21 ms·

I experienced the Yondr phone prison last night for the first time (at a Chris Rock show). While I detest people being disruptive with their phones, I don’t thi

• maxehmookau 9y ago
  I agree, the safety aspects of this are shocking and the 'be free of phones' puritanism is a bit dull. A _very_ strict code of conduct for attendees is something that can (and does) work. Jazz pianist, Keith Jarrett has been known to stop his 4-hour long improvisation sessions in some of the world's most prestigous venues mid-flow to dress down an attendee trying to film him. People don't make that mistake twice. https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2007/aug/09/keithjarrettsoutburstshouldbeapplauded https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2007/aug/09/keit... Unrelated, but I'd be way more on board with this if the DVD of the show wasn't £30 afterwards.
  • jonnycomputer 9y ago
    My goodness, all those people who went to concerts before cell phones must have been so hardcore, taking risks like that. My guess is that if you put your phone away you're less likely to hurt from, you know, other people doing the stupid stuff they do at concerts. I understand that people want video, so they can post it, and get their dopa-soc on Facebook, or wherever, but seriously, musical artists (especially the ones who don't lipsync their concerts) feed off the audience's vibe. Its a two-way, not a one-way. Jack White isn't feeling the energy and is doing something about it. I say, Jack should just take out his phone and sit there recording the audience, until the get the hint.
    • edgarvaldes 9y ago
      Yep, I don't get why "the safety aspects of this are shocking". Shocking?
      • ghaff 9y ago
        It's one thing to say that I like to be reachable by children, babysitter, aged mother, etc. if there's an issue. And OK, I get it. Norms and expectations have shifted with respect to how contactable people should be under many circumstances. But some of the comments here that make it sound like going out with no way for anyone to reach you was an invitation to mortal peril akin to jumping off a cliff in a wingsuit make me want to either laugh or cry.
        • lotharbot 9y ago
          > "an invitation to mortal peril" There have always been people with (physical and mental) health concerns or disabilities who need to be able to get hold of a caregiver on short notice. In the age of cell phones, it's much safer for them to go someplace crowded with their caregiver even if there's risk of being separated.
    • throwaway43532 9y ago
      > My goodness, all those people who went to concerts before cell phones must have been so hardcore, taking risks like that. I get the point you're trying to make, but to me this just reads like gatekeeping. Cell phones are useful and they can make people safer. In a world with cell phones not having timely access to one is riskier. In a world without cell phones it's a moot point. The more interesting issue -- which others in this thread are discussing -- is whether the benefits of having a cell phone outweigh the harms people can cause with them, and whether policy can help strike an appropriate balance.
• mi100hael 9y ago
  > Consequently, Apple Pay will not be available tonight. I hadn't thought of that aspect, but that presents an interesting problem. As more things get centralized on phones, this will become less & less feasible.
  • ghaff 9y ago
    >As more things get centralized on phones, this will become less & less feasible. OT, but the centralization of things on smartphones also means you're increasingly SOL if you lose your smartphone or it dies for some reason. Today, I generally still have a wallet with various things in it which likely help me to not be totally screwed without my smartphone. But as more and more of those things are replaced by the phone and what few physical artifacts there are may just be tucked into the phone it starts to become a concern. Intel had a really funny video of someone losing their phone and what happened to them a few years back. Sadly, I think it was just internal and, when I last looked, I couldn't find it anywhere online.
  • reaperducer 9y ago
    > I hadn't thought of that aspect, but that presents an interesting problem. As more things get centralized on phones, this will become less & less feasible. You don't need to have your phone out. Apple Pay works on the watch.
• jlg23 9y ago
  In case of an emergency people should follow staff's directions; preferably without being glued to their phones and without disrupting any ongoing rescue attempts by trying to take a good video... The only relevant exception are professionals on call (i.e. doctors, police etc) - and they'll make the conscious decision to not attend such a concert unless explicitly exempted from the phone ban. Everybody else may vote with their wallet. Personally, I'd pay a premium for concerts that enforce a no-phone policy.
  • warent 9y ago
    To be fair, an abduction won't really have any staff guidance
    • culot 9y ago
      True, that would require a very particular set of skills.
• ken 9y ago
  I think the viscerality of this response is fascinating. Putting your phone in a case is a "prison", and you must check it every time you go to the toilet, and you're concerned about a terrorist attack -- enough to want your phone, but not enough to stay home, as if your apps could somehow save you. > Treat people like adults. If they break the rules, ask them to leave. Isn't that what we've been trying for the past 10 years? Clearly, it's not working. A significant percentage of people are not acting like adults. And you can't deal with 1/4 of the audience intentionally misbehaving like you do with a single drunken heckler.
