The iPhone is the Fisher-Price of smartphones

[Eug]

You can take that $200-$300 and get a crap ton of educational and recreational stuff for a kid to more properly learn from.

Heh. I offered this phone to a friend for < $100 back in 2011 and he wouldn't take it.

It just sat on my desk for many moons, until my wife's dumb-phone died.

Also, the case works with old iPod touches as well. Those are considerably cheaper, even when in decent shape.

 

[Eug]

How do you deactivate the emergency dialer? That's mainly what worries me when I let kids play with my sim free phones.

(Or does apple not have that? I thought it was a legal requirement for all phones.)

I just looked at it again. With this deactivated SIM, it says "No Service". No emergency dialer shows up anywhere.

 

[nerp]

I'm with Whisky. This is a glorified pacifier. And matching games and other crap on the iPhone does not even come close to reading, drawing, books and constructive play. Parents who give their kids smartphones often have to battle them to play with anything else. Or, they end up giving it to them in public, restaurants, stores, everywhere, just to shut them up. Honestly, I find more satisfaction out of my daughter going through a Richard Scarrey book than mindlessly tapping at a screen.

 

[Eug]

I'm with Whisky. This is a glorified pacifier. And matching games and other crap on the iPhone does not even come close to reading, drawing, books and constructive play. Parents who give their kids smartphones often have to battle them to play with anything else. Or, they end up giving it to them in public, restaurants, stores, everywhere, just to shut them up. Honestly, I find more satisfaction out of my daughter going through a Richard Scarrey book than mindlessly tapping at a screen.

I'm glad you can make your own choices.

I guess it's the public forum effect, but it's interesting to see just how annoying some parents can be when it comes to other people's kids. I wonder if nerp walks up to everyone in the mall and scolds them for putting a pacifier in their kids' mouths.

 

[Whiskey16]

Eug, the researched facts are that providing such devices for kids under 2 to play with are damaging to their development.

If you came in with a thread to applaud the laurels of junk food for a child's happiness then you would receive the very same justified critiques. That is a perfectly applicable analogy.

Screen time for children under 2 is to be discouraged rather than encouraged. Some parents do not know better and it is best for them to be made rationally risk aware rather than only sucking up your presented Fisher-Prices marketing material.

You started a thread promoting some Fisher-Price baby crap. That product received its just criticism and your offensive response remains to personally attack many here to either flatly shut-up in your thread or defame them as insolent pricks who are out to only interfere into the lives of others.

No. You are out of line for promoting devices that are harmful to a baby's development and for personal character assaults upon those who point out that fact.

 

[khha4113]

Eug, the researched facts are that providing such devices for kids under 2 to play with are damaging to their development.

If you came in with a thread to applaud the laurels of junk food for a child's happiness then you would receive the very same justified critiques. That is a perfectly applicable analogy.

Screen time for children under 2 is to be discouraged rather than encouraged. Some parents do not know better and it is best for them to be made rationally risk aware rather than only sucking up your presented Fisher-Prices marketing material.

You started a thread promoting some Fisher-Price baby crap. That product received its just criticism and your offensive response remains to personally attack many here to either flatly shut-up in your thread or defame them as insolent pricks who are out to only interfere into the lives of others.

No. You are out of line for promoting devices that are harmful to a baby's development and for personal character assaults upon those who point out that fact.

Totally agreed!

 

[Eug]

Like I said before, stop with the holier-than-thou arguments, because it only makes you look like an overbearing parent.

Anyways, since you're regurgitating the same misinformation that some media outlets are spouting, I'll have to correct you. The American Academy of Pediatrics states that use of screens under the age of 2 should be significantly limited, and that there isn't any good evidence that educational programs are helpful at that age. However, it specifically does NOT say there should be no exposure to such media at all. If you claim this, you are simply WRONG.

Furthermore, there is a difference between interactive play using media with children, as opposed just sitting a kid by himself with a screen and nothing else.

IOW, just use some common sense already, instead of just regurgitating misinformation.

 

[Whiskey16]

Like I said before, stop with the holier-than-thou arguments, because it only makes you look like an overbearing parent.

I am awesome, patient, sincere, aware, and caring parent, thank you very much.

Keep your ignorantly asinine character attacks to yourself and out of the public space. You are degrading your own thread.

