Alicia Keys is done playing nice. Your phone is getting locked up now | Hacker News Reader

Alicia Keys is done playing nice. Your phone is getting locked up now

washingtonpost.com

98 pointswallflower96 comments

I hate to bring this up, but this is perhaps one of the clearest examples of PR copy as mentioned by Paul Graham's Submarine post: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Basically, this is a big advert for Yondr (the company making the phone baggies) - the clickbait title, the picture of the baggies, the quote from the fan saying he's ok with the whole thing, the list of artists signed up with Yondr, and the whole spiel about why a "phone-less" concert is such a great thing.

But Paul Graham admits there that even his company did this. I don't think he says it's bad.. but good to bring awareness about it.

I think the product is cool

Yes, it's called a 'puff piece'.

Given this is an entrepreneurial-leaning community, maybe we should be congratulating Yondr for securing the coverage rather than criticizing them and the NYT. Marketing is a necessary part of any successful endeavor.

Washington post not NYT

Hacker News in a nutshell: "We should be congratulating the ones who are manipulating the means by which we mean to be informed, as they were doing it for capitalist gain."

Please don't make dissing generalizations about the community as a rhetorical device. We've noticed that it's reliably a marker of bad comments. People usually make such generalizations to put down those on the other side of an argument and give themselves a higher status by implication. That may be good for making others look bad, but it's not good for the thoughtful discussion we hope for here.

More importantly: Isn't Hacker News about programing and technology?

This article is about technology. More specifically, society's reaction to modern technology. It also raises questions of how society is going to react to wearable computing once that becomes more prevalent.

That's a huge stretch. Sometimes in job interviews you get asked about recent tech news to assess if you stay up to date. I wouldn't speak about this article personally.

Ycombinator is about startups, Yondr is apparently a startup.

It's an interesting startup with an interesting idea but the article couldn't be more clickbait advertisement.

And startups. HN is very much about startups.

Fair enough, if HN is about startups I won't complain about articles covering startups selling reed baskets then.

Plus, almost no information about how it works or why people would not just open the bags on the inside.

They can't. It's locked. You have to bring it back up front to unlock the bag.

Regardless of whether this is a good idea or not: wow, this one pulls out all the propaganda stops. Especially this quote, early on in the article, in a separate paragraph, stands out:

"If you had told me you were going to put it in a locker, I’d have been pissed off," Kevin Schmidt, 37, tells the bouncer. "This is okay."

Shaping your opinion up front and early: "this is OK, other people like yourself say so."

The quote doesn't even make sense to begin with either. I can understand that it maybe feels better, when you can keep your properties in your pocket, but ultimately you know that you will get your phone back from the locker, too, so there's no reason to get objectively more pissed off about that than about the bag.

There are scenarios in which there is a difference: If some emergency happened and the hall were evacuated, everyone would be away from their phones, and they might be destroyed by whatever happens to the hall (flood, fire, etc.).

Also, a locker system introduces the possibility of disorganization: I would imagine that there will be an error where somebody else gets handed my phone instead of me. Or a malicious worker at the locker could steal it. The same reasons why I would never leave my phone in the pocket when I hand my jacket in at the cloakroom.

OT: Rather interesting title for what the piece is about. Why not call it "Musicians use pouches to lock up phones" or something? I suppose maybe that's just the growing trend of clickbait titles.

> Fans will also realize that they actually enjoy a show more without constantly filming, texting and Tweeting.

While I may or may not disagree reharding phones on live shows, this is plain propaganda: taking away my freedom of choice and then try to convince me it's for my own good.

https://xkcd.com/1314/

Let me help on that 5th panel:

Because it's fucking distracting, often interruptive, and speaks pretty plainly to the character of a person who values everything else BUT that place in that moment. I can't remember the last time I saw anything interesting without some jackass with a phone stepping in front of me to snap a picture of it. It would be a revelation if something of note happened and people chose not to take a picture of it.

Also if I'm a condescending prick for thinking that, Randall's a condescending prick for his assessment of people like me. Unfortunately his reasoning cuts both ways.

You sure told that stranger there, tiger!

