Restaurant offers a 5% discount if you eat without your phone on the table(money.cnn.com)
money.cnn.com
Restaurant offers a 5% discount if you eat without your phone on the table
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/16/technology/restaurant-cell-phone-discount/index.html
19 comments
I get really annoyed when I eat with someone and they have their phone on the table. There's something about that behaviour that seems to say "I'll pay attention to you for now, but I'm really hoping for a distraction.".
I'd much rather go to a restaurant where phone use is discouraged as it seems to have become socially acceptable to fuck around with phones even during face-to-face conversation with someone.
Regarding ROI: if I were to run the restaurant, I'd have opaquely added the same charge to all the menu items and remove it for good behaviour. I guess that rewards for not being a dick are more popular than explicit punishments for being a dick?
I'd much rather go to a restaurant where phone use is discouraged as it seems to have become socially acceptable to fuck around with phones even during face-to-face conversation with someone.
Regarding ROI: if I were to run the restaurant, I'd have opaquely added the same charge to all the menu items and remove it for good behaviour. I guess that rewards for not being a dick are more popular than explicit punishments for being a dick?
Shoot. I often eat with my phone on the table, but I never field a call or text - I just put it there along with my keys because it's uncomfortable to sit with it in my pocket and I usually don't wear a jacket.
I can see how just putting it there could send the wrong message, though, that I'm open to distractions. Argh. Just one more reason to get a "european carry all", I guess. Or maybe I'll just wear a jacket.
I can see how just putting it there could send the wrong message, though, that I'm open to distractions. Argh. Just one more reason to get a "european carry all", I guess. Or maybe I'll just wear a jacket.
I do similar. We need to develop a new etiquette. Perhaps placing the phone beyond your reach (in the center of the table) signifies that it's not a distraction, but just a bauble.
I usually place it to the edge of the table, and upside down.
I do that, and I put my keys on top of it to indicate that I don't plan to pick it up or answer it.
Funny, I didn't realize until just know that I was doing this.
Funny, I didn't realize until just know that I was doing this.
I make a small show of putting it on silent mode.
upside down is a good idea but you need to have the discipline of not looking at every beep or noise.
Same with me: I hate having stuff in my pockets when I sit, specially with jeans.
But now that I'm aware that it might send the wrong message, I'll try to keep just my phone in my pocket (the first Galaxy S, it's not very big) if I have lunch with some I do not know very well.
Edit: As others have commented, I do always leave it face down on top of my wallet which hopefully always comes across as "I'm just leaving my crap here."
But now that I'm aware that it might send the wrong message, I'll try to keep just my phone in my pocket (the first Galaxy S, it's not very big) if I have lunch with some I do not know very well.
Edit: As others have commented, I do always leave it face down on top of my wallet which hopefully always comes across as "I'm just leaving my crap here."
Comfort is the reason I have my phone on the table as well. My glasses and keys end up in the same place... usually in a precarious stack.
I dislike eating with people who use their phone at the table, but face-down phones on the table don't bother me at all. If you're with someone that you're particularly worried about offending, flip the phone to airplane mode (or off) before you put it on the table and mention that you're doing that.
Yeah I put my phone on the table also just cause of comfort. Also because of a lot of research finding that cell phones in your pockets causes your balls to wither and die (paraphrased).
Being European myself, I wonder what you call a "European carry all" ?
A purse ? (or "man purse")
A purse ? (or "man purse")
oh, this is a reference to a Seinfeld episode. Elaine works for a clothing company that is trying to sell men's purses by renaming them "European carry alls".
Jerry: Hey! Officer! Someone took my European carryall!
Cop: Your what?
Jerry: The...black, leather...thing with a strap.
Cop: You mean a purse?
Jerry: Yes, a purse. I carry a purse!
Jerry: Hey! Officer! Someone took my European carryall!
Cop: Your what?
Jerry: The...black, leather...thing with a strap.
Cop: You mean a purse?
Jerry: Yes, a purse. I carry a purse!
[deleted]
> seems to say "I'll pay attention to you for now, but I'm really hoping for a distraction.".
I put my phone on the table b/c I'm not 100% comfortable (rationally or not) with a device emitting radiation near my genitals for hours at a time.
I put my phone on the table b/c I'm not 100% comfortable (rationally or not) with a device emitting radiation near my genitals for hours at a time.
If I ever ate lunch with you, how would I know you were annoyed when I set my phone on the table, ringer off, and face down? Sometimes, I just don't like having it in my pocket when I'm sitting down to eat. Never thought that I'd be annoying anyone.
Your post is very charged.
If I am at dinner and I decide that I want to keep on top of my device (I have four children and a very busy professional life), those with me have to deal with it. Most of the time my phone is more important than the discardable conversation happening over a meal.
It doesn't make me more important than them, though maybe it means that I have different values.
