On the other hand, unlike McDonald's the coffee isn't the main thing so they don't have to derive all their profit from it. They don't have to build stores and pay the rent off of coffee sales. Their overhead in expanding into coffee is much smaller than Starbucks so I've no doubt that they could sell coffee at fractions of the Starbucks' price and it would still be a fair profit. And if they are able to even approach Starbucks pricing it'll be easy money.

That's a very good point!

:OT:
Use the button that looks like "+ you click that button on all the posts you want to quote. When you've got them, just hit "quote" on one of the posts and it'll pull them all up for you.

And now back to your regularly scheduled coffee discussion:

You make a good point, Alex. I could see the appeal of enjoying a latte while letting my kid (if I had one) run around the playplace. After all, noisy kids don't exactly fit the "sophisticated" profile of a Starbucks or Peets.

Thanks, Goonie! I think I've got it now!

It might be nice to give parents more opportunities to make the "right" choices about bringing their children to appropriate venues- I have sipped my coffe next to a toddler more than once at a Starbucks.

A very large part of the Starbucks business model is the "experience" that they try to create within their stores. The initial concept of Starbucks was to recreate the social gathering spot experienced in France (at least I think it was France).

On a related topic, Starbucks announced today that Howard Schultz would be taking back over the reins of the company.

Yes, and?

I'm not saying Starbucks doesn't offer a different experience. Just that because Starbucks charges $4 for a cup of coffee doesn't mean that McDonald's needs to, to get the same profit.

Of course, I think they should just merge so the stores are always next to each other. The breakfast food Starbucks sells is pretty horrible (except the granola cups) so even an egg mcmuffin is preferable. Of course, then the McDonald's would definitely smell like a Starbucks. I just can't win unless everybody stops drinking coffee.

On the level of distraction at cafes, I think children come in a distant third to 1) cell phone yellers and 2) the volume of music that the counter staff puts on.

It's Italy, but you're on the right continent ;)

Starbucks to me has gone somewhat downhill. When I worked for them, there was a LOT more customer interaction than there is now (especially on the drink making side, when we actually grinded, tamped down, and timed our shots. Now there's this giant metallic object -- the shot-maker-- blocking you from seeing what the heck the barista is doing). Also, Starbucks used to have in-store ceramic cups. Having everything now in "to go" cups detracts from the experience IMO.

And yes, some Starbucks do smell bad. It is something they need to work on, and I think it has to do with the current food-heating of items... BAD idea for rubbery tasteless yuck. Or that they just don't clean the milk off the floors as thoroughly as they should.

The only time I eat at a McDonalds is when I am on a road trip up the 5. I wonder how they're going to do fast food lattes though, considering an actual human still needs to be there to steam the milk, and you can't have hot milk just sitting out there for a long time. Perhaps they just heat milk in a microwave? (which doesn't make a real latte).

I assumed they'd use the same gleaming push button machine found at the finest gas stations.

I'm against it!

I am a tea man myself, though if they do a soy latte, I will have to check it out.