Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This screen thing would make your baby dumber by the hour. They need to see and explore the real 3D world. It literally does make then dumber, hour by hour. I fthe screen is more attractive than the world it is harmful.

Heh, by the time my son could actually explore the real world (he's fairly large at 98th % height @18 months right now) he wouldn't have fit in that chair anyway. There's tons of stupid and unneeded products for everyone, and the market (barring safety issues) will always decide.

And no, I wouldn't buy it (and I doubt many would either, not just because their against the idea just that it's an extremely limited use item), although my son does use an iPad for Face Time with his grandparents, already understands the basic concepts on how it works (who doesn't like to push a button!), and gets a tremendous amount of joy from that particular use.
 
No, I mean the people who go to market and buy things - let them decide.

As for the straw-man, they also involved people. Are you saying that only certain people be allowed into the market-place?

No. I'm saying that markets are not people, just as corporations are not people.

BL.
 
This screen thing would make your baby dumber by the hour. They need to see and explore the real 3D world. It literally does make then dumber, hour by hour. I fthe screen is more attractive than the world it is harmful.

... is counter productive and like I wrote almost suck IQ number of to kid's brains. All passive entertainment has that effect but it is worse the younger you are.

Written while sitting in front of a screen following the rumors of a company that manufactures devices with screens.
 
My first thought (mainly because it said recall) was that there was concern that the iPad could fall and hurt the kid. Oh well. I guess I was just not so attention seeking and pious in my views. I'll try harder next time.

Personally, I think we need to prepare our kids for the future. When they are "40"

[url=http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41rIIJPNgoL._SX300_.jpg]Image[/URL]

That product is also receiving criticism, http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/12/10/5196542/cta-digital-ipad-meets-toilet-for-infants-garners-parental-wrath
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
... This thing is probably a bid extreme, but who cares what I think? or what the CCFC thinks for that matter? If people don't want it, then they won't buy it and then they'll stop making it. Simple.

So in that case they can make a chair that electrifies the baby each 60 seconds and advertise it as 'the electric baby chair'?
People don't want that as well, but should we sell it?

----------

Written while sitting in front of a screen following the rumors of a company that manufactures devices with screens.

Hahaha! Brilliant.
 
So in that case they can make a chair that electrifies the baby each 60 seconds and advertise it as 'the electric baby chair'?
People don't want that as well, but should we sell it?

----------



Hahaha! Brilliant.

All we need is a virtual parent App or maybe a virtual nanny App and then they don't need to recall it! LOL! :D All we need now is an App that changes diapers? Then the baby will grow up to be almost a cyborg! :eek: All I want to know is does it really make the baby stop crying? If so, sold! :p
 
You got this all wrong!

The real problem is that the kiddo cannot TOUCH it! What the heck? That is torture! I remember when the iPad just came out and my son was about 8 months old - he wanted to TOUCH it - and he did! With 1 year, maybe 14 months, he could unlock it and play his baby Apps. Don't worry though. I didn't dangle it 30 in away from him. He would have been upset. Meanwhile, he is four and owns that iPad.


PS: For all the ones that think he's training to be a couch potato: He runs more than he sits or sleeps. This overprotective nonsense I sometimes hear is so ridiculous. It is not about the screen time, it is about unsupervised screen time, the point where the TV becomes a babysitter. That never happened in my home and still, he might be able to choose between Kipper and The Magic Roundabout, but for sure, that is usually when we WANT him to rest because he ran around like crazy for the last hour pretending to be either a train, and airplane or a race car. The iPad is a good choice as well. Hand-Eye Coordination becomes more and more important. For his generation, this is second nature.
 
  • Love
Reactions: compwiz1202
Oh you Americans... :p

fat_1654278c.jpg


fattv2404_468x312.jpg


Actually, it's sad.
 
Should be renamed to "Electronic Dummy"

Or "Impersonal Nanny"
 
I think its a great product. Put a cartoon on for 30 mins while you need to do a bit of housework. It is not meant to be 24/7 ad if it is going to be then put something educational on lol.

Honestly people just look to be offended and like to make a fuss.
 
  • Love
Reactions: compwiz1202
Before Reading the article:
Yes, it really looks like the iPad will fall on the baby. It may be safer to have glasses that the baby wears that covers 100% of the babies vision with cartoons or screen savers than using this low tech idea of a big screen over the baby.

After Reading the article:
:eek:
 
  • Love
Reactions: compwiz1202
I cannot believe how idiotic some of these comments are. "Let the market decide". Do you always let the market decide if a product is safe, no matter what the experts say? So if someone tries to sell a power drill that experts say will spin out of place shooting the bit through your eye, and a consumer group raises the alarm, you should shut them up and let the market decide. Right? Why not let the market decide about kiddie porn, for that matter? No, I am not going out on a limb. Just take this sentence to an extreme and you will realize how blatantly stupid it is.

