Dave Chappelle Thinks A Sock And A Dream Will Keep People From Using Phones At Shows

from the mandatory-civility dept

During a recent 13-night run at Thalia Hall in Chicago Dave Chappelle tried something different. He partnered with a company by the name of Yondr in an attempt to keep attendees from not only taking photos or videos, but from so much as sending an emoji during the program. Yondr's solution to public performance cell phone etiquette is basically a smart cell phone sock. Or perhaps a cell phone cozy if you're a grandma (hi grandma). Effectively it's a pouch that attendees of an event are forced to put their devices in if they want to enter the performance:
over Yondr
Fig. 1 a decidedly sexy phone cozy
The technology claims to be relatively effortless, with a performance venue surrounded by a perimeter. Inside of said perimeter, the phone in the sexy sock is locked and won't work. To use your phone (or, say, call 911), users need to exit through a set of technically-unspecified sensor gates, and head out the lobby:
"Attendees at any of Chappelle's 13 sold-out Thalia Hall performances will be greeted by staffers handing out gray smartphone sleeves, available in three sizes. They are then instructed to place their phones inside the sleeves and fasten them, at which point they are welcome to carry them inside the venue.

As soon as they enter the "no-phone zone," however, the pouches will have locked shut, preventing anyone from firing off so much as a winking emoji. Need to make a call or send an email? No problem. Simply leave the designated zone (and head, say, to the lobby bar), and, as you move past several strategically placed stations, the pouches can now magically be unlocked."
It's obvious to see the appeal for some folks given the recent hysterics surrounding bizarre behavior during Broadway performances. And while admittedly most of us remain nitwits when it comes to cell phone etiquette, it's hard to not see the peaceful cozy cell phone sock as a bit of a pipe dream.

As it stands, there's nothing stopping an individual from hiding a phone, with the act of removing that person probably causing more disruption to the audience and artist than just letting them take a photo would have. It also seems inherently dangerous in the age of seemingly endless mass shootings to disrupt all cell phone communications in an entire venue, which is why the FCC has historically banned outright cell phone signal blocking (Yondr claims that venue staff's phones will still work, but it still seems dangerous).

I think it probably feels good to believe you're force feeding civility and decorum upon the brutish and inconsiderate masses, but at the end of day, those thinking that hope and a phone cozy are a replacement for etiquette (or will stop people from recording their experiences) will probably be disappointed, especially as we stumble toward our inevitable, transhumanist future, and our implants, phones, cameras, and other devices become increasingly difficult to detect.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:00pm

    Remember when they complained about how disruptive the horseless carriage was to ordinary, decent horse-drawn traffic?

    Yeah, me neither. Everyone who said that is long dead now, and so is the concept of horse-drawn traffic in modern cities. This simple point is worth keeping in mind for people who complain about cell phones being disruptive.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:22pm

      Re:

      Hey look everyone, I found the person who is the problem at shows and movies!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        tqk (profile), 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:04pm

        Re: Re:

        Not to mention air pollution, noise, traffic congestion, freeways, unsafe at any speed, drive-in movies, ...

        Remember, this is the same guy who wants a CCTV he can watch on his dashboard instead of learning how to use a rearview mirror.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mason Wheeler (profile), 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:11pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          ...says the guy who apparently doesn't know what a void area is, or how many children small enough that they literally cannot be seen in a rearview mirror get hurt every year because of them. Backup cameras aren't about convenience or laziness or "not having to learn to use mirrors"; they're a basic safety feature for a very specific and very real use case. Mirrors are great for driving forward, but horrible for driving in reverse.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Sensors and cameras are the best invention ever to help keep the paint and body business busy!
            Spent 25 years in it. Sensors first came out and I started repairing many a deck lid and back hatch the got crunched by an object above the height of the sensor. So they came out with the camera...no more dents at the back...started repairing the fenders. Watching the backup up camera and forgot to watch the front end swinging into something.

            Technology only works when it's used properly. I have that stuff in the Edge. I still check all mirrors first, then look out all windows then and only then do I look at the dash rear view camera...and I still look up and sweep the others as I back up.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Mason Wheeler (profile), 14 Dec 2015 @ 4:38pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Sensors and cameras are the best invention ever to help keep the paint and body business busy!

              That's an incredibly cynical viewpoint.
              So they came out with the camera...no more dents at the back...started repairing the fenders. Watching the backup up camera and forgot to watch the front end swinging into something.

              I've never had that problem; my car has sensors on the front as well as the back. :)

              Bottom line: when moving around in close quarters, void areas are your worst enemy, and any technology that can help reduce or eliminate them helps improve your safety.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:19pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Have you tried to parallel park a late model car by mirror recently? You would be lucky to even see the car behind you given current car designs, rear views are no longer an option and forget about ever seeing the trunk lid from inside the car again.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Dingledore the Flabberghaster, 16 Dec 2015 @ 7:43am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Strictly, you shouldn't ever parallel park or reverse using a rearview mirror because they don't give a true image. You should, technically, look over your shoulder.