I generally veer away from these sorts of conversations because they tend to be dominated by angry people who are essentially trying to control other people ("you should do this and you should do that and I will forever be judging and disapproving or approving". You don't hear people living in the real world declaring that everyone must check their phone constantly)
If I am at dinner and I decide that I want to keep on top of my device (I have four children and a very busy professional life), those with me have to deal with it. Most of the time my phone is more important than the discardable conversation happening over a meal.
It doesn't make me more important than them, though maybe it means that I have different values.
I generally veer away from these sorts of conversations because they tend to be dominated by angry people who are essentially trying to control other people ("you should do this and you should do that and I will forever be judging and disapproving or approving". You don't hear people living in the real world declaring that everyone must check their phone constantly)
Your post is similarly charged and you get more confrontational during this thread I think, although I think it may be a cultural thing. In the UK, swearing isn't a big deal, but table manners can be.
Part of basic courtesy (for me) is to pay attention to the person that you're eating with; if you don't want to be here, then don't accept or offer an invitation. There's nothing wrong with that, but if we're out at a restaurant together then it's because I want to be there with you...not because I need to consume a meal. I won't watch television, read a book or do routine paperwork during dinner with someone. I consider messing with texts, checking email or taking a phone call to be similar activities.
For what it's worth, with close friends over a snack, I really don't mind. But with new acquaintances, I do expect a certain level of formality and table manners. There is a large swathe of people who would not watch TV, read a book or do paperwork at a table over dinner but they would mess with a phone.
I'd have absolutely no problems whatsoever with geebee's behaviour as described in this thread; (s)he seems polite, considerate and like someone it'd be nice to share a meal with. Noticing that you've got a potentially important message and leaving the table to check would be fine to me! Fiddling with facebook, taking routine calls or texts would seem inconsiderate. Having the phone on the table, but firmly ignored, isn't all that bad, I guess...but I'd rather leave it in a jacket pocket and not have the potential distraction personally.
If that comes over as controlling, well fair enough. Horses for courses, etc. But if my behaviour comes across as controlling and judging, I must say that yours comes across as self-absorbed and somewhat arrogant. But like I said at the start, that may just be a cultural thing.
Part of basic courtesy (for me) is to pay attention to the person that you're eating with; if you don't want to be here, then don't accept or offer an invitation. There's nothing wrong with that, but if we're out at a restaurant together then it's because I want to be there with you...not because I need to consume a meal. I won't watch television, read a book or do routine paperwork during dinner with someone. I consider messing with texts, checking email or taking a phone call to be similar activities.
For what it's worth, with close friends over a snack, I really don't mind. But with new acquaintances, I do expect a certain level of formality and table manners. There is a large swathe of people who would not watch TV, read a book or do paperwork at a table over dinner but they would mess with a phone.
I'd have absolutely no problems whatsoever with geebee's behaviour as described in this thread; (s)he seems polite, considerate and like someone it'd be nice to share a meal with. Noticing that you've got a potentially important message and leaving the table to check would be fine to me! Fiddling with facebook, taking routine calls or texts would seem inconsiderate. Having the phone on the table, but firmly ignored, isn't all that bad, I guess...but I'd rather leave it in a jacket pocket and not have the potential distraction personally.
If that comes over as controlling, well fair enough. Horses for courses, etc. But if my behaviour comes across as controlling and judging, I must say that yours comes across as self-absorbed and somewhat arrogant. But like I said at the start, that may just be a cultural thing.
What is considered "basic courtesy" changes, from person to person, region to region, and time period to time period. It's unwise to allow yourself to be offended or bothered by people with different ideas about what constitutes "basic courtesy." Unless you want to be perpetually unhappy, either choose to not be offended, or choose to avoid encounters with people of another ilk than yourself. Personally, I recommend the former.
There's nothing inherently angry or controlling about what nagrom posted. I feel the same way nagrom does, and I don't waste any of my time trying to change others and it doesn't make me mad if they need Facebook open to make it through dinner. I just avoid going out with them as much as possible, in exactly the same way that I avoid eating with people who don't close their mouth when they chew.
I agree with huggyface. The parent post was ridden with angry sentiments by the original poster. In my case, I consider good manners towards all the patrons to keep your phone in silence/vibrate in a restaurant/movie theater/bar because it might impact the ambient slash "moment" of other people that surround you. That doesn't mean I'm not taking a call if I deem it important, and depending on the place I might go outside to take said call. I might even need to keep my phone on the table to actually notice the call because of the noise inherent on some types of businesses.
Browsing Facebook while having dinner with someone is very offensive, I agree. It is also offensive to get "angry" because I took a call from my neighbor telling me that my grandma fell on the stairs, my work because the servers imploded and we're loosing thousands of dollars a minute, or my brother calling to tell me his girlfriend said yes to his marriage proposal.
My family, livelihood, and friends are all going to be more important to me than someone's arbitrary definition of table/movie-theater manners. I'll take steps to minimize the amount of inconvenience caused by having to be reachable during such events, but I will not apologize (actually I will as a courtesy, apples to oranges I guess) to having to interrupt whatever small talk I'm having because I got a call I deem more important.