The fact that society is blindly going into a world mediated by a screen is not to be taken lightly. I mean, we can joke about it as much as we like, but at some point someone must get serious about it. And the Wall•e scenario looks pretty terrible to me, even if we are talking about adults. But children? I will not explain the psychological reasons for not letting children use screens at such a young age (if you're so techie jfgi), but let us just agree that people need people to know they're people. You follow?

Hopefully, those above that so magnanimously concede their wits to the "market" (ie corporations willing to make big bucks at the expense of your children's psychological development) don't have children and have no f idea about their needs - hence their genius remarks... Hopefully. For everything else - consumer groups. They protect the braindead from their own stupidity.

The problem is if you are being protected from your own stupidity it encourages the passive behaviour (Wall-e scenario) you are against. Why should I use my own brain and do my own research before buying a product if someone else is doing it for me?
 
The Tubes - Remote Control?

Does anyone remember this from 1979?
41iSo3ga-iL.jpg

"Put your hand on the power...and baby you turn me on!"
"It's a TV suicide...what a lovely way to die!"
Now that's what I call prescient...weren't Messrs Jobs & Wozniak just "White Punks On Dope" farting around in their folk's garage when this was conceived?
 
Last edited:
Believe it or not, I agree with you

How wonderfully condescending of you. Maybe you are so stupid that you need people to intervene for you, But, I'm quite fine making my own decisions thank you.

I don't mind there being groups out there that produce research telling me the dangers of doing "X", but I don't need them or the government taking away my rights to make my own decisions.

I hate ultra-liberal "you-need-us-to-make-decisions-for-you" BS.

It seems you have entirely missed my point. Makosuke above summed up the reasons behind not trusting children's safety only to their parents: I can make my own decisions if they only affect ME, but we live in community and that implies the need for some sort of social control. This is not to say it must be by way of State control and legislation. I am not one to ungrudgingly defend State paternalism - enter consumer groups.

You seem to infer that I would willingly give my freedom to decide over my life or my children's to the government, and that couldn't be farther from the truth. As a somewhat intelligent person (sorry, I cannot admit to my own stupidity while trying to make an argument, although I will gladly do so at other times), I can make my own decisions, but I do not have the time to be constantly screening for information. Take vaccines: I hear what doctors have to say for and against them, I listen to consumer groups, and then decide if my children should or should not get their shots. Government should not force me to do it, nor should they prevent me from doing it if I so wished.

And here comes the twist. Corporations get priority treatment by the government, for instance cutting down taxes for educational products, providing funds for "research", and basically prioritizing the interests of for-profit lobbies despite the warnings from non-profit consumer organizations. Not to speak of bailouts for stupid banksters that threw our money away in suicidal gambles and then acted like crybabies because they went bankrupt. Where's the free market there?

I applaud this consumer group that defends the well-being of children by acting in the way they judge convenient. If they want to press the authorities to get the product recalled because it's dangerous, that's just as fair as a corporation filing a law suit over copyrights and recalling a product that infringes them.

If it depended on me all drugs, weapons and any dangerous product you can think of would be legal. But it so happens that I am well educated and will not shoot up heroin while I fire a round with a machine gun on a children's choir singing Jesu Man of Joy's Desiring.
 
That group doesn't seem to understand what a recall is.

Personally I agree with them that it's terrible for babies, and for the most part we don't let our kids watch TV or do any "screen" stuff until they are at least 2 or 3 years old. But like everything else, it's the parent's job, if you don't like the product, don't buy it.
 
Terrible

My wife is due with our first child in just a couple months and there's no way we would buy this thing. All a baby needs are some dangling, brightly colored objects to paw at. If I had to guess, it probably helps develop coordination. Staring at a screen from the time you pop out of the womb sets you up for a lifetime of sedentary behavior. I feel like too many parents babysit their kids nowadays with an iPad and/or a Netflix subscription.

When my daughter gets older she can use Macs (if they still exist, yikes) and iPads but there will be limits. I had my NES when I was little, and today I have my Xbox One and iPad—but my mom was smart enough to make me go outside and play with my friends. Our neighborhood wasn't exactly poor—maybe lower middle class at best. So with a lack of shiny new toys we got pretty creative with coming up with imaginative games to play. Later on in middle school the internet was developing, and I was able to use it to learn lots of stuff about how to do graphic design and program apps and websites, which led to my future career in app and web design. So I can see the benefits of both. I think a good balance of spare time (outside of homework and chores) will be about ⅓ on devices and ⅔ outside playing, or inside if it's cold playing with legos or reading. Though I bet a lot of the reading will be done on devices, so that might have to be adjusted.