            That being said, in many cars and vans, you can't see anything either way, and reversing sensors and cameras are a massive help.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              tqk (profile), 16 Dec 2015 @ 5:09pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Strictly, you shouldn't ever parallel park or reverse using a rearview mirror because they don't give a true image. You should, technically, look over your shoulder.

              This is the esoteric skill we're talking about here. Seeing an image in a rear-view mirror and having your mind still able to manage things, even if it's mirror imaged. I would of course include shoulder checking in the mix of this (thanks for mentioning it).

              One of my eyes is growing a cataract. I (mostly; yes it's annoying) don't care, because the other eye works fine and the brain adapts and makes up for the loss of the other eye. Consequently, despite the loss of most of the use of my left eye, I can still see a computer screen and read books.

              Similarly, you can teach yourself to look in a mirror and understand left == right, and vice versa. It takes some time and effort to really wrap your mind around it so it's second nature, but it's not that hard to do. It used to be SOP for everyone so how difficult can it be (even if some did it badly)? Many nowadays think it's not worth the effort when tech is being sold which purports to replace it.

              Which is great, if you can afford the expense of the system, and what happens when the system fails/breaks? It's complex, after all, with wires, sensors, a controller, and software/drivers in between. Mine will continue working. Will theirs?
              That being said, in many cars and vans, you can't see anything either way, and reversing sensors and cameras are a massive help.

              You need to concede that automobiles are sold oft-times on "sexiness" and size of windows enters into that design. Thank gawd they came up with this reversing camera system !@#$ or they wouldn't have been able to come up with that unusable tiny rear window (etc., etc.). I will concede they allow you to avoid the time and tedium of learning to use mirrors effectively, but that's all.

              That, and you're suckers for falling for it if you did. Sorry, but often the truth hurts. You could have avoided all of this complexity and expense by learning an easy to acquire skill, but instead you chose to throw money at the problem to get a sexy car with an unusable rear window. Your choice, and good luck with that.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JMT (profile), 14 Dec 2015 @ 4:55pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Remember, this is the same guy who wants a CCTV he can watch on his dashboard instead of learning how to use a rearview mirror."

          Ironically, you sound a bit like the horseless carriage critics Mason was talking about... Reversing cameras are far superior to mirrors for reversing. This is not up for debate.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            tqk (profile), 14 Dec 2015 @ 7:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            This is not up for debate.

            Well, I beg your pardon! I'd no idea god in all its glory was listening in. What a ridiculously arrogant thing to say. If you were my boss or a client, you wouldn't be seeing me tomorrow. You've already decided it's your way or the highway. Okay, g'bye!

            I suspect it is highly debatable whether reversing cameras are demonstrably superior to mirrors. *Perhaps*, they may be better or easier for Joe Sixpack in too much of a hurry to master the esoteric skill of using mirrors, or who's foolish enough to buy a vehicle with lousy window visibility. I would not own such a vehicle. Nor do I think the cost of such a system is anywhere near justifiable. YMMV. *I* can understand that. It's sad that you can't. End of debate.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              JMT (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 2:31am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I'll note that down as "tqk's button to push".

              There's nothing arrogant about what I said, it's just a statement of the obvious. Note that I said for reversing. Your mirror's only job is to show you what's behind you, and when reversing a camera shows you more of the area where things you could hit will be. It sees things the mirror simply cannot. It's hard to think of any way you could claim that's not better, but have at it.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Mason Wheeler (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 4:35am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                As I pointed out earlier, he apparently does not know what a void area is.

                As this concept is explained in driver's ed, it's at least somewhat reasonable to conclude that tqk does not, in fact, know how to drive, and therefore his opinions on the subject are not backed by any actual experience and can be safely discounted.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  tqk (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 9:58am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I will readily admit that you're not stupid and do have qualities which I admire, but often you sound like a seventeen year old kid who thinks he's immortal and omniscient. Here, you sound like that kid poo-pooing the old fogie with a Winchester because you've got an M-16, which is clearly superior. Except, that's stupid.

                  If you'd learned to use mirrors, you'd know that you're always checking mirrors, cycling through them one after another, and even when you're not looking at them, you're still using your peripheral vision to note movement or changes happening in them. Doing that, there are no void areas. No children are going to be able to sneak up on you so you smush them when you back up. I also know where my bumpers are and where the traffic is and where traffic could possibly appear from. Once you get that overall picture it's easy to keep it updated. I don't need to add forty-thousand dollars to the price of the vehicle for an in-car CCTV system which attempts badly to replace that.