Too bad the comic went past your head. Your distraction is in your head, not in other people's behaviour. Relax, meditate, blaze it. Whichever.

PS. I took a screenshot of your post. ;)

Yeah I went off a bit there. It's more about Munroe's smugness and seemingly playing to controversy for the sake of it that's so annoying.

Aside from that, it's pretty obtuse to say that something can only be distracting because I let it, and you're being fairly condescending yourself, saying I somehow don't get the comic. But I get it, you think you're cute in some sort of enlightened stoner way, so peace braj and good vibes or whatevs.

> Your distraction is in your head, not in other people's behaviour.

This is absolute nonsense in many/most(?) cases. Firstly, not everybody (well, almost nobody, really) is some kind of Zen Buddhist master who can ignore everything around them at will. Secondly, we humans have hardwired unavoidable responses to certain stimuli that just cannot simply "be ignored".

(I'll happily grant that PP's example might be a tad on the "overly sensitive" scale, but the general argument in that XKCD comic doesn't stand up to scrutiny. See my other comment for details.)

I also sense a lot of condescension in your post, btw. Might want to check on that.

Indeed.

If his[2] argument were amended with "... unless it affects someone else negatively"[1] then I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it. Cf. people using cell phones to text during a movie in a theater -- it's incredibly distracting and immersion-breaking for everyone else in view of the phone screen.

[1] I think he probably meant it thus, but obviously cannot know. [2] Randall Munroe, that is.

"Put your phone in this pouch."

-- I don't have a phone.

"Put it in or you can't come in."

-- I don't have a phone.

"Last time I'm asking you nicely."

-- I don't have a phone.

"Ok, whatever, just go inside."

-- Takes out my phone and records Alicia Keys

More like

-- Takes out phone and swiftly gets escorted out of the venue by ushers/security.

This isn't a policy happening in a vacuum - musicians, comedians, and other performers are taking steps throughout their acts to clamp down on phone recording.

"Raise your arms, I'm going to sweep you with this metal detector."

-- beep

"What's that?"

-- uh, nothing

"Ok sir, you're going to have to empty your pockets if you wish to enter"

-- puts phone in pouch

We now have the lamest reason ever to buy a burner.

do burners not have metal components or whatever is detectable by those wands? If so, I'd like one please.

He's saying give the security guy your burner phone as a faint. Then the security guy has no reason (and no excuse) to metal detect you and your real phone. Then you use your unpouched real phone to record the concert.

But the security guy is also looking for guns and knives and drugs - given the god awful murders of musicians recently isn't that a decent reason to search until "no more bleeping"?

Feint, I think?

That same thought came to me when I read the article, but from a different angle: I have a work phone and a private phone, so I could just give up the work phone and see if that's enough for them.

Or you can, you know, just enjoy the show without your phone...

Or, you know, just record Alicia Keys with something that isn't a phone ..

https://xkcd.com/1314/

Here's the thing - you don't get to choose how others best experience an event. While filming it through your phone may not be the best experience to you, you're not everyone. People experience things differently, and their way of experiencing it isn't "wrong".

It's not about me, it's about the artist, and I sure as hell hope they get a say in how an event gets experienced. That's part of the art.

"Put your phone in this pouch."

-- Sure.

Continue to then use your watch to read email and record audio.

This is a tech race that Yondy will lose.

"Put your cybernetic implants in this pouch. Resistance is futile."

Or take a second phone, and you'll be fine.

You can even use it to record security as they're escorting you out of the event once you start using it to record the performance.

Good idea, another youtube hit.

I guess I don't really understand the problem artists have with phones? Are they worried people are watching their performances rather than attending?

I only go to a couple of shows a year (on a good year) and not once has a phone ruined my enjoyment of the show. Personally I don't take out my phone more than a few times, mostly to grab a photo for Instagram, and maybe text or tweet between openers.

A concern with a lot of performing arts is that there's a lot less freedom for experimentation. Take comedians for example. In the old days you could try out new jokes with the crowd at a show and if you went to far or something flopped you'd quickly move on to the next joke and most people would forget about it if the rest of the show was good. Today, basically everything is permanent. That one bad joke hits youtube and now it stands equal to the rest of your content in the eyes of the internet.

