Sure, kids can still sit slack-jawed staring at some cartoons. The TV producers have learned how to maintain attention with rapid cuts, bright colors, loud sounds, and all the rest extremely well. And that's some pretty scary super-stimulation.
But it's still less addictive than the iPad app that can use all the same outputs and adds interactive, Pavlovian feedback. Push button, get some meaningless numbers to increase: maybe you'll get lucky and they'll increase a lot this time! Keep trying! Check back in 30 seconds when that unlocks again! Some interaction can be educational, but there's more to the decision than the educational value, it's also somewhat about the addictive potential.
My 11-month old likes to hold a phone when he can get one. He turns it over with impressive dexterity in his little hands. He enjoys his reflection, and the weight and shape of the things. I'm sure he's observed that Mom and Dad pick up and use these things frequently, as much as we try to limit it around him. Each time he gets a phone, we take it away, and trivially redirect his attention on something else.
It's terrifying to me that in perhaps 5 years, the attention capture industry will be aided by virtual-reality devices, and my little kindergartner will need to develop the willpower to someday control his use of these future addiction machines.
(And now, I'll ironically push "reply" in hopes that I'll see my HN karma increase a few points due to this comment.)
Not to detract from your point, but to reinforce it: TV producers didn't "learn" as if through trial and error, but something far more sinister. They, and commercial producers, employ actual child psychologists to study the underlying mechanisms of attention in actual children to maximize the impact of their "product".
For instance Sago Mini makes amazing apps that do not use addiction techniques to hook you. They are just fun and let your explore however you want.
I completely agree that some apps are inappropriate for various ages though. Pretty much anything that purposely tries to addict the user should only be played by people who can handle the it. Some adults can't.
Have my upvote! ;)
(And now, I'll push "reply" with fear that my HN karma will decrease due to a meta-comment about up/downvoting)
You need to be very careful with modern mobile games. I'll let my son play minecraft, do the "endless learning" games, Dr Seuss, movies, and a few other selected games. You need to avoid the skinner box games.
Generally speaking, if it has a franchise endorsement (Star Wars, etc) it's garbage.
I'd be glad if you could share some of the games you approve of as my child is recently more interested.
And what are 'skinner box' games?
Usually achieved by a stamina system (You can play up to 5 levels in 30 minutes, or play another immediately by paying), balancing play so playing without "Premium" items feels sluggish and uncompetitive (but not so sluggish that the game is unfun), and having a lot of gambling style elements to overcome the first two (No gems? You can spin the prize wheel once a day! Also, you logged in 3 days in a row! Have some gems!)
A recent one was "Star Wars Force Arena". You really need to shell out to play, but you get these virtual "cards", sort of like electronic Pokémon cards that have characters and weapons. Usually they give you junk characters, but once in awhile you get something good. Your have to connect in specific time intervals to get more cards, and we discovered that my son was actually waking up early to claim his cards.
Other nice games come from Toca Boca. My son and his cousin like to play with "Hair Salon 3", where you basically cut and style hair -- they have little contests to make wacky looking people.
The physical Apple Store is actually a good place to discover new games. They change it demos every few weeks and the staff is often very knowledgeable.
A tremendous amount of games on phones are either glorified slot machines, or a normal game with some kind of slot machine tacked on, such as a loot system.
Some even produce loot that can be traded for real money...
You have to vet every game now.
I am not against restricting anything honestly but when I saw that my daughter started telling us "leave me alone. I am watching ipad", that was the signal that she is getting addicted. Mind you, she is not even 5. With TV, it is not that bad as they watch it while doing other things like roaming around the living room etc. Much less addictive in our specific case at least. YMMV.
"leave me alone. I am watching ipad"
I think my son first barked, "stop talking", to us before he was 2. That first time he was just tired of being peppered with questions and wanted to be let alone. No devices were involved. Sometimes he says that or something like it when he's being reprimanded, which is of course not acceptable. But in any event I've always tried to appreciate the sentiment. I appreciate (and require) solitude more than my wife, so perhaps I more sensitive to that need, or at least more credulous.
It's easier still when the iPad runs out of batteries; we just haven't managed to get rid of it entirely yet.
Now, anything I watch is something I specifically seek out - pull, not push.
I do the same with video games, and I choose games that are more exiting, as opposed to long slogs - fixed-level/single-player FPS, or fixed length multiplayer sessions, as opposed to "stat-building" games, or candy-crunch "physiological manipulators".
I'm trying to do a schedule of snack bars over the afternoon and a small lunch now, over wanting to eat enough at noon to last until 9-10 PM.
Useful for them and useful for society.
Watching Game of Thrones is social, whether you do it on TV or on-line. Watching a random TV program on a random TV channel is about as social as watching a random YouTube video.
Why exactly is TV (passive) better than an iPad (interactive)?