                  FWIW, I've never bent a fender or bumper hitting anyone, and the only scratches on my vehicles have come from assholes keying the paint (I don't worry about it).

                  I'll just put you down as the average java programmer who thinks the jvm is everything you need to care about, and deal with your broken hardware when you call me to tell me it's "acting up" and you've not a clue what could possibly be wrong.

                  "Here's a nickel, kid. Buy yourself a better computer."

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2015 @ 12:43pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Oh boy do I get to hear a lot from people like you.

                    The 'Its easy/routine for me' crowd. You are perfect, so how dare everyone else not be on your level.

                    You talk arrogantly about your own skill, knowledge, ability and more, then chastise others for not having the same.

                    Nevermind that the world is made up of more people than you. Nevermind that different people face difficulty in different areas than you. Nevermind that some people may need some help determining whether or not their bumper is against the curb several feet behind them.

                    The solution to the world is to get on your level, not offer assistance to those who may have difficulties you do not.

                    The solution to the world is to simply trudge on with what we already have, not try to offer advancements or improvements. It works perfectly well for you right?

                    Thats all that matters. Anyone who can't just isn't enough of a person/adult/competent individual. Better just give up and live with the fact that you don't diserve assistance because 'other people manage just fine'.

                    People like you who give other people an inferiority complex to match your own bloated ego.

                    Does it feel good? Grandstanding above people?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    JMT (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 3:55pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "If you'd learned to use mirrors, you'd know that you're always checking mirrors, cycling through them one after another, and even when you're not looking at them, you're still using your peripheral vision to note movement or changes happening in them. Doing that, there are no void areas."

                    This is a patently false statement. There are areas behind you car that are not in the mirrors' field of view. This is a simple fact, not a judgement or opinion. Every car has them, some worse than others.

                    "I also know where my bumpers are and where the traffic is and where traffic could possibly appear from. Once you get that overall picture it's easy to keep it updated."

                    What's that got to do with reversing cameras. Nobody is talking about the use of mirrors in traffic.

                    "I don't need to add forty-thousand dollars to the price of the vehicle for an in-car CCTV system which attempts badly to replace that."

                    First, nobody does because they don't cost anywhere near that. Second, nobody said anything about replacing mirrors. Cameras augment mirrors by showing more than mirrors can see. Your argument is obviously weak if you need to exaggerate costs and misstate the opposing argument.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2015 @ 1:02am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Try spotting the toddler, or family pet close behind any vehicle using mirrors only, it not possible.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      tqk (profile), 16 Dec 2015 @ 11:22am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Try spotting the toddler, or family pet close behind any vehicle using mirrors only ...

                      You guys are completely missing the point. My argument in two words is "situation awareness." I'm not Batman leaping into my car, slamming it into gear, and burning rubber with a "Hi-yo Silver, away!"

                      I walk around my car with my eyes open checking out the scenery and everything that's happening in the vicinity. Once in the car, I can update that by checking the mirrors.

                      No toddler is going to have a chance to sneak up on me where he'll get smushed because I didn't know he was there.

                      "Void areas" are irrelevant if you already know what's in them, or possibly can get in them. If I see any potential victims in the area via this procedure, I make sure I know where they are and stay where I am until I do.

                      This is not rocket science. You people are insisting that your expensive high-tech solution is necessary to solve the problem when it isn't. Technology can solve many problems. There are many problems that *shouldn't* be solved with technology for various reasons.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2015 @ 2:31pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        In areas like shopping centre car parks, and trying to reverse into, or out of a parking place, you have to worry about you void areas, and any void areas created by the vehicles close to you. Look one side, and someone can get behind you from the other side in the short time you are not looking at their approach. A wide angle camera on the bumper allows you to watch both sides in situations where you cannot always see people approaching.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Mason Wheeler (profile), 16 Dec 2015 @ 7:04am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "There are no void areas if you do special trick XYZ" is simply not true. Try placing a traffic cone (which is approximately the size of a toddler) directly behind the center of your rear bumper, then get in the car and see how far forward you have to drive before you can see it in any way. You might be surprised. I know I was when we did that in driver's ed.

                    No children are going to be able to sneak up on you so you smush them when you back up.

                    I'm sure that's a huge relief to the hundreds of small children every year who are hit by cars backing up, not to mention the drivers who never saw them. They don't have to worry about it anymore, because it simply can't happen.

                    I don't need to add forty-thousand dollars to the price of the vehicle for an in-car CCTV system which attempts badly to replace that.

                    Neither did I. My entire car cost significantly less than $40K, brand new. So now you're just being silly.

                    FWIW, I've never bent a fender or bumper hitting anyone,

                    ...and neither has anyone else, right up until they do. And then they have hit someone.