It's harder to take a risk with a new song or different show ending because you'll be judged immediately and forever on everything you do. There's a lot more pressure to be perfect at the first performance.

Interesting. I guess I didn't think of the comedian angle. Still, I'm on the adapt or die side of this. When I am paying $200 to attend a show, don't take away my phone.

I went to a show earlier this year and the artist had everyone put their phone away for one song. Was great and the audience generally accepted it for what it was, a moment that the artist wanted to share with the crowd.

Just don't treat us like little kids.

And if the terms and conditions for that $200 ticket explicitly stated "you can't bring your phone into the performance" when you bought it - which side are you on then?

(And before anybody asks, yeah - if your friend bought you that ticket with those T&Cs and didn't tell you, that's still not the artists problem... Cope, or get better friends.)

It this becomes something that the T&C require, I'm probably not buying a ticket. Unless it's someone I felt I really needed to see, then I'm at the mercy of the T&C. But I'm a rule follower. :)

There are lots of people that film every moment of their sporting or driving life. Nowadays you can put a camera on a cycle helmet and record the whole ride in glorious 4K. To do that at the turn of the century you would have needed a support vehicle full of kit. Soon recording is going to be ubiquitous - much like how on the latest phones you can go forward/back a few seconds to get the shot you really wanted, you will soon be able to go forward/back a few hours, probably with A.I. able to detect where you are and get the photos you would have taken had you consciously thought to take pictures.

Let's be clear over this 'living for the moment' stuff that artists say. Yes they would prefer a 'live' audience that is engaged rather than the 'society of the spectacle' people viewing their life through an instagram-shared lens. But the reality is that people record stuff and enjoy doing so. We are marching towards that personal CCTV always recording world and maybe the realisation of that will mean people won't fuss over recording their lives, they will get back to 'living the moment' happy they have every moment backed up in the cloud.

These same people that record concerts and other things are the same people that do the word of mouth needed for these artists to be successful. Old media does not work, people do not buy 'New Musical Express' to find a gig to go to. The internet really has taken over and instead of complaining, these artists should just get to grips with the reality of the situation.

Instead of these phone cases, I would urge a mass hand out of some type of baseball cap with a 4K 3D 60Hz camera built in to the front. In that way everyone could record their version of a good time, to do whatever with it. We could then go back to engaged audiences, albeit wearing silly hats/goggles.

Oh wow I like that hat idea! That would be cool. Give me a Google Glass or some kind of embedded camera that I can take the memories with me.

> Comedian Hannibal Buress, whose YouTube’d comments about Bill Cosby in 2014 made him famous — a fact that came to annoy him — hired Yondr for a gig in 2015.

Understandable why a comedian wouldn't want this kind of fact to be the thing that makes them famous (as opposed to being famous for just being a good comedian)...but if someone hadn't recorded his bit on that particular night and then put it onto YouTube...Bill Cosby would still be doing Jell-O commercials and other beloved-type activities. I don't mean to trivialize the various reporting efforts that put Cosby's misdeeds into the public -- Buress essentially just talked about what he found on Google. But the fact is is that the allegations against Cosby were publicized, then basically forgotten, to the point where a prestigious journalist managed to write an entire biography of Cosby with barely a mention of the allegations. Unfortunately for that journalist, Buress's bit became viral and the journalist had to shamefully admit how he had basically ignored that part of Cosby's life [1].

Buress had been doing doing the Cosby-rape-allegation bit for several months [2]...but it was that particular night and that particular YouTube bootleg that went viral. I guess it's a credit to Buress's art that he didn't want to capitalize on a freak viral hit, but as far as freak viral hits go, this had a relative net positive for both society and for the artist's career (well, Buress's, not Cosby's).

[1] http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bookmark/controversial-cosb...

[2] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-hannibal-buress-and-why-d...

The panel at Vulture rated it as one of history's 100 most influential jokes for that very reason - http://www.vulture.com/2016/01/100-jokes-shaped-modern-comed...