  • pavel_lishin 9y ago
    > Isn't that what we've been trying for the past 10 years? Clearly, it's not working. Have we? I've only been to one show in the past decade where a performer called someone out in the crowd for being a jerk with a camera. They wouldn't turn the flash off, so the artist asked them to stop, then they took another flashy picture, so the artist mocked them until they put the camera away for the rest of the show.
    • bdcravens 9y ago
      Post "no recording" or "no phone use during performance", have security remove them with no refund. After a few removals, most will keep it in their pocket.
      • davb 9y ago
        This has always been quite successful at cinemas (in Scotland, at least).
      • Phrodo_00 9y ago
        Every show I've been to that does this has successfully kept people from using their phones. I don't think checking in your phone is a very good solution from a practical standpoint, considering the downsides.
    • technofiend 9y ago
• nly 9y ago
  > There have been a number of times when I’ve been split up from friends at large venues - not being able to text each other to meet up is inconvenient. "Hey guys, let's stick together, if we get separated meet at the bar. Cool? cool" And an interesting one you can't easily do anymore without a cell phone (because people don't wear wrist watches): "Hey, i'm going to checkout X. Meet at the bar in 30 minutes?"
  • davb 9y ago
    When it’s a venue you don’t know too well and there are 8 bars on each floor, that completely breaks down. Sticking together doesn’t always work, especially when queues are split between men and women for pat downs (as is usually the case in the type of venue that would force you to put your phone in a locked pouch). Of course we got by OK before mobile phones, but to suggest we give up the considerable benefits because an artist or venue opts for a heavy handed ban over a strictly enforced etiquette policy seems unreasonable.
    • valuearb 9y ago
      Your selfish benefit hurts everyones experience. So they aren't "considerable", and you have a choice not to go to events with Yondr. People at events without Yondr have to deal with mobile phones making everyones experience worse, and there is little they can do about it.
    • potta_coffee 9y ago
      Let's think of a million different hypothetical situations in which not having a phone is bad. Result: you sound helpless.
      • orbitur 9y ago
        Wow, all these hypotheticals. It's almost as if... not having a phone with you is worse than having it with you.
        • nicky0 9y ago
• collyw 9y ago
  20 years ago we all managed without phones.
• my_ghola 9y ago
  Just make the whole theater a Faraday cage.
  • ssambros 9y ago
    FCC does not allow this, I think.
  • icebraining 9y ago
    Doesn't prevent people from spending the concert recording it.
• valuearb 9y ago
  LOL using the Manchester bombing as reason. First terrorist incidents are so rare you might as well argue that you need your phone in case of a plane crash. Secondly, these events have security, crowd control, management, etc, all with their own phones. Emergency services doesn't need a thousand simultaneous calls. In a genuine mass emergency there is a lot more important needs for network access than providing people the opportunity Instagram/Facebook about their experience. If friends and family have to wait a little while longer to hear from you in an extremely rare emergency, that's a small price to pay for the large benefit. You can't fully experience a concert or show when you are distracted by your or someone else phones. This technology makes the "no phones" policy work. I don't have to be made to feel like an a-hole calling for an usher to deal with phone users, or worry about them or their friends harassing or assaulting me for doing it. It makes the experience better for everyone. A few weeks ago Joe Rogan spoke about how he's now using Yondr at all of his shows, because despite how expensive it is for him, it has significantly improved the show dynamics for his entire audience.
  • monksy 9y ago
    The Manchester and Bataclan incidents are perfect examples. That's the whole point of terrorism. The groups are not effective enough to influence who they want without fear tacits. They're going to target large groups of people, and events tend to do that. The situation of the Bataclan, the emergency services does need to know whats going on inside, and at multiple points of the building. For Manchester, they needed to know what exit was being targeted, and which other ones that popped up as well (there could have been more than one attacker) I emphitise and understand where you're at with the usher part, it sucks and they're going to try to guilt trip you over it. However, that's the right process to go through. (You're esclating). MLB solves this issue by putting a short code to text about bad behavior on the backs of seats. (Again you have to use your phone with this)
    • paublyrne 9y ago
      I think the point is those types of incidents are incredibly rare.
• rapnie 9y ago
  i survived the era before mobile.. it wasn't that scary :)
  • matwood 9y ago
    Same here, but it had its own set of annoyances. Sitting at home waiting for a phone call, or trying to coordinate meeting up, particularly spur of the moment, was a huge PITA. Even with cell phone annoyances, I prefer the cell phone world over the pre-cell phone world.
    • nicky0 9y ago
      I would go back in a heartbeat.
  • mullen 9y ago
    I have to laugh at some these posts. I also lived in a world without cell phones and I (and the rest of the world) did just fine. Turning off your phones at a concert is not a big deal at all.
    • monksy 9y ago
      The irony, despite my prior comments, I don't have an issue with turning my phone off and keeping it with me. I do have an issue with being locked away from it or have it taken away by someone you can't trust.
