[amirmc]

> "... meaning that a customer that sits half a day with a laptop costs Starbucks money."

If you consider that the largest cost is probably rent, then people sitting around probably add only a tiny amount more. It's only an issue if the shop happens to be be full and there are other customers who wanted a seat.

That person sitting there is probably doing Starbucks a favour. People are more inclined to go somewhere where there are other people.

[JupiterMoon]

This is not quite accurate as it assumes that Starbucks must have premises of a certain size. If Starbucks had smaller shops they'd pay smaller rent. Their business model of having large shops is their problem right now.

[ethbro]

I don't think it's a problem, but it is a limitation. Starbucks can't place a location anywhere they can't fit one of their buildings.

As comments further down noted, there are two types of coffee customers: (1) get it and leave & (2) spend time in a coffee shop.

Where (1) breaks down is basically if you don't have access to a Starbucks on a commute. Which to me is a particular type of customer: lives in a city core, bikes or walks to work / uses mass transit. These are the type of customers Starbucks can't really afford to chase. They're designed as a stop when someone is commuting in from the suburbs via car.

Deliver a high-quality, dependable (key!!), possibly cheaper product right in front of a rail or transit stop? Bob's your uncle.

Good luck!

PS: Step 2: ? Step 3: (Get bought by Starbucks and profit!)

[a_lifters_life]

This is well put. I do think having others in a starbucks can be a blessing, rather than a detriment to their business.