It's your prerogative to not go out with people like me I suppose, but guess what, it would be mine to not go out with people that believe they're so much more important than other people's needs and wants.
Browsing Facebook while having dinner with someone is very offensive, I agree. It is also offensive to get "angry" because I took a call from my neighbor telling me that my grandma fell on the stairs, my work because the servers imploded and we're loosing thousands of dollars a minute, or my brother calling to tell me his girlfriend said yes to his marriage proposal.
My family, livelihood, and friends are all going to be more important to me than someone's arbitrary definition of table/movie-theater manners. I'll take steps to minimize the amount of inconvenience caused by having to be reachable during such events, but I will not apologize (actually I will as a courtesy, apples to oranges I guess) to having to interrupt whatever small talk I'm having because I got a call I deem more important.
It's your prerogative to not go out with people like me I suppose, but guess what, it would be mine to not go out with people that believe they're so much more important than other people's needs and wants.
"but I'm really hoping for a distraction."...."socially acceptable to fuck around with phones"..."I guess that rewards for not being a dick are more popular than explicit punishments for being a dick?"
Their post was littered with resentment and anger.
I just avoid going out with them as much as possible
Good for you. Those are the choices you get to make, controlling yourself instead of controlling others. It's probably a welcome gesture by the other party, given that they've clearly indicated that you are less important to them regardless.
Their post was littered with resentment and anger.
I just avoid going out with them as much as possible
Good for you. Those are the choices you get to make, controlling yourself instead of controlling others. It's probably a welcome gesture by the other party, given that they've clearly indicated that you are less important to them regardless.
> It doesn't make me more important than them, though maybe it means that I have different values.
> It's probably a welcome gesture by the other party, given that they've clearly indicated that you are less important to them regardless.
So, which is it (way to keep it classy, by the way)?
> It's probably a welcome gesture by the other party, given that they've clearly indicated that you are less important to them regardless.
So, which is it (way to keep it classy, by the way)?
Do you think those are contrasting points? There is a subtle wording difference that means the world.
If I'm at dinner with a casual friend or workplace peer, my family and even critical professional activities are more important than them to me. That doesn't make me more important than them, though, which is what enrages so many people, sure that they need to put people in their place.
If I'm at dinner with a casual friend or workplace peer, my family and even critical professional activities are more important than them to me. That doesn't make me more important than them, though, which is what enrages so many people, sure that they need to put people in their place.
I do think those are contrasting points.
No matter what subtleties you wrap the difference in, relative importance is what you're communicating to everyone else at the table whether you intend to or not. If that's your priority then so be it, but don't be surprised if people who prioritized being present at dinner aren't fond of your choice.
I'm not trying to change you though. Like I said before, I just wouldn't want to eat dinner with you if you couldn't leave the phone alone.
No matter what subtleties you wrap the difference in, relative importance is what you're communicating to everyone else at the table whether you intend to or not. If that's your priority then so be it, but don't be surprised if people who prioritized being present at dinner aren't fond of your choice.
I'm not trying to change you though. Like I said before, I just wouldn't want to eat dinner with you if you couldn't leave the phone alone.
While having a phone out can be rude, I agree with huggyface that it's a statement about the importance of the conversation, not the person.
"If I'm at dinner with a casual friend or workplace peer, my family and even critical professional activities are more important than them to me. That doesn't make me more important than them, though, which is what enrages so many people, sure that they need to put people in their place."
I think it is a confusion of expectations that creates the conflict. You expect it to be understood that this is how you prioritize. Others may not have expected the same priorities.
I think it is a confusion of expectations that creates the conflict. You expect it to be understood that this is how you prioritize. Others may not have expected the same priorities.
I've always thought its kind of a shame that mobiles mean we have to be on the job all the time. Every day.
I love putting my phone away at meals, it's a good time to be social and set aside the demands of professional life.
I love putting my phone away at meals, it's a good time to be social and set aside the demands of professional life.
"maybe it means that I have different values."
Id say it means that you generally don't value the time spent with the person you are in the physical presence of. There are always exceptions, but if you agree to meet me for lunch or dinner it is because I value that interaction. If you blow me off for some routine call or SMS/MMS, expect me not to invite you or accept an invitation in the future.
Id say it means that you generally don't value the time spent with the person you are in the physical presence of. There are always exceptions, but if you agree to meet me for lunch or dinner it is because I value that interaction. If you blow me off for some routine call or SMS/MMS, expect me not to invite you or accept an invitation in the future.
I'd argue that even though I might value your time and inherent effort of meeting me somewhere, I also would also establish that there are things more important than anyone's company and small talk over dinner. I would feel like a total jackass if I complain (even to myself, without voicing my distaste verbally/publicly) about you taking a call or message, and then you telling me that you have to leave because your father is in the hospital.
