[thedataangel]

Starbucks is next to non-existent in Australia. Partly it's because there were already established local chains when they tried to move into the market, but mostly because you can walk into almost any cafe in the country and get a much better cup of coffee at a comparable price.

[dyarosla]

Next to non-existent? They have several stores in each of the major cities. Is it the same number of stores as in Seattle? No. But near non-existent is way off.

[umanwizard]

> you can walk into almost any cafe in the country and get a much better cup of coffee at a comparable price.

This is also true in the United States and yet here we are.

[jrochkind1]

It wasn't when Starbucks started. There used to be a real dearth of quality prepared coffee in America, and Starbucks was often the first place in many towns (not talking NYC or LA or San Fran or Chicago) to get a decent cup of coffee.

I don't know what to take from that though with regard to what y'all are arguing about, I can't really explain the economics of it all. But I think it's a fact that at the point Starbucks was expanding to be national, it was not true that most places it was expanding to had plenty of places where you could get a much better cup of coffee at a comparable price. Starbucks actually brought "coffee culture" to most of the U.S. (if it wasn't them it would have been someone else, this was when "foodie" culture in general was becoming a thing, people with enough money to were becoming more interested in 'gourmet' everything).

[umanwizard]

Well, I agree with you, but it doesn't contradict my point.

The fact that now, in 2018, it's possible to easily get high-quality coffee in Australia is not a complete explanation of why Starbucks is not popular there, since the same is true of the United States.

[jrochkind1]

Well, the argument would be that Starbucks got it's national market share when that was not true in the U.S., but does not have that opportunity now in Australia. shrug.