4 ms·

> kids could see and feel how it worked. That made it a fascinating toy I assume all of us here on HN are the type-of-person who as a child would have been fas

> kids could see and feel how it worked. That made it a fascinating toy I assume all of us here on HN are the type-of-person who as a child would have been fascinated about how mechanical and electromechanical toys and gizmos worked - and probably disassembled the thing to our parents' chagrin and figured out how it works (and hopefully put it back together correctly!) and ended the day with a sense of satisfaction from learning something new. ...and then I'm remind myself that we are not like everyone else: I'm still able to vividly remember the things I did with my mechanical/electro toys to see and try to understand how they worked, but that most of the other kids my age didn't: their objective was simply to use the toy as entertainment or make-believe-play or the like - not as an object of curiosity - and they weren't particularly interested in any explanation I'd have for them (it didn't help that I wouldn't have asked them if they wanted to hear my explanation in the first place though... heh) So for us, this digital-fake of a classic toy is an insult to our imagined younger-selves of the 21st century, but when I think about this ultra-modern toy from the perspective of someone just after something of solely nostalgia value - and a modern-day kid uninterested now (and shall most-likely forever-be uninterested) in how things work then indeed none of what we're griping about here matters - in fact it's the opposite: this 2010 remake is demonstrably tougher and more resilient to damage and wear than the mechanical original despite being superficially the same - given we're in the minority overall (...I think?) then this new design is objectively better as far as moral-utilitarianism is concerned. ...and it's not like Fischer-Price is selling this remake as a toy of interest to kids with a curiosity for things mechanical. They're not being totally dishonest.

Jtsummers 5y ago
It's a tradeoff, though. The loss of explorability means that kids no longer have (with these newer toys) the same opportunity for exercising their curiosity that the older toys permitted. My sister never took our toys apart and reassembled them, that was all on me. With a toy like this one I would have (and probably did, with whatever equivalent I had) taken it apart and seen how the music box worked (the metal tines, the bumps on the record corresponding to notes, etc.). The new version removes that opportunity, taken or not. That is a loss.
ummwhat 5y ago
When I was a kid the "toy" to take apart was a disposable camera. The sort you used to buy on vacation and then drop off to have the film developed without getting the camera back. I discovered after charging it that touching the capicator gives a nice electrical shock. I spent a great deal of effort teaching this painful lesson to anyone I could trick into learning it. The objects of curiosity don't need to be a toy, or even meant for children. Anything that can be disassembled will be disassembled by a curious child. Too bad it's no longer possible for end users to disassemble mobile phones.
scrollaway 5y ago
But play is supposed to be a learning tool. If a toy's only value is "push a button for a predefined thing to happen", there is no opportunity for exploration. Might as well give the toddler an iphone. I agree with you, "we" are probably not like most people. But taking the opportunity to experiment away is such a huge loss. Giving a kid the opportunity to learn on their own is so important. It's not just the one toy, you need to give them loads of different opportunities like these. They'll pick up on some. Maybe i never would have experimented with this particular toy as a kid. For me, it was getting a screwdriver and taking old electronics apart (and the challenge of putting them back together and still having them work!) that sparked my curiosity. Plenty of things did not, however... But the point is, i was given opportunities.
johnchristopher 5y ago
> I assume all of us here on HN are the type-of-person who as a child would have been fascinated about how mechanical and electromechanical toys and gizmos worked - and probably disassembled the thing to our parents' chagrin and figured out how it works (and hopefully put it back together correctly!) and ended the day with a sense of satisfaction from learning something new. Yeah. But no, that's a stereotype. I hated my mecano things, it was too hard to play with. I enjoyed storytelling with my LEGOs much more, my creations were just bare bones scaffoldings for the flesh my imagination would put around it. I still work in IT and tear stuff apart every day. With that being said it still saddens me they are digitalising full mechanical toys. It's surely rose-tinted glasses but it looked so much cooler.

Jtsummers 5y ago

It's a tradeoff, though. The loss of explorability means that kids no longer have (with these newer toys) the same opportunity for exercising their curiosity that the older toys permitted. My sister never took our toys apart and reassembled them, that was all on me. With a toy like this one I would have (and probably did, with whatever equivalent I had) taken it apart and seen how the music box worked (the metal tines, the bumps on the record corresponding to notes, etc.). The new version removes that opportunity, taken or not. That is a loss.

ummwhat 5y ago

When I was a kid the "toy" to take apart was a disposable camera. The sort you used to buy on vacation and then drop off to have the film developed without getting the camera back. I discovered after charging it that touching the capicator gives a nice electrical shock. I spent a great deal of effort teaching this painful lesson to anyone I could trick into learning it. The objects of curiosity don't need to be a toy, or even meant for children. Anything that can be disassembled will be disassembled by a curious child. Too bad it's no longer possible for end users to disassemble mobile phones.

scrollaway 5y ago

But play is supposed to be a learning tool. If a toy's only value is "push a button for a predefined thing to happen", there is no opportunity for exploration. Might as well give the toddler an iphone. I agree with you, "we" are probably not like most people. But taking the opportunity to experiment away is such a huge loss. Giving a kid the opportunity to learn on their own is so important. It's not just the one toy, you need to give them loads of different opportunities like these. They'll pick up on some. Maybe i never would have experimented with this particular toy as a kid. For me, it was getting a screwdriver and taking old electronics apart (and the challenge of putting them back together and still having them work!) that sparked my curiosity. Plenty of things did not, however... But the point is, i was given opportunities.

johnchristopher 5y ago

> I assume all of us here on HN are the type-of-person who as a child would have been fascinated about how mechanical and electromechanical toys and gizmos worked - and probably disassembled the thing to our parents' chagrin and figured out how it works (and hopefully put it back together correctly!) and ended the day with a sense of satisfaction from learning something new. Yeah. But no, that's a stereotype. I hated my mecano things, it was too hard to play with. I enjoyed storytelling with my LEGOs much more, my creations were just bare bones scaffoldings for the flesh my imagination would put around it. I still work in IT and tear stuff apart every day. With that being said it still saddens me they are digitalising full mechanical toys. It's surely rose-tinted glasses but it looked so much cooler.