Sure I agree it's distasteful to answer a random sms while we're having a beer, and I would never do such a thing - but it's also very distasteful to voice concerns/annoyance about the value of any current interaction versus whatever inherent need a person has to be reachable for communication.
If you tell me that a I'm a jerk for answering a random call and interrupting for 5 minutes while talking to my girlfriend about trivial or banal stuff, I would totally agree. But that kind of sentiment should generally be saved for when you realize someone is being a jerk, not to immediately label a person for having his phone reachable or before an explanation of the reason for taking a call or message.
Sure I agree it's distasteful to answer a random sms while we're having a beer, and I would never do such a thing - but it's also very distasteful to voice concerns/annoyance about the value of any current interaction versus whatever inherent need a person has to be reachable for communication.
If you tell me that a I'm a jerk for answering a random call and interrupting for 5 minutes while talking to my girlfriend about trivial or banal stuff, I would totally agree. But that kind of sentiment should generally be saved for when you realize someone is being a jerk, not to immediately label a person for having his phone reachable or before an explanation of the reason for taking a call or message.
I didn't get the impression he was responding to routine calls, rather that he was making sure he was aware of any urgent calls that may come in.
I'll give it to you that you aren't a hypocrite - you have no problem with cell phone conversations at the table, and you'd grant other people the right to do this in exchange for your own right to do it.
It doesn't work, though. What you're proposing essentially allows the lowest common denominator to impose a low standard of basic courtesy on everyone else.
Can you think of anything you wouldn't want someone else doing at the table, even in exchange for your own right to do it?
It doesn't work, though. What you're proposing essentially allows the lowest common denominator to impose a low standard of basic courtesy on everyone else.
Can you think of anything you wouldn't want someone else doing at the table, even in exchange for your own right to do it?
you have no problem with cell phone conversations at the table
It isn't the lowest common denominator. It is the evolution of society, empowered by new communication methods. I need to know if the nanny has an issue, just as I need to react to critical professional demands, as quickly as possible. Modern technology has made that possible. If someone is personally offended because I keep my smartphone with me and check if I receive priority messages, that's rather quaint and traditionalist, but it doesn't blend with the real world.
It isn't the lowest common denominator. It is the evolution of society, empowered by new communication methods. I need to know if the nanny has an issue, just as I need to react to critical professional demands, as quickly as possible. Modern technology has made that possible. If someone is personally offended because I keep my smartphone with me and check if I receive priority messages, that's rather quaint and traditionalist, but it doesn't blend with the real world.
I said earlier that I never field a call at the table. That isn't completely true. I (discretely, I hope) noticed that the green light was flashing, and I went outside to listen to the message, because it was from an unlisted number and like you I have kids, one in school, one in daycare.
I guess the big difference is that I don't say "deal with it". I actually felt I owed my colleagues a quick explanation and apology.
Think of how different the reaction would have been if instead of writing this:
"If I am at dinner and I decide that I want to keep on top of my device (I have four children and a very busy professional life), those with me have to deal with it. Most of the time my phone is more important than the discardable conversation happening over a meal."
you'd written something like this instead:
"Because I have four children and I want to be reachable in an emergency, I do keep an eye on my phone and occasionally take a call outside. But I try to do this in a way that minimizes the disruption to the people at the table. I hope that people can understand the distinction between putting your phone on the table and fielding casual conversations."
People are generally pretty nice and understanding if you're respectful rather than telling them to deal with it.
I guess the big difference is that I don't say "deal with it". I actually felt I owed my colleagues a quick explanation and apology.
Think of how different the reaction would have been if instead of writing this:
"If I am at dinner and I decide that I want to keep on top of my device (I have four children and a very busy professional life), those with me have to deal with it. Most of the time my phone is more important than the discardable conversation happening over a meal."
you'd written something like this instead:
"Because I have four children and I want to be reachable in an emergency, I do keep an eye on my phone and occasionally take a call outside. But I try to do this in a way that minimizes the disruption to the people at the table. I hope that people can understand the distinction between putting your phone on the table and fielding casual conversations."
People are generally pretty nice and understanding if you're respectful rather than telling them to deal with it.
I need to know if the nanny has an issue, just as I need to react to critical professional demands
How often has this situation happen?
How often has this situation happen?
My experience with people who like to cite edge cases for their habits is that those cases are either extremely rare, or that issues of less importance are "artificially escalated" to high importance to support their case.
Presumably not very often, but that should make it even more acceptable to keep a phone with you during a dinner.
This is exactly it. This submission is about a restaurant removing the smartphone from one's person, and the post I replied to took significant issue with people putting their smartphone on the table (which they usually do if they have a notification LED and want to essentially forget about it -- it is actually the least interrupting mechanism of using a phone). So many seem to have taken my reply as some blanket endorsement of endless smartphone use, presenting it as a extremes when it is nothing of the sort.
The issue isn't about angry people controlling others, or about the balance of who regards who as "more important", a point that I think you've mistakenly identified as the crux of the issue. It's about manners and social courtesy.