                    I'll just put you down as the average java programmer who thinks the jvm is everything you need to care about, and deal with your broken hardware when you call me to tell me it's "acting up" and you've not a clue what could possibly be wrong.

                    Based on what?

                    I have just barely enough experience with the JVM to know I don't want any more experience with it; it's too broken in too many ways, particularly generics. As a matter of fact, I'm working with a few engineers on porting Microsoft's open-sourced CLR implementation to Android so people won't have to use Java or C++ or pay through the nose for Xamarin there, all of which are bad options to one degree or another. I work on native code for a living, I hack around in compilers for fun, and when hardware breaks that I can't fix, I replace it.

                    But what does any of that have to do with driver safety in any way?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:59pm

      Re:

      1.My friend Brad works at Thalia. Chappelle was filming the shows for a TV special.

      2.You're an idiot.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      btr1701 (profile), 14 Dec 2015 @ 5:43pm

      Re:

      Are you actually suggesting that someone yakking away on a cell phone during a movie or constantly lighting it up to send texts *isn't* annoying and disruptive?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Do you even movie?, 14 Dec 2015 @ 8:08pm

        Re: Re:

        Less so than the couple chatting away beside me, the screaming kid kicking my seat behind me, the couple loudly making out two rows forward, that asshole not paying attention to the movie and demanding his friends re-explain every second scene, the people getting up and down every 20 minutes for concessions and of course the 1 year old a pair of irresponsible parents decided to take into the theater who won't stop screaming because the loud noises are probably causing early deafness.

        I rarely see people actually 'talk' on the phone during the movie, and the few that do leave the theater because they can't hear the person over the movie. Most of the time it's people texting, checking things on facebook, and you know what? I'll take them over the rest of the disruptive crowd.

        The people on cell phones are probably the LEAST distracting people in the gorram theater!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mason Wheeler (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 4:31am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Precisely. Unlike some people in here who make a big deal of proclaiming their undying hatred for the film industry and swearing up and down that they'll never watch another mainstream movie again whenever any article about the MPAA's misdeeds gets posted, I actually enjoy going to the movies. I have for years, for longer than smartphones have been a thing, and I've never once actually seen the mythical "disruptive cellphone yakker" that everyone loves to wring their hands about. That sort of thing could almost lead one to believe that he doesn't exist. A very few times, I've noticed someone texting during a movie, but... so what? How does that interfere with my viewing experience? The screen is up and he's holding his phone down, so it's I'm not even looking at it. Why should I even care?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2015 @ 12:54pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            To be honest, I'm not terribly fond of going to the theater. in addition to having to contest with all of the above, I have to deal with being crammed between people I don't know in relatively uncomfortable seats, bullied with overpriced concessions should I heaven forbid feel thirsty or hungry during the experience, standing in long lines to pay for the right to sit with a bunch of people who are probably going to be obnoxious during the movie, having to work my schedule around major showings that will probably be more crowded than most because those are the times 'EVERYONE' has off to do exactly what I'm doing, and as we see here... heaven forbid the movie winds up boring me, it isn't even socially acceptable to hazard a glance at my phone while I wait for the action to pick up.

            Honestly, I see theaters as a trade off. They offer a pricey, crowded, loud, obnoxious experience. In exchange, I get to see something sooner rather than later, without having to put up with crap quality screencams.

            Theaters have long stopped being the 'premium experience' they think they are, at least for me. They are simply a way to deal with my own impatience. OCCASIONALLY... there is a movie I so badly want to support that I will go out of my way to go to a theater, but these are few and far between.

            The rest are usually tagging along with friends to get out of the house once in a while.

            Still doesn't beat watching movies on a digital projector in my garage with a cheap surround sound setup, but if I don't want to be a thief, I apparently have to deal with a shitty experience.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 4:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            > I've never once actually seen the mythical "disruptive
            > cellphone yakker" that everyone loves to wring their
            > hands about. That sort of thing could almost lead one to
            > believe that he doesn't exist

            Yes, because your personal experience is the objective benchmark by which reality is judged.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          btr1701 (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 4:28pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Wow, you go to some really shitty theaters.

          The one I patronize doesn't allow babies at all. For movies of any rating. If you're too young to understand language, you're too young to be in a movie theater.

          They're also very good about policing people who talk or otherwise disrupt the movie. They "profile" customers and if, for example, a huge gaggle of loud and chatty teen girls shows up for movie, they'll pop in occasionally during the film to make sure they're not f'ing it up for everyone else, either by talking amongst themselves, or using their phones.

          That theater is all about maximizing the customer's experience, and for that reason it gets all my business.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 5:47pm

      Re:

      Apples and oranges, cars and carriages. I'm confused.

