This line of thought completely discounts the value of difference, though.
The idea that a single structure works well for everybody assumes everybody values things equally. And usually, above a certain baseline, that's not true. I mean, yes, nobody wants burnt coffee and dirty tables. We can agree there.
But the question is, what can you build on top of that. And I think there's room for differentiation, even at a very local level.
As a simple example: I will never want a hyper-efficient coffee store that has my order ready the moment I come in. I want a more lengthy engagement with the staff - i.e. I like to chat. Others might want instant service and as little human contact as possible. Neither one is an optimal experience for the customer who doesn't seek that specific experience
The idea that there is a single global maximum is fundamentally broken.
Before Starbucks, the median coffee was worse. They showed the world that coffee is something more than Folgers or something you drink out of a carafe that’s been warmed for 6 hours.
When Starbucks came along it showed the world that coffee is a highly customizable beverage that could be served in thousands of modern stand-alone cafes around the world. That idea spread like a wild fire to the point where Starbucks became the norm, so today’s specialty cafes that this article criticizes popped up to elevate coffee even more.
Today we’re probably near some peak of “craft coffee in a loft cafe” that will become the new norm and the whole process will repeat itself again, elevating coffee even more. Even if this process reaches a global maximum we’ll see demand for novelty spread out into tea, Kambucha, etc.
1) Starbucks is a more American thing than a worldwide one.
2) Starbucks is many things, but coffee store is a euphemism. It offers sweetened hot drinks with caffeine. (See where that taste difference I mentioned comes in?)
3) Craft coffee shops don't elevate coffee. They elevate pomp and circumstance around coffee. (Again, not that there's anything wrong with that, but not everybody wants that. Taste, again)
You seem to operate under the misguided belief that taste has global maxima. It does not. It does have limited audiences, which is why normed mediocrity wins out on the large scale - it aims at the fact that most consumers follow a satisficing strategy. But that also means that the market will not continue to improve, it will aim to satisfy a maximal market and minimal cost, and then it will peter out. There is no "elevating even more", unless the desires of almost the entire world change significantly.
>1) Starbucks is a more American thing than a worldwide one.
Starbucks is easily the most popular coffee shop in urban Japan these days. The second-most popular is probably Tully's, which came from Seattle but has disappeared from America and is exclusively in Japan.
> Before Starbucks, the median coffee was worse. They showed the world that coffee is something more than Folgers or something you drink out of a carafe that’s been warmed for 6 hours.
You mean they showed America. Lots of places weren't doing carafe coffee before starbucks
The idea that a single structure works well for everybody assumes everybody values things equally. And usually, above a certain baseline, that's not true. I mean, yes, nobody wants burnt coffee and dirty tables. We can agree there.
But the question is, what can you build on top of that. And I think there's room for differentiation, even at a very local level.
As a simple example: I will never want a hyper-efficient coffee store that has my order ready the moment I come in. I want a more lengthy engagement with the staff - i.e. I like to chat. Others might want instant service and as little human contact as possible. Neither one is an optimal experience for the customer who doesn't seek that specific experience
The idea that there is a single global maximum is fundamentally broken.