If the people you dine with are "getting angry" and trying to "control" your actions, the likely reason is that you're being offensively rude, and are missing the social signals of people's frustration and displeasure.
There's a time and place for everything, and much like farts and taking a piss, using your phone should only follow an "Excuse me" as you leave the dinner table.
Ever turn your phone off for the duration of a movie, concert, or show? You only use your phone in the lobby, or at the more casual bookends of an event. This isn't rocket science.
Folks who dine with someone who is constantly dropping the conversation of a shared meal to look down at their phone will indeed "deal with it". They'll simply think of you as overwhelmed and rude, and will hesitate to invite you again.
If the people you dine with are "getting angry" and trying to "control" your actions, the likely reason is that you're being offensively rude, and are missing the social signals of people's frustration and displeasure.
There's a time and place for everything, and much like farts and taking a piss, using your phone should only follow an "Excuse me" as you leave the dinner table.
Ever turn your phone off for the duration of a movie, concert, or show? You only use your phone in the lobby, or at the more casual bookends of an event. This isn't rocket science.
Folks who dine with someone who is constantly dropping the conversation of a shared meal to look down at their phone will indeed "deal with it". They'll simply think of you as overwhelmed and rude, and will hesitate to invite you again.
It's very strange how you think you're setting me straight. I wonder if you really think you're enlightening me here.
I am very aware of social nuances and cues. I have no lack of people who want to repeatedly go to dinner with me. I also have a busy life, however, so simplified caricatures of the utility of modern conveniences give me a little chuckle, hence my original post. This story is a restaurant capitalizing on the resentment of the few.
I am very aware of social nuances and cues. I have no lack of people who want to repeatedly go to dinner with me. I also have a busy life, however, so simplified caricatures of the utility of modern conveniences give me a little chuckle, hence my original post. This story is a restaurant capitalizing on the resentment of the few.
<rant type="indignant" intensity="105%">
If my phone rings, there's a high likelihood I won't be there for long anyways. And in the meantime, if me texting at my own table bothers you, or a couple of low volume buzzes bother you, I highly suggest you disinvolve yourself in the actions of other people's personal lives. Failing that, I invite you to attempt airborne fornication with a gyrating piece of pastry.
</rant>
The proprietor of the restaurant is literally minding his own business since a business is just a vehicle for achieving the ends of its owners [1].
In this case, the owners want to create a world in which dining is a more sacrosanct activity. If you don't like it then you don't have to dine there thus it is, in fact, none of your business.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3392357
In this case, the owners want to create a world in which dining is a more sacrosanct activity. If you don't like it then you don't have to dine there thus it is, in fact, none of your business.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3392357
Considering they're penalizing me to the tune of 5% to give up a very expensive device containing untold amounts of personal and business data to an unknown person of questionable trustworthiness, I wouldn't be caught dead there anyways.
I'm a little shocked that people seem okay with this on a site full of people that regularly berate companies for privacy gaffes.
I'm a little shocked that people seem okay with this on a site full of people that regularly berate companies for privacy gaffes.
when you go to a restaurant, aren't you implicitly trusting most of their staff? if i couldn't trust some company to take care of my phone for an hour, i certainly wouldn't trust them to serve me food.
You'd trust the people at an average fast food joint (predominantly minimum-wage teenagers) to keep track of your phone? You have much more faith than me...
Maybe it's just a difference in interpretation of language, but for me, a fast food joint is definitely NOT a restaurant. The tone of the story also clearly implied it was an actual restaurant, nothing fast about it.
Ah, I'm kind of used to conflating them. Still, the average restaurant worker, at least around here, is very young, and by definition, unless you're going to an upscale restaurant, likely not getting much money.
I'm not sure where you're from, but in the united states, employers can pay an hourly rate of $2-ish to people who are expected to collect tips. The stereotypical fast food kid actually has a better hourly rate.
I'm not sure where you're from, but in the united states, employers can pay an hourly rate of $2-ish to people who are expected to collect tips. The stereotypical fast food kid actually has a better hourly rate.
>Still, the average restaurant worker, at least around here, is very young, and by definition, unless you're going to an upscale restaurant, likely not getting much money.
Since when is the definition of a restaurant worker someone who does not make much money? Especially those not working fast food?
Since when is the definition of a restaurant worker someone who does not make much money? Especially those not working fast food?
Note "likely". Remember what I said about minimum wage for tipped employees?
Naturally this only applies to the waiting staff, but then again, the chefs aren't going to be the ones handling your phone.
Naturally this only applies to the waiting staff, but then again, the chefs aren't going to be the ones handling your phone.
I have the same privacy concern. In the NPR interview, when asked if they'd ever lost a phone, the owner replied "non yet".
But the small chance of losing my phone and personal data (which is something I can easily mitigate) is the price of admission that I'm eager to pay.
But the small chance of losing my phone and personal data (which is something I can easily mitigate) is the price of admission that I'm eager to pay.
