3 ms·

> As an aside, having an ipad seems to help keep the baby entertained with interactive books, music, TV shows, musical instruments like drums and pianos. I hop

by trhtrsh 14y ago

> As an aside, having an ipad seems to help keep the baby entertained with interactive books, music, TV shows, musical instruments like drums and pianos. I hope you change your mind if you have kids. Living life in a 7" box is sad.

alwaysinshade 14y ago
The crux of my message was that my sister-in-law's son gets to enjoy a plethora of different toys (and he really does love them) that aren't injection-molded fossil fuel by-products. Another way to look at it is that he wouldn't have most of those toys if they were physical items - a free piano app beats that $20 toy piano that his mum glanced at in the shop and decided not to buy because she needs to buy more nappies. It's also interesting how, because touch-input results in a direct and near-instant output, that it can be understood by an infant quite rapidly. To them an app is a real mechanical object.
- icebraining 14y ago
  But shapes, textures, smells, etc are important too. A cheap rubber toy piano might very well be better than an app. Not to mention that they're easier to share with other kids. Personally, I can't picture my childhood without those "injection-molded fossil fuel by-products" called LEGO.
  - alwaysinshade 14y ago
    > But shapes, textures, smells, etc are important too. He lives in a three-dimensional world, so I don't think he's missing out on any of those things. I'm not arguing for the elimination of physical toys - merely observing that apps have their utility and are less wasteful, resource wise. > A cheap rubber toy piano might very well be better than an app. Depends - physical things have a certain barrier to ownership: money. The toy he never had is easily beaten by the free/99c one off the app store. The fact that a tablet is expensive isn't lost on me, but for the amount of utility it has served it's basically paid for itself (it's his dad's tablet). > Not to mention that they're easier to share with other kids. Sharing is important, but it's worth noting that with apps you can have collaboration - he and I can play instruments together (like the free split screen piano or guitar apps) or play basic games all on a single screen. Of course physical things do this as well - my intent is to show that apps can be treated like physical objects. > Personally, I can't picture my childhood without those "injection-moulded fossil fuel by-products" called LEGO. My nickname is Uncle LEGO - he won't be missing out on that stuff. He's stuck with DUPLO until he's older though.

by trhtrsh 14y ago

alwaysinshade 14y ago

The crux of my message was that my sister-in-law's son gets to enjoy a plethora of different toys (and he really does love them) that aren't injection-molded fossil fuel by-products. Another way to look at it is that he wouldn't have most of those toys if they were physical items - a free piano app beats that $20 toy piano that his mum glanced at in the shop and decided not to buy because she needs to buy more nappies. It's also interesting how, because touch-input results in a direct and near-instant output, that it can be understood by an infant quite rapidly. To them an app is a real mechanical object.

icebraining 14y ago
But shapes, textures, smells, etc are important too. A cheap rubber toy piano might very well be better than an app. Not to mention that they're easier to share with other kids. Personally, I can't picture my childhood without those "injection-molded fossil fuel by-products" called LEGO.
- alwaysinshade 14y ago
  > But shapes, textures, smells, etc are important too. He lives in a three-dimensional world, so I don't think he's missing out on any of those things. I'm not arguing for the elimination of physical toys - merely observing that apps have their utility and are less wasteful, resource wise. > A cheap rubber toy piano might very well be better than an app. Depends - physical things have a certain barrier to ownership: money. The toy he never had is easily beaten by the free/99c one off the app store. The fact that a tablet is expensive isn't lost on me, but for the amount of utility it has served it's basically paid for itself (it's his dad's tablet). > Not to mention that they're easier to share with other kids. Sharing is important, but it's worth noting that with apps you can have collaboration - he and I can play instruments together (like the free split screen piano or guitar apps) or play basic games all on a single screen. Of course physical things do this as well - my intent is to show that apps can be treated like physical objects. > Personally, I can't picture my childhood without those "injection-moulded fossil fuel by-products" called LEGO. My nickname is Uncle LEGO - he won't be missing out on that stuff. He's stuck with DUPLO until he's older though.