      • nicky0 9y ago
        Yondr is a system which locks your phone in a pouch which you put in your pocket. It is not taken away from you.
        • monksy 9y ago
          You are still prevented access from it.
• Zak 9y ago
  > In the event of an emergency, this is a really bad idea. How difficult is it to defeat the Yondr cases with mechanical force? I'd normally suggest a pocketknife, but places like that probably search for and confiscate those as well. It doesn't look like the locking mechanism on those cases would be all that strong, such that most people could pull it apart with their hands if they made a real effort.
  • salvar 9y ago
    After they all gather their locked phones from a small confined area in an emergency?
    • calebegg 9y ago
      The phones aren't kept anywhere; they go in a pouch, which you keep.
      • salvar 9y ago
        Yeah I missed that part somehow. My bad.
    • Zak 9y ago
      It appears that how Yondr works is you put your phone in a locking pouch, which you then keep with you. Looking at photographs of said pouch, I think most people could forcibly defeat the latch mechanism with their bare hands.
      • salvar 9y ago
        Ah, I should have followed closer. Nevermind.
• booleandilemma 9y ago
  I wonder if, some number of years in the future, when 95% of humans have neural implants that let them connect to the Internet and send telepathic messages to their friends and babysitter, there will be people too afraid to turn them off for the duration of a music concert, because of a possible terrorist attack or a fire? They’ll probably shake their heads and wonder how people ever got along without neural implants.
  • musage 9y ago
    Nah, they won't be able to wonder anything anymore. The spaces where human personality might develop will all be filled and sealed shut.
• reaperducer 9y ago
  > In the event of an emergency, this is a really bad idea. What did people do when bad things happened at stadia before there were cell phones? Mass casualty incidents at arenas aren't exactly a new thing. (Who concert in Cincinnati, Disco Demolition in Chicago, etc...)
• jknz 9y ago
  A simple zero-hassle solutions is to have walls that block any cellular and wifi signals. It solves the problems you mention. I don't know why such walls are not more common in schools too. A lot of parents would be happy to pay for such walls if the learning experience improves substantially. Edit: about the emergency and possible bomber attack: if the block-signal-mecanism is active (create some sort of interference) then it becomes easy to deactivate the mechanism automatically when the fire alarm or other emergency is triggered: simy cut the power source.
  • dannyw 9y ago
    Jamming legal signals, even in private property, is very very illegal.
    • jknz 9y ago
      Some big companies in Europe have such walls for their headquarters, probably for productivity. I guess that their solution is fairly legal, although it may not involve jamming.
    • DrScump 9y ago
      Jamming, yes. If your venue just happens to block all signals as an effect of its design (working like a Faraday cage), it could legally have repeaters that are powered off during the performance proper.
      • tinus_hn 9y ago
        That requires the largest hole in the cage to be smaller than the signal wavelength, which makes it pretty difficult to get in.
• narrator 9y ago
  How did the world even work before cell phones? Meeting your friends: You made plans to meet at a certain time and place and you showed up when you were supposed to or you carpooled. In an Emergency: you'll find out what happened to your friends eventually when you meet at school or call each other then next day. You aren't emergency service personnel. You just need to evacuate. Going to the bathroom: you go to the bathroom and get out of the stall in an expeditious fashion to let others use it instead of looking at your phone while people wait in line. If you were a real jerk, you read the newspaper on the toilet, but this was rare. Seeing a show: you watched the show, danced, or crowd surfed if it was a punk show. You never had to wory about your phone falling out of your pocket or getting broken. The place was dark. Someone might kneel on the speaker with a lit cigarette lighter in one hand if it was a special moment.
  • DrScump 9y ago
    How did the world even work before cell phones? A lot of Seinfeld story arcs involve miscommunication that would not happen if they all had cellphones.
  • tgsovlerkhgsel 9y ago
    Turns out life also worked before electricity, but for some reason, if you were to advocate for people to live without it, most people would consider you a lunatic and luddite.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
• ehnto 9y ago
  Of course it is inconvenient, that is kind of the point. To make it harder to use you get to forget about using it. That comes with trade offs, some of them pretty serious. Going anywhere without a phone is about the whole experience, not just the watching the artist but all the time inbetween too. You don't get to escape the world to a phone, even for a moment, and when things get boring you have to find interest in what's around you. Your phone is a mental portal to all other things in your life and by having it within reach your mind likes to weasel out of wherever it currently is into those other spaces, even when you don't pick the phone up. It is an interspatial, intertemporal hyper distraction machine and it robs people of being engaged for long periods of time without interruption. Those moments inbetween sets where you have to just be with your friends, that is part of it, when you have to organise how to find eachother after a toilet break, also part of it. Keep in mind, some people are way better at managing their phones interruption than others, and it doesn't affect them like that. So perhaps the no phone thing isn't 100% for your benefit, but you still have to endure the troubles it takes. I get the feeling this will be a divisive topic. I am willing to endure the pains because I really really don't want a phone or anyone else to have theirs at the venue. Some people don't feel that way, so the logical pros and cons we can both describe will matter differently and we will find it hard to agree! I totally agree about emergencies, but for me that's a risk I am willing to take on. Just like I would go hiking with no phone and you perhaps might not.
