I wonder how many other places are just being bad amazon clones when their core value is something different...
Maintaining a large inventory of books is a financial burden for bookshops. For that reason, most massive bookshops in North America and Western Europe have slashed their book inventory heavily compared to the 1990s. In the place of books, they prefer to sell trendy things like vinyl records, Kikkerland products, teas, etc.. However, while a customer can spend a few minutes looking at what’s available, this kind of inventory does not offer many opportunities for “exploring”.
Also, even if customers would not order from B&N online, they might still order a book they see at B&N from Amazon, perhaps even while they are inside the B&N. Smartphones allowing customers to browse in your store and then order a desired item for cheaper from your competitor, were not yet a thing back in the 1990s when B&N was in its heyday.
Being a place to wander around and browse but never purchase the merchandise is not a "core value" any retailer wants to have. Barnes and Noble is not a home away from home, it's a store, no different than any other. You're meant to buy something and get out.
The key part of that being "before buying." Many people will literally just browse and use the free wi-fi and some will read entire books and magazines in the store without buying anything.
Starbucks, for example, makes lots of money from people who are just there for the free WiFi.
That said, my local B&N has a Starbucks inside (and a Peets 40 feet away directly across a small street), but I doubt they get more than a small fraction of the revenue from the Starbucks, and at around 4-5 times the floor space as the Peets.
Of course, the advantage of B&N is that anyone can pop in anywhere. A library doesn't make as much sense in an airport or mall.