> guess it's a credit to Buress's art that he didn't want to capitalize on a freak viral hit

Maybe he does not want to be associated with the case, in case it goes the same way as Kane, Rolling Stones, Colombia mattress...

On the whole I like the idea, but for the edge case of those of us that are on-call, it's one more nail in the coffin of social life.

I still carry an old style pager while oncall, in addition to using my phone. We would all agree single points of failure are bad in software and system design, I figure same thing applies when doing oncall.

Don't understand why it needs to make the phone unusable. Surely something that covers the cameras and microphones, but still lets you see and interact with the screen wouldn't be infeasible?

A lot of the discussion I've seen around this is people arguing that simply the act of displaying your LED screen at a darkened concert is interfering with others enjoyment of the show. Obviously that's not the problem they are purporting to solve, but I assume it was part of the background of the design.

That's more an argument for automated recovery systems and avoiding single points of failure (both in infrastructure and people). Even if someone is on-call, you should be able to do without them for the length of a concert.

I'm getting to the point where I just don't believe in the concept of requiring particular employees to be quickly reachable 24/7, even for limited periods of time. I know there are business realities that occasionally make this impossible (especially for new, small companies, or larger companies unwilling to properly staff their technical departments), but it's an unsustainable practice, and I believe we as technical staff owe it to ourselves to oppose it and find something better.

(And for the record, yes, my company does have on-call rotations, but I do everything in my power to make myself redundant and unnecessary even when I am on-call.)

> avoiding single points of failure

I still don't understand how so many businesses simply ignore this problem. The network is assumed far too often to be reliable and ubiquitous, even among people who have years of experience with radio dead zones, oversubscription, and the numerous other ways networks fail.

> reachable 24/7

While 24/7 (or other excessively long periods of time) should simply be banned for basic health and safety reasons, I do understand that on-call time is unavoidable for some businesses. The catch is that any on-call time needs to be paid. How much payment is open to negotiation, but if you are expected to restrict your life such that you can be called in for overtime, then some amount of compensation is required.

If this seems impossible due to being paid a salary instead of wages, overtime limitations/restrictions, or similar nonsense... that's what unions are for.

Wait... on-call time is not paid in the US?

I'm not aware of any regulations governing on-call time, there could be some individual states that have them. Different businesses and industries have different practices. For hourly employees, labor law probably requires some compensation at least when a call comes in. For salaried people, compensatory time when a call comes in could be an option but often times the idea is being on-call sometimes is factored into your regular pay.

It doesn't look like the pouch blocks incoming calls. Why not just set a custom ringtone and vibration for work and make sure you have a quick get away?

It looks like you're right - I'd assumed it was blocking due to the gray colour. On a re-read, the article also says that you can go out and unlock your phone if needed, so it looks like the story isn't too bad after all.

There are still many phones available that allow you to be on-call and not have a large, glowing rectangle of light obscuring other people's views.

Personally, I think the company founder made a good point when he said that people should be able to let loose without fear of becoming social media clowns. We bang on about open standards, privacy being violated and 'freedom', and here we are moderating the behavior of all around to our own detriment.

If you buy a ticket you also agree to the terms and conditions, if you don't like it, don't go to the event. Is that not how this works? People keep telling me so.

Same feeling but in the context of being a parent. On date nights, I usually leave my phone in the car but my wife keeps hers out in case the babysitter calls.

I am generally in favour of the idea of phone-free events, and I've been to one where where my phone was stapled in one of those "static-free" electronics plastic pouches.

However, how far down the rabbit hole are we going to go here? Security gates/screenings for phones? Some engineering innovation of a cross between faraday cage and EMP? Centralized reputation profile for events (a la Uber, eBay, AirBnb)?

I would love it if everyone just played ball, but one bad apple 'n' all that.

It's a stupid idea and a slippery slope. DRM, endless copyright extensions, 3-strikes, DMCA, phone bans. When is the entertainment industry going to be satisfied?

When everyone has a brain implant that erases the memory of the performance unless they pay for it? In the case of Alicia Keys that might even be a blessing.

Sometimes it's nice to be able to watch a show without seeing the glow of all the devices of patrons sitting in front of you.