• phaus 9y ago
  I went to a concert in Mannheim about 8 years ago. They had quite a few fairly reasonable rules, but they also had security guards to enforce them. If you broke any of the rules and refused to get your shit together they would pick your ass up and carry you out. You wouldn't even get a chance to leave. I think good security and enforcement of the rules would be a better solution than taking peoples' phones.
• acchow 9y ago
  > I think the solution is to simply enforce a strict “no phones during the performance” policy. Treat people like adults. If they break the rules, ask them to leave. This is precisely how it's done every night at Output in Brooklyn.
• subpixel 9y ago
  You underestimate the impact that people using their phones - as cameras in particular - has in a performance setting. To say nothing about ringers going off. It ruins the experience for everyone, so some inconvenience is well worth it in my book.
• AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
  I'm curious how hard do you think it would have been to break your phone out of the Yondr prison? From the videos I've seen online, it seems like you could do so "fairly" easily.
• dotsh 9y ago
  Addicted people will always look for excuses and fight with stupid arguments for them. In the '70s and '80s people somehow found themselves at concerts, they were not afraid of security, they did not have to check what "important loved ones" were and any of that shit and they lived happily. It's hard to even comment on the fact that if the phone is locked, you can't safely leave the building during the alam because you are afraid that something will happen to him... or your contacts in cloud. :) Now the majority will not survive 5 days without a telephone because someone will surely die, someone will get lost, a terrorist attack will happen, or world will be hit by the meteorite... Yes, I have a phone, but I do not take it with me, and I do not use it when I do not have to... and it's not a smartphone. :)
• DoubleGlazing 9y ago
  I agree. I'm an adult, if you ask me to not use my phone I will comply. If other adults can't do the same, then simply ask them to leave. Yondr feels patronising, almost like we are being treated like children. That being said, I generally don't go to gigs anymore because its getting more like flying. Expensive tickets with hidden fees, being forced to queue neatly like school children, searches, and then the overpriced food and drink. This is just one more thing to add to the list.
  • test1235 9y ago
    Agreed ... I mean, this is basically the same as the cinema. You're told not to use your phone. People are asked not to be noisy, and turn off their phones, etc. The majority are civil and there's the occasional bad egg, but hey ... it's a gathering of people - there's always going to be a level of compromise.
• dazc 9y ago
  'At the extreme end, you’ve got things like the Manchester bombing, where access to a phone would be a useful thing.' If this is your normal way of thinking the terrorists have beaten you already.
  • NLips 9y ago
    emphasis mine: >> At the extreme end... > If this is your normal way of thinking...
    • dazc 9y ago
      OK, you got me. I think you get the gist though?
• baby 9y ago
  Wow. I guess you really became a slave to this tool. Do you remember a few years back none of us were using one :)
• ThomPete 9y ago
  Have you ever wondered if they just want you to have a different experience? There are restaurants that require you to eat in pitch black, restaurants where you cant wear sandals, there are shows where you get polaroid cameras and so on. This is not about not treating people like adults but about what experience you want to give them. I fail to see what terrorist attacks have to do with anything.
• avenius 9y ago
  Last year I went to a King Crimson concert. There were no "phone prisons", but they repeatedly informed the audience to keep their phones pocketed until the end of the show. This seemed to work wonders, as I didn't see a single phone for the duration of the show. Now, naturally this was a somewhat different audience than e.g. a Chris Rock show, but it does prove that it's possible. Maybe it all comes down to respect?
• danesparza 9y ago
  "There have been a number of times when I’ve been split up from friends at large venues - not being able to text each other to meet up is inconvenient." Dude. What do you think people did at Rolling Stones or Zeppelin concerts in the 60-70's? What do you think people did at Michael Jackson concerts in the 80's? What do you think people did at Nirvana and Pearl Jam concerts in the 90's? People have lived without text messaging far longer that we've had it. If this is your chief complaint, I think you need to think harder about the problem space.
  • bryanrasmussen 9y ago
    If you were to complain that doing without your car was inconvenient do you think a reasonable response would be Dude. What do you think people did in the middle ages? (I'm probably older than you, but putting myself into the place of someone who has had a smart phone most of their adult life)
  • kingosticks 9y ago
    > inconvenient Nobody said anything about not being able to live. But if people attending your 3 random examples had known a mobile phone, perhaps they'd have chosen the convenience over (worst case) spending some of the concert trying to find their friends. We can't know.