Right. Which is identically the same amount of coffee as it always was, simply less ice... as they asked for, and were given.

If they expected to be given more coffee in return for less money, then they should rethink their expectations, bc that would be entitlement thinking.

More likely, I thought they might have finally started to think more deeply about how much iced coffee costs compared to hot coffee, and only just then started to realize that it has never been something worth the price. They could have done that type of thinking at any time. Although in this case, they did not give us as the audience sufficient information, specifically the relationship between the costs of those two drinks.

Edit: sorry and now I may be doing the same. A "latte" is not the same as a "coffee" in the USA. The former is a mixture of espresso and steamed milk, while the latter is a "drip coffee", so an entirely different preparation method of the beans, the liquid itself, its storage duration, and too the milk, plus possibly effort from the server although in this case it sounds like a machine for everything. But still the ingredients lsit differs between "latte" and "coffee". And then from there I get lost bc ordering a latte but being given a coffee would be sufficient grounds to return it for either a full refund or else exchange for what was ordered? Thus I presumed that thenceforth, "coffee" actually meant "latte", which included the milk portion as well. But that's an assumption. And then another assumption is that the coffee portions are also identical between the iced vs. non. They legitimately might be - I dunno? - but I also don't know for sure.