 

[Eug]

I am awesome, patient, sincere, aware, and caring parent, thank you very much.

I'm sure you are. (Honestly I am.) I meant overbearing to other people's parenting, like you've demonstrated in this thread.

Keep your ignorantly asinine character attacks to yourself and out of the public space. You are degrading your own thread.

If you're going to use the word ignorant, might I suggest you reassess the recommendations you're so fond of quoting, cuz it would seem you may not actually quite understand the spirit of them, despite the fact you so like using them in your strange and misguided crusade against other people's parenting.

 

[badb0y]

Eug, the researched facts are that providing such devices for kids under 2 to play with are damaging to their development.

If you came in with a thread to applaud the laurels of junk food for a child's happiness then you would receive the very same justified critiques. That is a perfectly applicable analogy.

Screen time for children under 2 is to be discouraged rather than encouraged. Some parents do not know better and it is best for them to be made rationally risk aware rather than only sucking up your presented Fisher-Prices marketing material.

You started a thread promoting some Fisher-Price baby crap. That product received its just criticism and your offensive response remains to personally attack many here to either flatly shut-up in your thread or defame them as insolent pricks who are out to only interfere into the lives of others.

No. You are out of line for promoting devices that are harmful to a baby's development and for personal character assaults upon those who point out that fact.

This guy is funny.

 

[annomander]

I'm sure you are. (Honestly I am.) I meant overbearing to other people's parenting, like you've demonstrated in this thread.


If you're going to use the word ignorant, might I suggest you reassess the recommendations you're so fond of quoting, cuz it would seem you may not actually quite understand the spirit of them, despite the fact you so like using them in your strange and misguided crusade against other people's parenting.

Just like to say Eug, I think some of the attacks you are getting are way out of order and also of the offensive behaviour being given is laughable when they try to say you are character attacking them as if there actions are some how innocent.

 

[Whiskey16]

If you're going to use the word ignorant...

You alone are making personally offensive barbs in lame attempt to win argumentative points

You do not know me. Thereby you made an ignorant and personally offensive character attack upon me by chastising myself as an "over-bearing parent."

Now upon this subject I am certainly not ignorant. In your previous post you attempted to quote (you failed to provide any link to a source) the AAP to refute all the warnings that I provided. You grossly fail. Here is a direct quote and link from the American Academy of Pediatrics stating clear and concise warnings against video screen products that you are advocating for children under the age of 2:

The AAP has recommendations for parents and pediatricians.
..
Studies have shown that excessive media use can lead to attention problems, school difficulties, sleep and eating disorders, and obesity. In addition, the Internet and cell phones can provide platforms for illicit and risky behaviors.
..
Television and other entertainment media should be avoided for infants and children under age 2. A child's brain develops rapidly during these first years, and young children learn best by interacting with people, not screens.

 

[annomander]

Whiskey, you accuse eug being only offensive, for me you have being abusive and out of order all the way though, that you think you are an attacked innocent party is absurd, you have acted abysmally and being abusive

 

[Eug]

Whisky, instead of spouting off nonsense like "dopamine inducing and a detrimentally mild altering light toy", you should read the original source material. And by read, I mean read the actual content instead of a few bullet points taken out of context:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/10/12/peds.2011-1753.full.pdf

And since you completely missed my not so subtle hint:

"Furthermore, there is a difference between interactive play using media with children, as opposed just sitting a kid by himself with a screen and nothing else."

The main point was to address the use of screen time for kids by themselves, particularly television. Like I said, you gotta use some common sense here. You don't buy these things so you can lock the kid in the closet to entertain himself while you go off to the casino. And you don't just leave the kid in the room alone watching Teletubbies for hours on end. It's just one of a bazillion toys in the house, and can be used for interactive play with adults.

Here's a shocker... I also use a Nexus 7, but mainly to read eBooks, cuz I have some Dr. Seuss on there. You'd have to pretty naive to believe that somehow reading physical books (and yes we have lots) is automagically and inherently always better for the kid than reading off a screen, and you'd have to be pretty stupid to believe that locking your 1 year old in the closet with a Dr. Seuss hardcover is going to be any better for the kid than locking him in there with an iPhone.

So I repeat, just use some common sense here, and allow others to do the same.

