Yours is a good point (and I can't fully refute it), but I'd like to point out that the article's argument is that Starbucks doesn't offer a free alternative. Surely if Starbucks offered a free alternative, people would choose it instead, as long as it provided a reasonable number of the benefits the paid version does.
To bring the analogy back around to apps, let's say there was an Instagram app that costs $9 and a notJimstagram app that does something similar for free. Instagram = Starbucks, notJimstagram = your office coffee. Most people would buy Instagram, because Instagram is well known, has a strong brand, etc.
On the other hand, suppose there was the $9 Instagram and the free Instagram. In that case, most people would probably choose, or at least start with the free Instagram.
To bring the analogy back around to apps, let's say there was an Instagram app that costs $9 and a notJimstagram app that does something similar for free. Instagram = Starbucks, notJimstagram = your office coffee. Most people would buy Instagram, because Instagram is well known, has a strong brand, etc.
On the other hand, suppose there was the $9 Instagram and the free Instagram. In that case, most people would probably choose, or at least start with the free Instagram.