      Are you saying my phone is going to shit on the street?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Aaron Wolf (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 9:00am

      Learn some history rather than speculating

      For example: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

      Your post can literally be read as "Remember X from history? I don't, because I wasn't alive then. We can and should ignore all history and any lessons it offers and instead judge everything only by personal experience."

      The truth is that there *were* complaints about cars and they were *correct* and cars have had hugely negative impacts on society in all sorts of disruptive ways, mostly enabling the break-down of human-centered urban planning etc

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:03pm

    Take them out of the sock

    Why be obedient to someone else telling you what to do. Do what you want with your own phone and take it out of the sock before it locks.

    "Problem" solved.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:23pm

      Re: Take them out of the sock

      Most likely, some kind of security is there to make sure it's locked before you're let in.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:15pm

      Re: Take them out of the sock

      Why be obedient to someone else telling you what to do.

      Or, just don't go if you're not welcomed, which you aren't with your cell phone.
      "Problem" solved.

      Problem created. You're in the company of thousands of others who've paid their hard earned bucks for the best entertainment experience Chappelle can offer you, and you think it's okay to interrupt everyone else's enjoyment of it? Fuck you, asshole. Stay home, or find something else to do.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:45pm

        Re: Re: Take them out of the sock

        Clearly you cannot think for yourself.

        Chappelle does not offer an "entertainment experience" and just because someone can does not mean they will.

        I too am all for ignoring anything anyone tells me what they think I should do.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          btr1701 (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 4:38pm

          Re: Re: Re: Take them out of the sock

          > I too am all for ignoring anything anyone tells me what
          > they think I should do.

          So if someone tells me I shouldn't break into your house and steal your stuff, you'd be cool with me ignoring that?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:10pm

    Phone socks are for cows ... Dave Chapelle is a cow. Cows say moo. MOOOO! MOOOO! Moo cow MOOOO! Moo says the cow. YOU phone-locking sock-loving COW!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:15pm

    Are they making sure that people turn their phones off first? Otherwise a great prank for a few friends to play would be to go to one of these performances with their cellphone ringers on maximum, and have an outside friend call them during the performance. Turning a phone's ringer off will be impossible as it'll be inside one of these sleeves.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:25pm

      Re:

      My understanding is that the bag itself is a faraday cage, no signals get in or out. I suppose if you want to be an asshole you could set an alarm to go off.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 3:47pm

      Re:

      Another prank to play is: stick a conductive pressure film over the front of your phone. Stick it in the sock. Then swipe to unlock, use the phone, etc while still in its cozy.

      Personally, I think he got it almost right: what he really needed to do was give out socks with a simple (but noisy) release switch. Label the outside of the sock with "This venue kindly requests that you keep your phone stowed while present" printed on it.

      I think that this in itself should apply the social pressure needed in this situation, while flagging phone jerks as such. Maybe make it shout "I'm the center of the universe!" whenever it is opened -- and make that part of a running gag in the performance so that everyone else gets a laugh at the expense of whoever decides they just must get their phone out.

      And it would make for a nifty souvenir, too :)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:15pm

    I remember the fun we had when "A" list music performer management decide to 100% ban all cameras including phones with cameras form the arena, (Capacity apox: 15,000)with out tell the audience or the arena management till 2 hours before door opening, had to keep a reclaim desk open till about 01:00 am and open again at 07:00 the next day. lot of angry people directing the anger at the arena staff.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nate (profile), 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:19pm

    Or just lie and say you didn't bring your smartphone with you.

    I usually leave it behind.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:23pm

    I find it hard to be outraged about this. It's completely voluntary and designed to deter, not completely prevent recording. The value of that is debatable, but what people do in a private venue is not really any of my business.

    >It also seems inherently dangerous in the age of seemingly endless mass shootings to disrupt all cell phone communications in an entire venue

    Nope, only those who opted in.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:44pm

      Re:

      "Effectively it's a pouch that attendees of an event are forced to put their devices in if they want to enter the performance"

      Notice the word FORCED

      The only way it is "voluntary" is if you can get a full refund of your ticket including any service charges if you decide not to hand over your phone.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:46pm

        Re: Re:

        Forced to buy a ticket?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2015 @ 9:58am

        Re: Re:

        The word forced was editorialized by the author. No one is forcing you to buy a ticket to Dave's show and accept the requirements it entails.

        The contrariness of these comments is reminiscent of grade school.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2015 @ 12:59pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          No, nobody is forcing you to buy a ticket to Dave's show.

          They are forcing you to submit to arbitrary and frankly obnoxious rules without warning after you've bought the ticket, which is likely to leave you painfully aware of just how many distractions are more obnoxious than someone trying to snap a pic or check twitter.

          If the experience is really so important to them, why are they only bothering with one form of obnoxious distraction?

