CEOs no longer seem to view the bulk of their workforce as indispensable, and they say as much: A common refrain among tech leaders from Mark Zuckerberg to Elon Musk to Dara Khosrowshahi now is some version of "If you don't like it here, you should leave." Companies like Microsoft, Meta, Google, and Salesforce had reliably increased their headcounts year after year. Now, according to the workforce analytics provider Live Data, all of them employ fewer people than they did at their 2022 peak. J. Scott Hamilton, Live Data's CEO, says this is probably just the beginning. To gauge how much deeper the cuts could go, his team recently analyzed the detailed responsibilities of most roles at Microsoft to estimate the share of tasks that could, in theory, be done by AI. Their conclusion: If Microsoft were to offload all of those automatable tasks to AI, it would eliminate 36% of the work currently done by employees. That would mean the company could lay off some 80,000 employees. On the one hand, that's an aggressive scenario: Companies are rarely able to overhaul their workflows to take full advantage of a new automation technology's capabilities. If they do, that transition takes a very long time. And besides, some work is simply too high-stakes to entrust to error-prone AI — even if it's technically possible. On the other, the estimate may prove conservative: Live Data's predictions assume that AI will remain at 2025-level capabilities. Given how much better the leading large language models have become over the last two years, the best tools will almost certainly be able to handle more than what they can today. "The optimists are saying that the good companies will simply redeploy the assets elsewhere now that they can be more efficient," Hamilton says. "But I think an equal argument can be made that they'll just say, 'We're going to do the same amount with fewer people.'" If Microsoft offloaded all automatable tasks to AI, it could eliminate some 80,000 jobs, Live Data found. If that sounds like a far-off hypothetical future, consider what's already happening today at startups. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says he's making bets with his friends on when we'll get the first "one-person billion-dollar company." And Arthur Kaneko, a general partner at Coreline Ventures, tells me he's noticed that early-stage founders are raising their initial rounds of funding with fewer employees than they would have had in the past — among the AI-fluent founders, perhaps with less than half. "The way companies are being built is just fundamentally changing right now because of AI," Kaneko says. "Through the use of AI coding, AI marketing, AI sales, people are able to do a lot more work with way fewer people." And he thinks these startups will stay lean as they scale into successful businesses. "They just won't hire the people that Meta and Microsoft had to hire to get to where they are," he says. "I do think per-company headcount will permanently be depressed in startups." There are reasons to be hopeful about a new era of smaller employers. If AI makes it cheaper and easier to launch companies, we'll probably see more of them — and that would be great for the long-term health of the economy in all kinds of ways. New businesses tend to employ people with less experience and fewer credentials who get passed up by the bigger companies. They're more willing to try new things, which drives innovation. And they create more competition for the established giants, which is good for consumers. Smaller companies may also be good for the workers inside them. There's a lot that people hate about working at big organizations: the constant turf wars, the endless layers of approval, the meetings before the meetings, the sense that you're just one tiny inconsequential cog in a giant machine. Smaller bureaucracies would minimize that, which is one reason why people often feel more motivated in leaner workplaces. According to Gallup, employees at small companies report the highest engagement, with scores dropping below the national average once organizations hit 500 employees. On the same stage where Altman made his one-person unicorn prediction, Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian raved about the benefits of this possibility. "CEOs and founders are going to be so excited to get up and go to work with much smaller, much more performant, much more culturally strong teams," he said. But a world of shrunken employers could also rob workers of something essential: the long-term career paths that big companies used to offer. With so many roles under one roof, big companies made it possible for workers to try new things, move up, and build careers. Smaller firms don't offer the same range of opportunities, which means people will likely need to switch companies a lot more in the future. Smaller firms are also less likely to invest in on-the-job training — a shift that would hit early-career professionals hard, just as their roles face the greatest risk from AI. The big question is what this all means for college-educated workers. If enough startups emerge, they might create new jobs to offset the ones disappearing from big companies. But that would require an unprecedented boom in entrepreneurship — one enormous enough to make up for the retrenchment of the giants. In 2022, 29% of the American workforce worked for an organization that employed at least 10,000 people. Meanwhile, the country's education system is churning out ever more college grads, who studied hard with the expectation of a stable future in white-collar work. If big companies hire less, and small companies also hire less, where will they all go? The usual reassurance is that AI, like every disruptive technology before it, will eventually create more jobs than it destroys. That glosses over an important detail, according to Carl Benedikt Frey, an economist at Oxford. In the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, most innovations simply made existing work faster and cheaper — like the loom, which automated the work of skilled weavers but still produced more or less the same fabric. That made a handful of industrialists very rich, but for the average worker, wages barely budged for the first 80 or so years of industrialization. It was only later — with inventions like electricity and the automobile that gave rise to entirely novel industries — that economic growth surged and better, high-paying jobs emerged. Had that second wave never arrived, we'd remember the Industrial Revolution very differently. "Most productivity gains over the long run," Frey says, "come from doing new and previously inconceivable things." Right now, corporate America seems stuck in that first phase. So many executives are laser-focused on using AI to do the same work with fewer people, rather than applying it to problems we couldn't solve before — the kind of breakthroughs that would open up new lines of business and generate more demand for labor, not less. "A real risk is that we're getting leaner organizations, but they're not really creating that much new," Frey says. "That would be a bleak future, and I do worry we're moving in that direction."
Wall Street Journal
6 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
‘Buy Now, Pay Later' Wants to Kill Credit Cards. But They're Becoming Similar
How do the world's most successful companies generate revenue? In this explainer series, we'll dive into the surprising stories behind how businesses work--exploring everything from Costco's "treasure-hunt" model to the economics behind Amazon's AWS.
