No E-Books Allowed in This Establishment

[Brainphart]

Found in The New York Times

[JSWolf]

Those are two places I would not go.

[GhostHawk]

Exactly so, and I'd tell everyone I know why. As you did, well done!

[chilady1]

I have no problem with an establishment setting certain rules for its patrons, the question is whether I want to spend my money in that type of place. For me, any place that would not allow me to take out my Kindle and read because of a "No Computer" rule is not a place I would go. Very simple.

[HarryT]

I would imagine it's because people with computers probably sit there for very much longer than those without. You'll notice that it was between 12-3pm - presumably their busiest time.

[Kali Yuga]

Ehh, whatever.

I'm sure we'll see little backlashes like this every once in awhile. But by now, "computers in coffee shops" are quite routine and usually encouraged. Heck, Starbucks now does free wifi, I'm sure they'll be happy to take those establishments' customers....

[GlennD]

I think I'd have to bring a paper book in, starting at around noon, and occupy the table for a few hours. "Sorry, I couldn't check my watch because it's a computer, and I lost track of time!"

[Worldwalker]

My first reaction would be to recruit a large number of people to show up and read paper books ... maybe all War and Peace ... but I got thinking about it: It doesn't look like they're banning all computer-like objects from the shop at all times. It looks like they're setting aside specific tables as high-turnover tables during peak business. I take my 505 (and often my netbook) with me everywhere, but I try to be very aware of the situation and the environment. It is beyond rude to buy a muffin and a glass of juice and then occupy part of a business for hours, preventing them from selling to other people who want a table, and preventing people who want to eat there from doing so. The price of a cup of coffee does not include rental of a table for hours on end. I suspect the prohibition on computers was because of people who came in, bought one cup of coffee, and then settled down for a few hours of work, thereby reducing the store's seating capacity during rush time, when all seats were at a premium. That's not fair to the business or the other customers, and the really unfortunate thing here is that the establishment was forced to take action that affected everyone because a few people were selfish and self-entitled. I don't doubt that there was at least one person who said "There's no sign saying I can't sit here all day with my portable office and my one cup of coffee." So now there is.

[graycyn]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would imagine it's because people with computers probably sit there for very much longer than those without. You'll notice that it was between 12-3pm - presumably their busiest time.

I'm sure that's exactly it. Still, it would keep me from going back there. I just don't see how it is any different from sitting and reading a paper book. Heaven knows, I can do that for hours just as easily. I would understand it more if the sign said no computers, no book reading.

[ski_power]

Well, there ARE two sides to this. I don't know. I think if each customer figured out the situation and realized that he's just a table hogger during the hours when they have to TURN AWAY new customers this probably wouldn't have happened.

[K-Thom]

Simple, sue them for discrimination. It's the US, after all ...

[kjk]

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...establishment/

A few weeks ago I decided to mosey over to a local Manhattan coffee shop for an afternoon cappuccino.

After placing my order I sat down at a table and pulled out my Amazon Kindle.

I barely made it a sentence into the e-book I was reading before an employee of the coffee shop came by, stood over me and said, “Excuse me sir, but we don’t allow computers in the coffee shop.”

I looked up at him with an incredulous look and replied, “This isn’t a computer, it’s an e-book reader.”

[ficbot]

Why don't they just set a time limit for table occupancy during peak hours? Our local mall has a food court with signs up saying that the time limit during peak hours is 25 minutes. If you bought food and sat down, and you want to read or netsurf or whatever while you eat, fine, but after 25 minutes they boot you out. I think that's perfectly fair---and much *more* fair than outright banning any device of any kind. If people are eating alone, they often like to have something with them. It will cost them business if these customers don't want to go there because they don't want to stare at the wall while they eat.

[ski_power]

@K-Thom: lol, prolly might end up with the cafe paying compensation to the customer.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by graycyn

I'm sure that's exactly it. Still, it would keep me from going back there. I just don't see how it is any different from sitting and reading a paper book. Heaven knows, I can do that for hours just as easily. I would understand it more if the sign said no computers, no book reading.

I suspect the difference is that the book readers are probably not hogging tables at rush times. Not many people can get away with leaving the office for hours at a time to read a book. Given the time required to get to the coffee shop and back (plus some extra for that wanker who does not take "talk to me after I'm back" for an answer), time standing in line, etc., a person with a half-hour break might occupy a table for perhaps 15 minutes. However, if someone is on his laptop, he may be able to claim that he's officially working and not have to be physically present at the office for quite some time. Hours would not be unlikely. A coffee shop is in the business of selling coffee, not providing free facilities for telecommuting, and it only takes a few selfish jerks, especially if they're in the habit of occupying prime real estate (note that the sign said "this table", implying that there were also unrestricted tables, perhaps near the back where they wouldn't give the impression that the place was full), to ruin it for everyone.

And that's really the bottom line. The shop allowed people to do things other than buying and consuming their products -- and still does, other than for a few hours at certain tables -- with the implicit understanding between them and their customers that polite people would not hog tables when it was busy. Unfortunately, some people were not polite, and operated under the rule that the right thing to do was anything that nobody forcibly stopped them from doing, and the business owners did what they had to do to keep from having their business ruined by the table hogs. It's unfortunate that a Kindle owner got caught up in this, but the real blame has to be placed squarely on the shoulders of the people who chose to violate the rules of civility. It's the reason a store I shop at doesn't give out free popcorn anymore: people were taking armloads of bags of it out to their cars. It seems that the entire concept of politeness, civility, sharing, and not being a total ass, is long gone. Rules and laws are stepping in, out of necessity, where etiquette stepped out. And we all lose.