          Obnoxious people are going to be obnoxious with or without their cell phones. Considerate people are going to be considerate with or without their cell phones. Removing a piece of technology does not suddenly, magically make people well behaved.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:32pm

    The Grateful Dead solved the problem of fans trying to record their concerts decades ago, they gave them a feed straight from their mixing desk. They correctly reasoned that a recording does not give the same experience as a concert, and that a good recording acts to gain fans. and more attendees at concerts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Zem, 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:49pm

    Such an awesome cross over marketing opportunity here. You could print on all the covers

    F U E T
    Phone home, you do not

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:55pm

    Are these bags made out of steel mesh? If not, what's stopping someone from cutting them open with a pocket knife after they enter the performance?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:00pm

      Re:

      >what's stopping someone from cutting them open with a pocket knife after they enter the performance?

      Being the person who cut it open with a pocket knife after they enter the performance.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rekrul, 15 Dec 2015 @ 2:55pm

        Re: Re:

        Being the person who cut it open with a pocket knife after they enter the performance.

        Do they take everyone's name when they put the cell phone in the bag? Is each bag registered to a specific person?

        If not, what's to stop someone from just walking out and saying that they didn't have a phone with them? Will people be searched as they leave?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    dumb ohioan, 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:57pm

    i have a solution for dave

    maybe he should just have every show in Ohio, then no one will want to be there physically to record it :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    tqk (profile), 14 Dec 2015 @ 1:58pm

    Cell phone signal blocking.

    It also seems inherently dangerous in the age of seemingly endless mass shootings to disrupt all cell phone communications in an entire venue, which is why the FCC has historically banned outright cell phone signal blocking ...

    Speaking just for myself, that seems quite the heavy-handed response. How many mass shootings have you experienced in person lately? I've never been anywhere near one, nor do I know anyone who has. I'm suspicious that the cell phone industry "regulatory captured" the FCC into forcing that ban as it might otherwise interfere with their profits.

    If I were an entertainer like Chappelle, I'd find a way to get my hands on a Stingray which overpowers other cellphone towers, then lock the Stingray down to not provide outside connectivity. I'd also upfront warn all invitees I'd be doing this. If you don't like it, you're not welcome. Many other fans very much do resent your cell phones interrupting performances. If you can't be bothered to keep your dog on a leash, it's not welcome and neither are you. Substitute "squalling babies", "drunken boyfriends" or whatever you prefer for "dog."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:02pm

      Re: Cell phone signal blocking.

      >quite the heavy-handed response

      Techdirt usually campaigns against fear-mongering so it's odd to see a writer using it to support their opinion.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        M. Alan Thomas II (profile), 14 Dec 2015 @ 5:45pm

        Re: Re: Cell phone signal blocking.

        I agree; the use of mass shootings to push a point on cell phones at concerts seems contrary to the usual ethos around here. If the logic were more persuasive, that would be a different matter, but here it feels like an off-hand shout-out to tragedy to garner emotional support for a mostly-unrelated gripe.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mason Wheeler (profile), 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:25pm

      Re: Cell phone signal blocking.

      How many mass shootings have you experienced in person lately? I've never been anywhere near one, nor do I know anyone who has.

      My family moved to Marysville, Washington after I graduated. My brother was a student at the high school there. Luckily, he wasn't injured, but... yeah. Don't think "this will never effect me." I never thought it would effect me either, until I saw the name "Marysville Pilchuck High School" in the news one day while on lunch break.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Concerned Citizen, 14 Dec 2015 @ 7:24pm

      Re: Cell phone signal blocking.

      While I wouldn't visit your venues, I very much respect you taking care to make people aware of this up front.

      As you hinted at though... what is it helping?

      If the goal is to cut down on 'distractions' during the show... Cell phone use tends to be the LEAST distracting part of public shows in my experience. Squalling babies, drunken boyfriends, obnoxious fans squealing all around you, people shouting to their SO's about how much they're loving/hating the show, are cell phones REALLY worse than all of these? Should we start to look into solutions for these things to? Or should we accept it all as part of going to a PUBLIC venue for a PUBLIC show?

      If the goal is to cut down on recordings of the show, maybe the entertainer should think about why people would take a shit quality video with scratchy audio surrounded by squealing fans causing neighborhood dogs to hide under the covers over going to the show live and.. I dunno... offer a good quality, professionally sound edited video of the own show to offset that?

      Cause I know when I consider going to a live show, I'm not going in thinking 'I'm going to surround myself with quiet, respectful, attentive individuals'. I go in thinking 'Well, Better pack earplugs so I can actually pay attention to the performer over the constant murmur and obnoxious behavior of some of the other patrons.'

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anon, 15 Dec 2015 @ 9:46am

      Re: Cell phone signal blocking.

