McDonald's Vs. Starbucks: Called to the Espresso Bar

While I'm a loyal Starbucks fan, I've been disappointed by their attempts at offering food items ("McDonald's Takes On a Weakened Starbucks," Page One, Jan. 7). Except for occasionally ordering a reliable oatmeal cookie, I've given up purchasing their dismal croissants, often bringing my own fresh bakery-purchased pastry into the store while I enjoy my morning coffee and Journal. In spite of assurances that they're delivered daily, Starbucks' pastries always seem dry and tired and curiously resemble items picked up at a warehouse store. Adding warming ovens with the introduction of their uninspiring, overpriced breakfast sandwiches hasn't improved matters. (Who can beat a good Egg McMuffin anyway?) If Starbucks truly wants to emulate quaint European coffee houses, they should bake their items on site. Pressed for space, many Parisian cafes get raw, ready-to-bake breads and simply bake them in compact ovens, providing that wonderful, enticing smell of freshly baked pastries.

Robert Rystad
Sacramento, Calif.

Your article failed to take into account two of Starbucks' most endearing features: aroma and ambience. Oh, yes, I did my stint at McDonald's when my boys were young, but that was 20 years ago, and I haven't been in one since. I can't even imagine mixing greasy french-fry odor with espresso. I will stay with Starbucks, thank you.

Carol Bratton
Murrieta, Calif.

The differences between the two businesses are just too great for Starbucks to worry about McDonald's, or vice versa. Service, ambience, wireless connections, price and so on distinguish the two. I, for one, would never schedule a business meeting at a McDonald's, and I certainly don't go to Starbucks for food.

George M. Richmond
Albuquerque, N.M.