[notJim]

Yours is a good point (and I can't fully refute it), but I'd like to point out that the article's argument is that Starbucks doesn't offer a free alternative. Surely if Starbucks offered a free alternative, people would choose it instead, as long as it provided a reasonable number of the benefits the paid version does.

To bring the analogy back around to apps, let's say there was an Instagram app that costs $9 and a notJimstagram app that does something similar for free. Instagram = Starbucks, notJimstagram = your office coffee. Most people would buy Instagram, because Instagram is well known, has a strong brand, etc.

On the other hand, suppose there was the $9 Instagram and the free Instagram. In that case, most people would probably choose, or at least start with the free Instagram.