Now here's an interesting question: is an eReader a computer? There is a (hopefully small and not growing) trend for coffee places to ban computers during certain times of the day. While I feel this is heresy of the largest order, I guess having a bunch of geeks camping out in your place, taking up room and nursing a small coffee for several hours is bad for business (I always buy at least a large, btw). Today I saw a tweet by Barb Dybwad (@doctorparadox)—Twitter / barb dybwad: coffee shops banning eRead ...—pointing to a New York Times article where the author wasn't allowed to read his Kindle in a no computers allow establishment—No E-Books Allowed in This Establishment - Bits Blog - NYTimes.com. Which makes me wonder, what is the real reason a place is banning a computer, is it the loitering or something else? Also, is an iPad or Kindle really a computer in the first place?
Let me delve into the whole reading thing in the first place. So, what if I sat down with a novel, a newspaper, or a copy of The Economist, instead of a Kindle (all of which can be read on a Kindle)? Would I have been booted out? If I bought a coffee and a muffin, then read for a couple hours, is that going to be a problem for the shop owners? I would think it's the same thing. You're taking up space, so what's the difference between a dead tree and a hunk of plastic? I think many of us can see the flaw in the store owner's logic over keeping a Kindle (or other eReader) from the store (and probably losing a customer in the process). Reading is reading, regardless of format. A person reading a Kindle doesn't take up more room than a person reading a book. Now the case with the iPad is a little more difficult. Reading, okay. Playing a game (hello, crossword or suduko anyone?), okay. Pulling out the wireless keyboard and tapping out some emails and such … that crosses a line into "computer" territory. This begins to beg the question is a computer a computer because of what it is made off (as the person in the article's first example suggests) or is it the use that matters? Is, by their same logic, an iPhone a computer? Should people not be allowed to pull out their phone and answer a call (let's not get into email or reading a book on it)?
Interestingly enough, last week I came across a post from the JJ Bean blog (a local Vancouver coffee roaster) about why they don't offer WiFi in their cafes—Why no Fi? | JJ Bean Coffee Roasters—which while I can see their point, that they wish to have people interacting with each other. I wonder is this something like a luddite movement? The "no, we want people to hang out here and talk, using computers, isn't about of our world view…", idea is interesting, but not one that I certainly find no appeal in. When I go hang out with my friends at a coffee place, sure we a) usually have copious amounts of coffee and b) have our machines out. For me, being in a coffee place is nearly synonymous with getting out to do some work, in the company of friends, and enjoying working around other people. Sure, I do go places without a computer and I have been known to even stay offline in the presence of others, just chafe at the idea of a place that seems to reject me going there. JJ Bean isn't far from my usual places for coffee, but it's pretty much off the list of places I'll go now, because if I wanted to do something online…that isn't an option there.
Perhaps the whole thing is that I don't think that businesses taking what seems like an anti-technology stance are betting on the right horse. In contrast, the barber I went to this weekend for a traditional barber shave—The Belmont Barbershop-STANDARDIZED TEXTBOOK OF BARBERING, harkens back to a slower time, but embraces the new (they knew all about Yelp, Foursquare, and blogs). For me The Belmont holds much more appeal because it's bringing some great old tech back, but using new tech to get the word out. See, not so bad, eh?
