I prefer both, but it depends on where I am. I prefer one-off shops or Tully's normally; but I have to say that Starbucks provides a slightly classier version of McDonald's reliability overseas. While traveling, I could easily find a Starbucks in a new city and get a mocha which, while not the best ever, was at least consistent enough to count as a taste of home (not to mention I now have a collection of I've-been-there mugs :)).
There's a book titled "McDonaldsization" that deals with this exact theme: the selling point of McDonalds et al is the consistency and familiarity. The chapters dealing with McDonalds specifically are pretty interesting, although when it starts extending that as a metaphor for globalization, if you disagree with the premise it won't convince you of much.
Hamburgers and french fries are a good example of where this is a good quality to have, more so than most food. Coffee is less so, especially for coffee snobs, but for people who need their morning fix all that's required is caffinated liquid marginally below your gag reflex threshold, which starbucks can usually manage. But, however just because standardization works for the _coffee_ part of a coffee shop, it doesn't work for the _shop_ part of it. The idea of a "coffee shop" is much much larger than a shop that vends coffee, and that bohemian ideal is not so amenable to industrialized standardization in the same manner as burger patties.
Yeah I agree, why risk eating exotic food which you have to look up in wikipedia to know what's in them when you can eat a good'ol big mac with coke and fries!
</sarcasm>
Familiar food can be a comfort when you've been eating unfamiliar food for days. But yeah, if that's all you eat when traveling, you're doing it wrong.
