[shiroiushi]

It's not naive; both posts have correct points. It's the classic little-company vs. big-company scenario. Little companies can move faster and adapt quicker, they don't have the same profit expectations or overhead costs as big companies (upper manager and CxO salaries), however the big company has big advantages with economies of scale, name recognition, and access to capital. Some things for the big company may work against it: some people may go out of their way to avoid Starbucks (or other big name-brands) due to some bad experience ("it tastes burnt!") or association or simply disliking bigger companies, for instance.

[listenallyall]

Your post - which at least attempts to list some of the advantages of a small shop AND some of the advantages of a mega-chain - demonstrates why kevinventullo's post is, in fact, naive - because he only mentions the disadvantages that Starbucks might have, without considering any obvious advantages it has, like scale and brand recognition.

[kevinventullo]

If you want to be pedantic about it, the post I was responding to was asking how a mom-and-pop might survive when Starbucks didn’t. Thus, I only felt compelled to name some possible advantages on the one side. It was not intended as an overall analysis. Obviously Starbucks has some other advantages over a mom-and-pop, or else they wouldn’t be everywhere.