      The problem is it affects everything, not just mass shootings. What's the limit? Some restaurants would like to use jammers. So would movie theatres. How many of those multiplex theatres have live attendants present all through the show? The whole point of those theatres is one projectionist - one ticket taker for 10 theatres. Someone's choking in a restaurant or having a heart attack in a theatre and you have to abandon them and run 50 feet out in the street to escape the jammer or stingray?

      the whole point and value of a cellphone is - they work everywhere, not in a few select locations excluding where someone wants to protect their jokes or simply is annoyed with loud one-sided conversations. A swiss-cheese cellphone coverage is annoying when the phone company does it. We don't need every Tom, Harry, or some Dick deciding this is a dead zone too.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 4:44pm

        Re: Re: Cell phone signal blocking.

        > Someone's choking in a restaurant or having a heart
        > attack in a theatre and you have to abandon them and run
        > 50 feet out in the street to escape the jammer or
        > stingray?

        Or, you know, use the restaurant's land line.

        Kinda like they did before these things were invented.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 4:45pm

        Re: Re: Cell phone signal blocking.

        > We don't need every Tom, Harry, or some Dick deciding
        > this is a dead zone too.

        If it's their private property, why shouldn't they be allowed to turn it into a dead zone if they want to?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mason Wheeler (profile), 16 Dec 2015 @ 7:07am

          Re: Re: Re: Cell phone signal blocking.

          The restaurant may be their property, but my phone is my private property; what right does some building-owner have to unilaterally decide to violate my property rights just because he owns a building?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 16 Dec 2015 @ 8:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Cell phone signal blocking.

            First. he's not doing anything to your phone or altering your property in any way. He's just constructing his building in such away that electromagnetic radiation doesn't pass through the walls.

            And second, you're on his property. He should get to set the rules for access to his property. If you want your phone to work, you're free to go elsewhere. No one's holding you captive.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:06pm

    Not a perfect solution but it seems like a simple fix would just be to build the walls of future performing art stages like a faraday cage. Probably not the cheapest option but no complaints, no wait, no mocking articles about phone socks, and no cell phone signal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:11pm

      Re:

      Doesn't do anything to stop people from recording the show, which is what this aims to prevent. Did you even read the article?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:21pm

        Re: Re:

        When these were first in the news a year ago, their aim was to make venues phone free, i:e, no phone calls, no people texting and basically an engaged audience.

        There is an arstechnica story from last year that talks to the inventor.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:38pm

        Re: Re:

        As I said before, not a perfect solution. People will sneak phones in as Karl has mentioned. The people coming to record the show will still figure a way to record the show. Shielding the room would at least prevent people from texting, taking/making calls, and posting pictures/videos till after the concert. If you try implementing an active solution it will never be 100%, if you can come up with a passive solution, it will cheaper in the long run and a much higher success rate.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 6:25pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The people coming to record the show will still figure a way to record the show.
          Unless these are soundproof, it'll be really easy to get an audio-only recording: just start it before putting your phone in. Most comedy shows aren't very visual experiences anyway.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:26pm

      Re:

      The phone part is not really the issue. They are trying to stop people from recording the show and putting it on youtube later.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2015 @ 1:06pm

        Re: Re:

        So the performer should record the show themselves and market the experience at a low cost. The show itself is happening whether the performer, or anyone else for that matter, records it or not. Offering a low cost, high quality experience for those unwilling or unable to attend the live show makes people recording the show a non-issue, because you are now monetizing the market of internet audiences still willing to pay, but unwilling to pay that much/deal with an obnoxious public venue.

        I really don't get the draw of live events myself. The experience is measurably worse in every way (sound quality, nearby distractions, crowded venues, long times spent forced to sit and do nothing but watch, regardless of biological needs, more expensive, visibility)

        I don't get why people will spend over $100 to sit far far away from a performer and try to listen to ear grating acoustics bouncing off every murmuring fan in the place.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anon, 15 Dec 2015 @ 9:28am

      Re: Faraday Theatre

      Doesn't stop recording, just delays the uploads.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:21pm

    Oh I can't wait until someone's alarm goes off in the middle of a show and they can't get to the phone to turn it off.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:22pm

    Of course the best and most effective way to make sure no-one uses their phones to record video or take photos is to ensure the performance is so utterly crap that no-one can be bothered to even lift their phone above their waist....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:48pm

    This sucks!

    Not everyone has the luxury of being able to turn their smartphone off. I work for a hospital, needless to say I'm on call 24/7. The absolute best I can do is set to vibrate and ultra dim. I've been forced to leave $100 shows ten minutes in.

    Now if I want to see a show I'll have to keister my smartphone. Do you think I want to hear how they get stuff into prison while being violated by Apple?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 3:05pm

      Re: This sucks!

