Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

That restricted list has some odd ones in it. Starbucks and GM are both limited to 1 share per day. I really wonder what's going on behind the scenes.


sort by: page size:

I’m waiting for an explanation why Starbucks is on the restricted list. It’s not volatile.

I guess I'm wondering what this offers Starbucks customers that Starbucks does not or cannot, which will steal marketshare? The advantage to a franchisee is obvious, but not so much for Starbucks customers

> Starbucks is the largest chain, but they only process 2.5% of those daily sales.

Seriously shocking.


Because Starbucks corp owns the Starbucks brand, they're not going to let just anyone operate under that brand.

Stop being obtuse.


> Starbucks doesn't have a franchise model.

Interesting. Then how come there are so many non-corporate Starbucks outlets? The ones that don't get the same new products and don't take their gift cards -- like airports, for example.


Starbucks has a monopoly on coffee at Starbucks locations.

FALSE: Starbucks is famously company-owned. https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+starbucks+are+franc...

Probably has nothing to do with Starbucks. Just bad timing with a company that needs a lot of 9s of uptime.

All Starbucks out of a few markets are operated by Starbucks. And even the ones that aren't operated by Starbucks are operated by Sodexo, Marriott, or some other big company.

> but they can and do make them for customers only.

Starbucks doesn't anymore after the PR incident couple of years ago. There are 15k Starbucks in USA.


Which is why, I imagine, they'll either stay far, far away from the biggest players (Caribou is several orders of magnitude smaller than Starbucks) and just harass companies too small to take a stand. The system works again!

Starbucks has decent coffee, but I believe many are actually addicted to the sugary additions they put in their drinks.

I also don't think you can be a progressive publicly traded company. The expectations have become so perverse that it probably is a negative to be traded publicly at all.


I'm not aware of any lockdowns which are specifically targeted at small retailers while competing large retailers are allowed to be open. Where I am the small coffee shops are closed for walk-in business, but so are the Starbucks; the difference is that small coffee shops are not able to pivot to a centralized delivery platform en masse the way Starbucks is.

Interesting: "As part of the joint venture, Starbucks will invest $25 million in Square and hold an equity stake. Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman and CEO, will join Square's board of directors."

Strange: "After ordering an item, they waive the phone on a scanner."


As usual, investors live in a pipe dream thinking Starbucks can exponentially grow forever.

People only need so many coffees. Be happy with that. No need to sink shares and spoil it for everyone.


I believe it's a licensing arrangement. Those locations often buy and license Starbucks coffee (though often not their baked goods), but are not run by Starbucks. e.g., Barnes and Nobel, Safeway.

If this is not solely a PR move I'd be genuinely worried about Starbucks leadership.

Accepting some cards and not others? That could potentially move the market, at Starbucks' scale.

So they're competing with Starbucks at that point. (Or partnering since much of the coffee in B&N is Starbucks already.)
next

Legal | privacy