I hope iOS continues to add new and refine existing parental controls, especially filters for Safari. Or use TouchID to set daily time limits—especially for certain app categories such as games. Their fingerprint won't work, say, after 2 hours of use until the next day. That could be overridden by the parent, of course. But could keep them from sneaking in extra device time here and there.

I'd love to hear from other (responsible) parents on how they manage the time spent on devices vs. other types of play. I feel like a lot of it will be trial and error, and it probably depends on the kid.

Ah, thank you. I was feeling very, very depressed after reading the "let the market decide" nonsense. My first child is only 1 and the next is still in the womb, so I am not sure how we will manage the time. So far, I think he's watched some preschool cartoons a total time of 2 or 3 hours in all his lifetime - and he wasn't all that interested. Obviously there will have to be screen time, but we'll keep a close eye on how, when, and why.

Again, thank you for your comment. It's comforting to know there's people like you.

Well it's been scientifically proven that it's detrimental to children under the age of 2 to watch TV. Read John Median's Baby Brain Rules. Years ago, the Baby Einstein DVDs were busted as not only BS but as plainly bad for your child.

An infant/toddler cannot learn from TV/screen. It lacks emotion and social cues. The child learns from direct interaction with people. It picks up everything from their face and listens to it's parents voice. This cannot be replicated by TV.

That being said. I have an 11 year old and a 6 month year old. I didn't let my 11 years old watch much of anything until the age of 2, and I plan on zero tv for my 6 month year old, until they are 2.

Sadly, my ex-wife let my 11 year old son watch a lot of TV and play video games at an early age. IMO this had a negative impact on my son. He does play sports but he lost a lot of creativity once tv/video games started. He didn't want to play with toys or games, and even stopped coloring and drawing. Everything was about tv/video games. I had to do a lot to reverse this.

Yes, it's not easy to cut out TV or other things you like. It requires effort as a parent, but being a parent already requires effort. Cutting down my TV time for a couple years is nothing. There's more to life than TV. We don't watch TV when they baby is awake and around. Once in a while I will put on a soccer game, with low volume, when I'm rocking the baby to sleep. But the baby's back it to the TV. That's it.

Often I find that people let their children veg in front of the tv as a baby sitter. I know a number of parents that specifically say video games are their babysitter. Even worse I find parents that play Mature rated video games with kids that are around 5 years old. It's clear they are selfish and lazy. They want to play these game and don't want to wait for their child to grow up. I find that very upsetting. It's a disservice to your child.

Ultimately each parent can decide what's right for them. But it's amazing how people ignore what the doctors say.

This device is horrible. It not only goes against good parenting and common sense, it also goes against scientific research and the guidelines of expert doctors.
 
Last edited:
My wife is due with our first child in just a couple months and there's no way we would buy this thing. All a baby needs are some dangling, brightly colored objects to paw at. If I had to guess, it probably helps develop coordination. Staring at a screen from the time you pop out of the womb sets you up for a lifetime of sedentary behavior. I feel like too many parents babysit their kids nowadays with an iPad and/or a Netflix subscription.

When my daughter gets older she can use Macs (if they still exist, yikes) and iPads but there will be limits. I had my NES when I was little, and today I have my Xbox One and iPad—but my mom was smart enough to make me go outside and play with my friends. Our neighborhood wasn't exactly poor—maybe lower middle class at best. So with a lack of shiny new toys we got pretty creative with coming up with imaginative games to play. Later on in middle school the internet was developing, and I was able to use it to learn lots of stuff about how to do graphic design and program apps and websites, which led to my future career in app and web design. So I can see the benefits of both. I think a good balance of spare time (outside of homework and chores) will be about ⅓ on devices and ⅔ outside playing, or inside if it's cold playing with legos or reading. Though I bet a lot of the reading will be done on devices, so that might have to be adjusted.

I hope iOS continues to add new and refine existing parental controls, especially filters for Safari. Or use TouchID to set daily time limits—especially for certain app categories such as games. Their fingerprint won't work, say, after 2 hours of use until the next day. That could be overridden by the parent, of course. But could keep them from sneaking in extra device time here and there.

I'd love to hear from other (responsible) parents on how they manage the time spent on devices vs. other types of play. I feel like a lot of it will be trial and error, and it probably depends on the kid.

I have quite a few nieces and nephews. Every year they get a bundle of toys and gadgets like this and every year the same thing happens. The kids end up playing with the box instead because they like to use their imagination and just play. I agree that it should be up to parents so long as it's safe but I certainly wouldn't buy this.

All the studies show that if you grow up around books you're more likely to want to learn, if you grow up with lots of physical activity and healthy foods you're more likely to take that into adulthood and the more TV you watch the more likely you are to grow up lazy, lethargic and overweight.

Best wishes to you and your wife on your forthcoming arrival. I'd get plenty of sleep in now before the baby arrives if I were you.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.