My experience is that most people using phones in restaurants have not mastered the arcane art of volume settings, either on their phone's ring tone, or on their voice when speaking on it.
Maybe you are the one non-annoying cell phone user at restaurants.
>> No, I do not raise my voice to talk, because I've mastered the arcane art known as "volume settings".
This is usually true, but my experience with people who have naturally loud voices is that they have no clue how loud their voice is even when lowering their volume.
This is usually true, but my experience with people who have naturally loud voices is that they have no clue how loud their voice is even when lowering their volume.
When I'm dining with someone, and I realize that I'm being rude and looking at my phone, I will put the phone on the table -- face down -- as a sign that I am consciously putting the phone away. The other people can see that I'm not able to discretely look at my phone, and that it doesn't rule me. If the phone was face up, I can see how people would think my attention is being diverted to whatever incoming text/msg is on my phone.
I do the same, but mainly because my 3GS in an Otterbox barely fits in my pocket.
Hmm.
I very very rarely use my phone during dinner, but it's always on the table.
This isn't because I want to use it, it's because it's relatively uncomfortable to keep it in my pocket.
I very very rarely use my phone during dinner, but it's always on the table.
This isn't because I want to use it, it's because it's relatively uncomfortable to keep it in my pocket.
Then you should be fine with this restaurant, since they let you put your phone in a box at the front desk.
I do the same for pretty much the same reason - comfort. And it'll only get worse as smartphones keep growing.
But when my phone is on the table, it is always face down, muted, and off to the side somewhere. Mostly to show whoever I'm with that I'm not watching it, reading messages, or otherwise fiddling with it. I'd have no issue with getting the mentioned discount.
But when my phone is on the table, it is always face down, muted, and off to the side somewhere. Mostly to show whoever I'm with that I'm not watching it, reading messages, or otherwise fiddling with it. I'd have no issue with getting the mentioned discount.
That box doesn't exactly look safe to me. Not just vulnerable to theft, but also to mistakingly taking someone else's phone. And for phones with NFC, it's a great way to have your mobile wallet emptied.
On sites with classified areas, they'll often have little individual cell phone lockers right outside the turnstile to the limited area. Drop in your phone, lock it, take the key. That would be a much better way to control the phones.
Wow. This is awesome. Any way to encourage being more present with your family or whoever you are eating with is a great idea. And by doing something different, this could give them some nice publicity.
Hmm, I often find myself using my phone in restaurants in ways that don't exclude the people I'm with (See this photo I took of you earlier? Oh I think that movie is playing, should I check the showtimes? I can stay a little longer, let me just text my wife.) I know it can be tempting to use it in ruder ways but I'm surprised that defense hasn't been raised by anyone else yet -- maybe I'm giving people around me too much benefit of the doubt.
[deleted]
I find this really interesting. I wonder what other restaurants would make out of this. Is it really that important that the diners do not use their phones while dining ? Does that make them orde rmore food ? How will this 5% discount create more ROI for the restaurant?
By improving the experience for the surrounding diners. Busy restaurants are noisy enough from the quiet conversations being had between the diners themselves. Ringtones, or even the reverberations of a wireless phone's buzzer on a wooden table, only add to the noise level.
I'm far more distracted/upset by large groups of people laughing or yelling - teens/adults/whatever - than I am by someone talking on their phone. Even multiple people on their phone is much quieter than a group of coworkers from an office out to let off some steam before the weekend. But... large groups of people tend to order more and have 20% gratuities tacked on, so I doubt they'll be asked to leave.
I'm far more distracted/upset by large groups of people laughing or yelling - teens/adults/whatever - than I am by someone talking on their phone.
People really have a highly selective ability to be annoyed by things that they are judgmental about/think that they are better than -- or even worse that they think make people better than them -- especially if it triggers their jealousy/resentment. If someone is getting texts or calls, that's incredibly annoying to someone who gets no texts or calls for obvious reasons.
Some years back we took our young children out with their grandparents to a family restaurant. It was mid evening on a Saturday night and the place was full and very loud, with escalating conversations, people having fun, etc.
My infant daughter dropped her fork. I happened to catch a woman nearby -- likely barren and fervently vengeful -- giving the most hateful, glaring look I've ever seen, and I would imagine she went forth to declare how her night was ruined by our much quieter than average table. I recall this experience whenever I hear some railing about children on airplanes, etc -- I imagine that much of it is selective, desperate clutching for offense, and it's much the same regarding people and their anti-smartphone spiels.
People really have a highly selective ability to be annoyed by things that they are judgmental about/think that they are better than -- or even worse that they think make people better than them -- especially if it triggers their jealousy/resentment. If someone is getting texts or calls, that's incredibly annoying to someone who gets no texts or calls for obvious reasons.
Some years back we took our young children out with their grandparents to a family restaurant. It was mid evening on a Saturday night and the place was full and very loud, with escalating conversations, people having fun, etc.