---

Anyhoo, for the people who are not Whiskey: The main drawback with this Fisher-Price toy is that their software kinda sucks. If you're gonna get one of these, you're better off using 3rd party stuff or illustrated eBooks or whatever, although in some ways a larger tablet is better. Easier to see the illustrations on a larger tablet. However, I'm not sure I want my kid drooling all over my Nexus 7. The good thing about the Fisher-Price one is that it makes the iPod/iPhone nearly indestructible, and it protects it from drool and spit-up too.

 

[Whiskey16]

Eug, the source that you provided reaffirmed the critiques that I raised and certainly refutes your Fisher-Price advertising advocation of this glorified iPhone enclosed baby rattle for those under the age of 2:

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This updated policy statement provides further evidence that media— both foreground and background— have potentially negative effects and no known positive effects for children younger than 2 years. Thus, the AAP re- af&#64257;rms its recommendation to dis- courage media use in this age group.
..
Recommendations for Pediatricians

1. The AAP discourages media use by children younger than 2 years. Pediatricians should discuss these recommendations with parents.

2. The concept of setting “media limits” before 2 years of age should be discussed at health maintenance/ well-child visits, because many parents are not aware of the AAP recommendations.

Eug, you and your buddies may attempt to continue forth with all of the one-sided personal attacks against me that you wish. Degrade this forum if you so wish.

I politely presented an accurate counterpoint to your applauding promotion of iPhones for young children.

What stands are my originally presented warnings against the dangers of this Fisher-price iPhone glorified rattle. These warnings against baby screen time that I originally presented have again been reaffirmed by the American Academy of Pediatrics along with their shared concern for those parents who, as yourself, who are unaware or unconcerned of the usage dangers to children un the age of 2.

 

[Eug]

Thanks for posting that. It's clear you didn't actually read the whole paper, or at least you didn't actually take in all of what was there. That's fine. You can do what you want with your kid.

But since you're selectively quoting... here is one of the recommendations:

"Families should be strongly encour- aged to sit down and read to their child to foster their child&#8217;s cognitive and language development."

Hmmm... Buy a hardcover book? Or how about an eBook? Common sense tells me it's the interaction with the child that's important here, not that tablets have magical evil powers causing harmful dopaminergic brain destruction, as you've strangely enough already suggested.

BTW, lemme guess, you'll never allow a rattle in your house, just as nerp won't allow a pacifier in his. I will just say that dogma without reasoned thought or a consideration of practicality is not usually a good thing.

In the meantime, you might want to start a new topic in the Off Topic forum, as it's better suited for discussion of these things. This is a technical and gadget oriented forum after all, and that's what I'd prefer to discuss here.

 

[Whiskey16]

BTW, lemme guess, you'll never allow a rattle in your house, just as nerp won't allow a pacifier in his.
..
But since you're selectively quoting...

Please stop being argumentatively dishonest. I fully posted the AAP report's pertinent conclusions that negated your position in advocating this iPhone toy for babies and other children under the age of 2.

Let me reaffirm with supported child rearing advice from the very same AAP report that Eug continues to fail in accurately digesting:

Recommendations for Industry

1. Independent research should be performed to assess the educational claims made in advertising for infant media products.


Recommendations for Parents

1. The AAP discourages media use by children younger than 2 years.

5. Unstructured playtime is more valuable for the developing brain than any electronic media exposure. If a parent is not able to actively play with a child, that child should have solo playtime with an adult nearby. Even for infants as young as 4 months of age, solo play allows a child to think creatively, problem-solve, and accomplish tasks with minimal parent interaction. The parent can also learn something in the process of giving the child an opportunity to entertain himself or herself while remaining nearby.

Good parenting requires awareness of a child's abilities and limitations and the careful avoidance of living vicariously through your child under the belief that are uniquely special and therefore can handle what you provide better than another child.

Toy companies attempt to market bullshit in order to increase their profits. Be aware and educated.

Do not attempt to rush development -- that can be counter-productive and even dangerous to your child. The younger they are then start with the basics. No smartphones/tablets for children under the age of 2.

 

[pm]

Locking because this has gone completely off-topic for MD&G in my opinion. I'll have a talk with the two protagonists offline.


Moderator PM