This has nothing to do with copyright. If a person performing at a private venue does not want her performance recorded (or, wants only certain people to record her performance) that's entirely her right.

Yes, its really an odd issue that there's a generation of people out there that don't understand that and feel that a ticket entitles them to the audio and visual recordings of a performance. Back before the ubiquitous cell phone camera era, you were not allowed to bring a camera in a venue without a photo pass. If you were caught with a camera you ran the risk of having that confiscated or being escorted out of the venue. As a ticket holder you were never permitted to bring a recording device.

> It's a stupid idea and a slippery slope.

You have literally made a "slippery slope" argument, which is fallacious reasoning. [1]

> When everyone has a brain implant that erases the memory of the performance unless they pay for it?

The artists' reasons (according to this article) have nothing to do with copyright infringement.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

This is not about DRM, DCMA or an industry agenda. This is about what behavior is acceptable in a shared public space. When you buy a ticket to an event you don't are not buying the ability to take unlimited photo/video at that event. You also are not entitled to infringing on the ability of other to enjoy that event but obstructing their view with a hand-held device. Maybe you should read the article again?

The article is full of excuses, like the ones you mention. But that's not the point, at all. The point is still copyright infringement and superstars somehow dictating what is and isn't acceptable.

Times change. People have cameras in their pockets. They use and abuse them pretty much 24/7. I agree that it's a dickish thing to do at a concert, but that's not the point entirely. That's a societal debate. Not one artist's decision.

Smoking has been banned in concert halls for nearly as long as I can remember. No one has ever searched people for cigarettes or forced them to put their tobacco in magical pouches. Unlike being a dick with your phone, smoking in enclosed spaces is all sorts of nasty (you know the drill, fire hazard, health hazard etc).

Depending on where you are, you might get fined. But no one cares enough to actually enforce that on any kind of regular basis. But somehow, for some reason, here we have a bunch of people who are apparently willing and able to force concert-goers to put their phones away. That smells like an industry agenda to me.

Reminds me of the Apple patent for disabling cameras in such situations.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/apple-patents-way-t...

If you captured and replayed the IR flashing signals you might be able to abuse such a system to prevent people from taking pictures of other things, such as yourself. I wonder if a little bit of cryptography embedded in the signal and the phone could make replay attacks more difficult, perhaps something similar to the codes used by garage door openers and car keyfobs. Or maybe by encrypting a counter.

If the IR sensor was separate from the camera module you might be able to put tape over it and prevent the signal from being received by your phone, defeating it. But if the IR sensor was actually a custom component embedded inside the CCD chip (which is not out of the question for Apple) then this would be difficult to defeat. You'd have to carefully mask out the non-IR-filtered area of the CCD chip with material that filters IR.

It's rather sad that its come to this but I applaud this movement. There is nothing worse than being forced to watch a show through the phone screen of the incosderate person in front of you.

We are losing our ability to just be in the moment and experience something, especially something so communal and primitive as a live performance. We increasingly have a society that seems to believe that every experience needs to be immediately cataloged and broadcast on social media or somehow it doesn't count.

There's another aspect to this as well which is people using an artist's likeness, their image and their material without their permission.

I particularly enjoy it when people hold their iPads above their heads to film shows - presumably because, ummm, nope I've got nothing except "because they're self-centered jerks"...

Crazy thought (sad that I even have to think about it), but what if a gun(wo)man entered the room and no one is able to call for help or give the police his/her position via their phone since it is locked.

I am fairly sure you could rip it open if you really wanted too. I went to a Dave Chappelle show and he used something similar to this, the lock felt strong but it felt like you could rip it open if you really tried.

I wanna say "Welcome to the security theatre industrial complex", but hey, Orlando shows this isn't an insane scenario (although, to be fair, like most things people are irrationally afraid of, I suspect way more people die each year driving to and from nightclubs that _don't_ get shot up - than have ever died (no matter how horrifically) in a nightclub shooting...)

Agree with you with on the whole overblown threat thing. But this does raise the spectre of liability for the concert organisers, artists and the pouch company.