My infant daughter dropped her fork. I happened to catch a woman nearby -- likely barren and fervently vengeful -- giving the most hateful, glaring look I've ever seen, and I would imagine she went forth to declare how her night was ruined by our much quieter than average table. I recall this experience whenever I hear some railing about children on airplanes, etc -- I imagine that much of it is selective, desperate clutching for offense, and it's much the same regarding people and their anti-smartphone spiels.
Sounds like a cool publicity stunt.
Admit it you are already wondering what restaurant this is and what they serve. If that it is the case, they have done their job well.
But taken at face value, it is about the principle. It will push people who like to talk on the phone and disregard everyone around them to either not show up (or it will prompt them to assert themselves and they'll show up and pay 5% but in return will make sure to talk constantly on their phone, so, could backfire).
The apparent intended benefit is to attract many who have been around annoying customers and who would also visit the restaurant out of principle.
It would certainly be interesting. Also, wonder why they can't just ask someone to leave...?
Admit it you are already wondering what restaurant this is and what they serve. If that it is the case, they have done their job well.
But taken at face value, it is about the principle. It will push people who like to talk on the phone and disregard everyone around them to either not show up (or it will prompt them to assert themselves and they'll show up and pay 5% but in return will make sure to talk constantly on their phone, so, could backfire).
The apparent intended benefit is to attract many who have been around annoying customers and who would also visit the restaurant out of principle.
It would certainly be interesting. Also, wonder why they can't just ask someone to leave...?
They're in LA. The food is okay, but the no-cell phone thing is really just a marketing stunt to bring in business.
I'd also be curious to see what changes the restaurant sees as a result of this policy. I know that if a good eatery successfully incentivized people away from phone usage, I'd be more inclined to go there, even at a slightly increased cost -- similarly, when I lived in Seattle, there were a few coffeeshops that started turning off wi-fi on the weekends and saw an uptick in business (hard to say whether it was from more turnover, a different kind of customer, or publicity from the act itself).
I'd imagine people probably order faster, and they will probably leave faster once they are finished with their meal.
> Since then, the chef estimates that 40% to 50% of customers have opted in and ditched their phones.
Less than half. So most of their customers are willing to pay 4-5% more in order to keep their phones during the meal. Amazing.
Less than half. So most of their customers are willing to pay 4-5% more in order to keep their phones during the meal. Amazing.
My wife recently bet me $5 that I couldn't go through a meal without looking at my phone... I lost.
Interesting idea though. They know what sort of atmosphere they would like to have, and they're incentivizing people to make it happen.
Interesting idea though. They know what sort of atmosphere they would like to have, and they're incentivizing people to make it happen.
I should do that with my husband! I need some new tech.
I keep my phone in my purse...if I get a notification (email/text), I'll glance at it and act on it only if it's important. If it's a phone call, I'll only answer if it's my mom (who only calls if it's something important) or my husband. Every one else goes to voice mail.
I keep my phone in my purse...if I get a notification (email/text), I'll glance at it and act on it only if it's important. If it's a phone call, I'll only answer if it's my mom (who only calls if it's something important) or my husband. Every one else goes to voice mail.
Using a different ring tone for important contacts takes care of the need to even glance at the phone.
But doesn't really help if it's on vibrate. And you'll probably still need to interact with the phone to at least turn of the ringer if its not somebody you want to answer, lest you annoy everyone around you by letting it continue to ring.
People who use their phones in any social situation, whether in a restaurant, or movie is annoying. It's like you're trying to subconsciously tell others you're popular and have lots of friends.
Maybe 10 years ago but not now when the social aspect of your phone is only a tiny bit (as opposed to back in the days when the only reason to check it was texting). I use my phone in social situations all the time reading news etc. Yes, I am addicted to my phone but it has nothing to do with friends or being popular.
first sentence I agree.. Walking on the streets these days, it seems the amount of people I see bending their neck over some electronic device is growing everyday. A sad evolution if you ask me. Second sentence: I doubt that is the reason, however I have not yet figured out what the reason is. Firstly because I hardly ever use my cellphone, nor feel the need to, secondly because when I ask people that do, they have no clear idea themselves why they cannot keep it in their pocket. Which is even more sad.
I think evolution is the right word. When I was little I often played a game where I would imagine I'd found a genie who would grant me three wishes, and I'd try to think of what to wish for. Most often, two of those wishes would be to be able to talk to my friends with telepathy, and for a book that would answer any question I wrote in it.
Here I have a machine that grants two of my wishes, I use it very often, and using it is very compelling. I dont think its ridiculous to say that when you carry such a powerful and easy to use machine, you start to think of it as being part of yourself, and "why can't you keep it in your pocket" becomes as strange and unanswerable a question as "why can't you keep your hands in your pocket", or "why can't you keep your eyes closed".
You can argue this is an unhealthy trend in culture, and an unhealthy propensity for people who live in an increasingly technological world, but it's unfair - I think so - to judge/condemn/pity people who have the addiction.