      Unless you're in a MASH unit, you're not on call "24/7". Don't go to shows that use these when you're on call.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 3:12pm

      Re: This sucks!

      Thank you for your service and choosing a career path that you have chosen to sacrifice certain parts of your life to accommodate.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      btr1701 (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 4:48pm

      Re: This sucks!

      > I work for a hospital, needless to say I'm on call 24/7.

      "I have an important job, so that entitles me to annoy others and disrupt entertainment venues!"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        The Wanderer (profile), 23 Jan 2016 @ 6:00am

        Re: Re: This sucks!

        How does having a phone "set to vibrate and ultra dim" in an entertainment venue "annoy others and disrupt [that ]entertainment venue[]"?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 3:37pm

    Howard Schultz Thinks A Request and A Dream Will Keep People from Bringing Guns to Starbucks

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/business/starbucks-seeks-to-keep-guns-out-of-its-cofee-sh ops.html

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    btr1701 (profile), 14 Dec 2015 @ 5:45pm

    Ringing

    So wait. The pouches are locked... but what if somebody calls *me*? Won't I be sitting there with a ringing phone in a sock that I can't stop from ringing?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Concerned Citizen, 14 Dec 2015 @ 6:15pm

    I really like Dave Chappelle's comedy. I was actually considering going to a show of his after the new year, once Christmas was out of the way.

    Oh well.

    You guys can call me an inconsiderate asshole, a distracting jerkwad or whatever else you like, but if I pay someone good money, and they turn around and treat me like a toddler who needs his toys taken away before class, then I'd demand my money back.

    Yeah, I use my smartphone before the show starts. Yes, sometimes I check updates during the performance (Screen brightness set to min/sound off). Perhaps I want to forge fond memories of a live show I shelled out for. If you can't handle being distracted in a public venue at a live event, go home and buy the DVD.

    I hate to break it to you, but I'd rather every person there be distracted on their smart phones then have to listen to people talk, debate or argue during the show. I have to deal with distracting assholes EVERY time I go to a public event. I had to deal with this before cell phones were prominent, and I'm gonna have to keep dealing with it until venues start insisting on locking gag and straight jacket combos.

    Dealing with other people is part of being in a PUBLIC venue. If other people are bugging you, guess what? Maybe you should just stick to watching stuff at home.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 6:21pm

    "Blocking"

    It also seems inherently dangerous in the age of seemingly endless mass shootings to disrupt all cell phone communications in an entire venue, the FCC has historically banned outright cell phone signal blocking
    They haven't. They ban jamming, but blocking (e.g. with attenuating paint) is fine.

    And I agree with the other poster that we don't need this fear-mongering. You say we're in an "age of...mass shootings", but statistics say this is one of the safest times in recorded history. Someone will find a way to call 9-1-1 if there's a real emergency. Once that's done there's little benefit for other people to use their phones.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      btr1701 (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 4:51pm

      Re: "Blocking"

      > Someone will find a way to call 9-1-1 if there's a real
      > emergency.

      No kidding. And honestly, if you're in an active shooter situation and you're actually in danger (as opposed to someone outside who is just hearing the gun fire), then the absolute *last* thing you should be fucking around with is your goddam cell phone. You either need to be evacuating most riki tik, or, if you're trapped inside, deciding the optimal way to counter-attack the shooter.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    unily, 15 Dec 2015 @ 1:52am

    Not Just Tech.

    I think the constant checking of phones is down to people not being able to pay attention for long periods of time, but I don't think that is anything new. People will try to distract themselves to give themselves a break from the main attraction. Its more of a psychological occurrence than just 'technology'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    David (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 7:12am

    Welcome!

    Welcome to the Nanny States of America!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2015 @ 7:39am

    The cure is in the show itself .. remember Gallagher and the watermelon hammer , something similar would possibly work .. maybe nontoxic paint .. no need for the sock just a quick spray down .

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    kP (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 9:46am

    Are YONDR Socks Cleaned Between Users?

    Seems like a vector for something contageous

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anon, 15 Dec 2015 @ 9:48am

    a free bag... be sure to take it home with you...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Yonder, 15 Dec 2015 @ 9:48am

    I like the socks hopefully they will soon add gloves and scarves to the collection ooh and a hat maybe cool and a messenger style bag yeahh

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    tracyanne (profile), 15 Dec 2015 @ 2:13pm

    From the ars article about the yondr sock

    "Clearly the impetus was there, even 40 years ago, to smuggle a (bulky, non-disposable) camera in and get a picture of your favorite band. But maybe by making it a little harder to do, we'll be forced to simply enjoy the music more than we have in the past half-century."

    No the yondr sock won't make the experience better. I 'smuggled' cameras into live shows in the hopes that i could take away memories of an experience I was really enjoying. When I wasn't enjoying it I didn't bother recording the experience.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.