"The following year, the company would lose $25 million from Starbucks transaction costs alone (and will continue to incur losses until the contract expires nex

"The following year, the company would lose $25 million from Starbucks transaction costs alone (and will continue to incur losses until the contract expires next year)." I can't find the link but I distinctly recall Keith Rabois claiming that Square would make money on the deal. I thought this was highly dubious at the time -- it just didn't make sense when you considered how big Starbucks was already, meaning could already demand the best rates possible. Not that that means it was a bad deal.. it was clearly a marketing move. "Starbucks uses Square". But that kind of marketing quickly loses its value once the public knows it was a result of loss-leader promotions, not intrinsic product value.