Here I have a machine that grants two of my wishes, I use it very often, and using it is very compelling. I dont think its ridiculous to say that when you carry such a powerful and easy to use machine, you start to think of it as being part of yourself, and "why can't you keep it in your pocket" becomes as strange and unanswerable a question as "why can't you keep your hands in your pocket", or "why can't you keep your eyes closed".
You can argue this is an unhealthy trend in culture, and an unhealthy propensity for people who live in an increasingly technological world, but it's unfair - I think so - to judge/condemn/pity people who have the addiction.
This is an excellent post!
I am of the persuasion that phone use during certain times (dinner for example) is to be looked down upon. I even go so far as to consider those with headphones on in the street as not existing in my world. They are ignored. It is great to hear the other side of the argument.
As a side note...I also love my phone and am eager for the day they are implanted in our bodies and seemingly telepathic communication becomes reality. I guess at that point this issue become moot.
I am of the persuasion that phone use during certain times (dinner for example) is to be looked down upon. I even go so far as to consider those with headphones on in the street as not existing in my world. They are ignored. It is great to hear the other side of the argument.
As a side note...I also love my phone and am eager for the day they are implanted in our bodies and seemingly telepathic communication becomes reality. I guess at that point this issue become moot.
> Firstly because I hardly ever use my cellphone, not feel the need to, secondly because when I ask people that do, they have no clear idea themselves why they cannot keep it in their pocket.
I don't use it while walking, but I surely use it when I don't have anything else to do(waiting for bus/cab, in a cab/bus...). I can keep it in my pocket, but I would rather listen to music, browse news, read articles, blogs, check facebook, twitter etc etc rather than sitting on a bus and waiting for my destination.
I don't use it while walking, but I surely use it when I don't have anything else to do(waiting for bus/cab, in a cab/bus...). I can keep it in my pocket, but I would rather listen to music, browse news, read articles, blogs, check facebook, twitter etc etc rather than sitting on a bus and waiting for my destination.
well I'm on the road often, and I constantly listen to music. But the player stays in my pocket as I hate having to carry it the whole time. And I actually enjoy being away from the internet, and news in particular, from time to time.
> And I actually enjoy being away from the internet, and news in particular, from time to time.
To each his own. For me, the choice between "sitting on a bus impatiently waiting for my destination" and "browsing on my phone" is a no brainer. FWIW, it doesn't have to be the internet. I have offline books and video clips on my phone as well.
But that's tangential. Your original post was about people bent in their gadgets. I was outlining why I am bent into my gadget. If you are into leaning into the window of the bus and watching traffic, birds, landscapes, roadkills or whatever, good for you. I would rather be looking at my phone.
To each his own. For me, the choice between "sitting on a bus impatiently waiting for my destination" and "browsing on my phone" is a no brainer. FWIW, it doesn't have to be the internet. I have offline books and video clips on my phone as well.
But that's tangential. Your original post was about people bent in their gadgets. I was outlining why I am bent into my gadget. If you are into leaning into the window of the bus and watching traffic, birds, landscapes, roadkills or whatever, good for you. I would rather be looking at my phone.
self-reply: this whole thread makes me wonder: what did people actually do like 15-20 years ago, when there were no cellphones to distract them? Have interesting conversations instead? I'm pretty sure children (well, I was) were playing around (if the particular place allowed so) or else maybe playing boardgames/cards whatever on the table. Not sure what the grown ups did though.
I spent most of my time playing with other kids around my block in the park, and just hanging out in the arcades, shooting pool, bowling, playing video games together, watching movies, or just wandering around the streets. When I needed to contact someone, I'd actually walk to his/her house and ring their bell
...the context of the question was the inside of a restaurant.
oh, then that's not as interesting a question.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I never experienced that. Seems a little far fetched.
More like you're giving off the impression that the people you're with aren't as important.
Now that I think about this, I think this should be adopted by Movie Theatres. Nothing is more annoying than seeing a spot of light in dark theatre with noise of texting.
The company that owns the theater I usually end up at has a policy of asking disruptive texters to leave:
http://www.gqti.com/TheaterPolicy.aspx
http://www.gqti.com/TheaterPolicy.aspx
That would be an easy way to get your phone stolen.
If I'm at a fancy restaurant I need my cell phone because if it rings, its the baby sitter calling.
One easiest way is to keep a very cheap and down market mobile, So you dont like to take it out in restaurant. It would work!!
[deleted]
One of the most enjoyable aspects of dining with other people is the conversation over dinner. I would hate to miss out on that for telephone calls that I can answer later. Voice mail for the win.
AFTER EDIT:
Other comments here mention using phones in movie theaters. The response of the Austin Drafthouse theater in Austin, Texas is famous. The theater's video with a recorded comment from an ejected customer became a viral video on YouTube,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs
reported on in various news outlets. (The language of the video is rather crude, but it makes the theater's point that it doesn't want customers who use their phones in the theater.)