Personally I have never understood the fascination with Starbucks.. Why would people shell out such ridiculous amounts of money for coffee.. I don't care what you put it in - how you dress it up - what kind of fancy name you attach to it - it's
coffee..
Well, it wasn't always "just coffee".
Back in the day, in many east coast and west coast urban and suburban areas, most coffee out there tasted like the water it is brewed in, which often included hints of disinfectant or mold. There was a distinct aversion, on the part of coffee purveyors to using enough grounds to have the coffee actually taste like coffee. Also, preparation of great coffee requires temperature and pressure profiles that most high-production, low-cost brewing methods used simply don't provide.
There were some notable exceptions. There were diners that served really good coffee, and here and there some local places that did so as well, but traveling you were basically taking your chances whenever you went into a coffee shop, because you had no idea what you were getting before you got it.
Also, Dunkin' Donuts developed a distinctive tasting coffee that it sold, more or less uniformly, across its service area. However, that distinctive taste, to me, tasted like they were trying to cover up something (perhaps the aforementioned disinfectant or mold?) and regardless, that distinctive taste wasn't the taste of coffee IMHO. Don't get me wrong: Lots of people equate Dunkin' Donuts with coffee. I'm not one of them.
Part of the problem with most coffee purveyors back then is that they trafficked in Light City (or "American"

) roast, the lightest roast. So the coffee was made from coffee beans, and so therefore could be called coffee, but the roast was so light that you might as well had tried to make coffee from old cherry pits, for all the flavor you'd get.
Starbucks big contribution was the introduction of darker roasts to the American palate. Their coffee was basically a Full City roast -- almost a French roast -- thereby exuding much more coffee flavor. Also note that it costs more to roast coffee beans to Full City roast than to roast coffee beans to Light City roast. That accounts for some of the difference in price between Starbucks and other coffee shops. (Again, don't get me wrong: A lot of people actually
prefer the Light City roast, but the point is that Starbucks introduced the superlative value of the Full City roast to many people.)
Starbucks also helped establish a new coffee culture. Previously, there was this "old men sitting around a table playing checkers" ambiance to most coffee shops. Starbucks crafted a place where people who appreciated modern art and music would feel more comfortable. Many folks who enjoy coffee sitting in a cushioned easy chair, listening to Melissa Etheridge wafting in from Bose speakers, in a Starbucks can explain how much better that is than sitting in a hard, banquette chair, affixed to the ground, listening to "music" of conflicting musical styles coming from two boom boxes brought into the store and played too loud by inconsiderate patrons.
A few things have happened. First, a lot of coffee shops have recognized that there is an advantage to pushing beyond the pedestrian Light City roast that they've been selling, so darker roasts are now available more generally. Credit to Starbucks, but also that eats directly into Starbucks advantage. Second, Starbucks may have actually gone a bit too far. Their signature coffee was a Full City roast,
two full steps above the Light City roast. There is a roast that is in between the two, called City roast. The Full City roast is a bit too pronounced for some people. That imposed an upper-bound on how far Starbucks could go. To address this barrier, they introduced their new signature coffee (Pikes Place), recently. Unfortunately, it didn't taste any better than what you could get elsewhere, but still had that Full City roast premium tacked on.
So Starbucks really sliced their own throat by not capitalizing on that intermediate City roast market soon enough, and when they did by executing poorly, with a coffee blend that simply didn't make people feel that they were drinking a special coffee.
So to answer your comment more directly, Ann, all coffee is
not the same. Between the quality of the beans themselves, and the roast applied to them, completely different beverages result. Saying it is all just coffee is like saying all wine is "just wine". Sure, you could take dishwater and pour in enough sugar and cream to make it taste good, but that's just a sugar and cream beverage, not coffee. There is a specific taste that is coffee, and people who actually like coffee can appreciate the difference between good coffee and not-so-good coffee.
At this point, I can not stand Pikes Place coffee, so if we go into a Starbucks, it is only for the espresso (which is still quite good).