Sure, the odds of an individual getting attacked at these events is minuscule. But over time the probability of someone bring a gun into some concert is pretty high. When that happens and it transpires that people weren't able to use their phones to seek help, the class-action lawsuits could come. The obvious solution (to the organisers at least) would be to bring aircraft-level security into concerts (security patdowns, etc.).

I get it but I don't like it, and I'd rather avoid the concert. I will agree not to pull out my phone at concerts, but I'm not giving up my phone. I will not be disconnected from my family that way. If all else fails I'll razor blade that pouch open and not bring it out, but they can take that pouch and go pound sand.

I have a tangential curiosity: how many of you live without a cellphone? And if so, why?

ITT: angry hipsters who simply cannot put their phones down for any reason whatsoever.

Once in a circus with the children, one woman two rows ahead recorded the performance. I asked my son for his lightsaber and poked her in the back.

So, what keeps me from opening the bag and take the phone out inside?

Its lock.

It says something about a disc you can slip in and it opens in emergencys or if you are outside. It does not really make sense to me.

>26 points

I guess this is an unpopular opinion, but I really think my electronics are an extension of my body. I wouldn't go out without a phone in my pocket the same way I wouldn't want to lose a couple of digits.

Ok, so don't go to live performances then? I totally understand what you're saying and often feel the same way even if I just leave my phone at my desk for a few minutes, but no one is forcing people to go to these shows.

Unfortunately this is one of those "this is why we can't have nice things" situations where people repeatedly ruining acts with phone usage have forced drastic action.

I don't think it's necessarily unpopular, albeit perhaps a bit exaggerated. :)

But the concept behind the product, the type of control exerted and enforced at venues, is interesting. Even though it's just assumed everyone has a smartphone now, I think there is still a really big rift in how everyone uses it and sees it. My gf never had a smartphone until incredibly recently and had been asking me what I thought about them, and it occurred to me that even though I'm happy to have one, I barely use it. For me it's mostly sudoku on the metro and finding places in the city, along with occasional email nags from work and some messaging.

To opine on the article at hand, I do agree with the artists that it's a better experience to just leave the phone in the pocket - it's how I've done concerts and performances pretty much since I was interested in going to them, and with some performances, I see it as a means of respect to the performer(s).

Admittedly, in a "I know it when I see it" sort of way, the type of show dictates decorum for me, and there are plenty of shows where it feels more appropriate to use the phone to share what's going on.

On the other hand, I've had smart phones since before they really were smart phones - but I still frequently take off for the weekend without my phone, just because.

(Having said that, my Flickr account is mostly snapshots of events - so I'm no poster-child for the "no phones at gigs" crowd...)

> I still frequently take off for the weekend without my phone, just because.

Same here, but this has a different quality. When you go offline for a weekend, it's your own choice. Putting your phone into a Yondr pouch is someone else's choice.

Within the "smartphone is part of my body" metaphor, it's similar to voluntarily going on a diet vs. being forced into one by someone else.

One step back though - choosing to go to a gig where they don't want phones is _also_ a choice.

I wouldn't choose to go to an Alicia Keys gig where they advertised it as "you'll need to leave your thumb at the door", because I feel my thumb is part of my body. If you feel your "smartphone is part of your body" perhaps you need to make the same choice for a show advertised as "you'll need to lock your phone in a bag if you want to bring it in".

There are other shows at other venues with other demands on what audiences can and can't bring in to the auditorium. Choose whichever show and set of rules works for you.

I think that's entirely reasonable, but I think it's also entirely reasonable for a concert to disallow whatever they choose. You have no innate right to bring anything with you into a concert venue. Most venues already do this for various things, whether it's recording equipment, outside food, drinks, etc.

I get it that you're uncomfortable being without your phone, but you can always vote your displeasure by not attending such events.

A lot of people are like that with their dogs - doesn't mean we allow their pets into restaurants where other people go to eat. We make allowances for people with real and documented needs for service animals there, but not just for people "who'd rather lose a couple of digits than be without their dog/phone". (And, of course,this leads to over-entitled people faking it and ruining it for the people who need it: http://dogtime.com/dog-health/general/20325-advocacy-column-... )

You can choose to go to other shows at other venues. Artists are also able to choose to not allow phones at their shows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com