Slashdot Mirror
Tech-Unfriendly Cafes Say No Kindles Allowed
theodp writes "At the risk of pulling-a-Groupon, I have a dream that one day my children will not be judged by their e-readers, but by the content of their character. The NY Times' Virginia Heffernan complains that many indie New York City cafes now heavily restrict, or ban outright, the use of Kindles, Nooks and iPads. Evidently, she says, too many coffee shops have had their ambience wrecked when itinerant word processors with laptops turn the tables into office space. Full-dress computers are one thing, says Heffernan, but banning devices the size of books is going too far, and it's anathema to the character and history of cafes. By contrast, Starbucks offers free, one-click, unlimited wireless service to their patrons, making it in Heffernan's eyes 'a flawed franchise that is squarely in the public good.'"
That's not the point.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
You've hit the nail on the head. If Cafe X bans the tablets then they'll see their customers walk down the street to Cafe Y, which welcomes them. There's nothing that says you have to do business with the cafe that bans the devices.
To summarise the article: indie cafes bad, but on the First of Some Month Starbucks will give you free internet for as long as you want. Not "a major chain of coffee houses" but STARBUCKS.
How much was this person being paid to plug a company's offerings?
As long as they ban books, magazines and other reading materials that's a good policy - I hate going to my local coffee shop for a quick drink and snack only to find that half of the tables are taken over by 3 person study groups who pushed 4 tiny tables together to make room for their books and papers, or rows of people on their laptops (some working, some just idling browsing the 'net, and that guy in the corner browsing porn).
But to ban a Kindle or Nook just because it's electronic seems like a stretch -- browsing is not a joy on either of those platforms, so it's not like someone is going to be spending hours answering his work email. Though he may spend hours reading an eBook, just like he would do with a paper book if he didn't have a Kindle.
Now, I'm not saying I doubt that there are cafes banning such devices. But cafes -- especially indie establishments -- have a long history of having their individual, quirky policies. Is this one or two cafes that have banned said devices, and only said devices? Have the cafes in question banned all extended table-takeover "loitering" (for whatever that means in such a place)? I just find it rather difficult to get worked up over a post with so little information behind it. (Ok, a small amount of info on cafe history... but without the present situation clarified, what good is that?)
Imagine, people just maybe reading paper books, having good conversations with friends, being on dates, or just soaking up the smell of roasted coffee and the light perfume of the pleasant woman in the sweater next to you. No clickety-clack, no heads down and eyes glued to a screen, no thumbs frenetically moving over a tiny unearthly rectange, more people over 60 feeling at ease and not alienated, etc.
Nothing wrong with full-on hardcore technology style cafes, either. It's just a choice.
I can understand people wanting to avoid the sound of spiders scratching behind earbuds, or bright flashing colours in the corner of one's eye but why ban silent, monochromatic book replacements? This sort of café sounds to me like a gathering place of pompous poseurs (possibly goateed) sat there with tattered - by their previous owners - copies of Milne spouting neo-luddite claptrap.
Here endeth the rant. If these places want to alienate paying customers then that's their right; it's just a shame there probably won't be another article on their inevitable going out of business. Of course, collecting all this sort just makes it that much easier to avoid them, so I'm at best ambivalent about the whole thing.
P.S. I figure if the only source is a paywalled opinion piece then it shouldn't count as news...
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
If they don't want these people hanging out, why go to the trouble of luring them in?
I'd wager it's not the device... or the table space that a laptop takes up... It's way more physical than that...
It's about CHAIRS and WIFI.
No one wants to go sit in a coffee shop and when you get there, there are no seats because people have 'set up shop' and are there for the long haul. They want you to enjoy your coffee, and LEAVE. Same goes for WIFI. What once was a sales feature to get you INTO the store: Free WiFi, is now something that KEEPS you in the store, but doesn't make any more money for the shops. How many people drink cup after cup of coffee the entire 2-3 hours they're sitting there? nope. they got one $2 cup of coffee, and then tie up the seats and the wifi for hours. And their WiFi is probably over taxed because of it...
Books don't consume WiFi, and most people don't read a book for hours.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
Would it have been too much trouble for the author of the Times piece to actually name a place that is prohibiting Kindles? She managed to get in her Charbucks plug without naming any of the villains.
hypocrite: When I do it it is okay but when other do it, it is unnaceptable
I know this is difficult, but ability to patronize another facility =/= no right to remark about the perceived stupidity of such a decision.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
"Many indie New York City cafes now heavily restrict, or ban outright, the use of Kindles, Nooks and iPads."
That sentence should have been followed by the names of some cafes, and an interview with an owner. But no. So it's just blithering.
The Times is slipping.
But, in the name of Freedom, we must force every business to adapt to every customer's wants, whether it is profitable for the business or not!
If you don't force Ford dealerships to sell new Chevys you must hate freedom.
Not conforming to every customer's wants is censorship!
</parody>