Petition tries to get Fisher Price to stop selling baby seat with Apple iPad stand
The organization has started a petition, calling the Apptivity Seat the worst screen product for babies. The CCFC notes that with a colorful screen and constant activity, the iPad can get a baby's full attention allowing the parents to leave it all alone with the tablet. If you want to add your name to the petition, all you need to do is to click the CCFC sourcelink below, fill in the blanks, and submit it. The petition is addressed to David Allmark, Executive Vice President of Fisher-Price, and requests that the company pull the seat. The CCFC stresses that it is wrong to leave a baby alone with an iPad, inches from his or her face. The screen is blocking the child from seeing his parents and the rest of the world. Part of the petition reads, "Babies need laps, not apps. Fisher-Price should focus on developing products that actually facilitate learning and development instead of encouraging parents to strap down babies -- even those too young to sit up -- inches from a screen."
In response, Fisher Price says that it is the target of a negative online campaign. There has been talk that Fisher Price is marketing the seat as an educational product, something that the manufacturer strongly denies. In addition, Fisher Price says that the seat does offer options to limit the viewing time of the tablet. As it turns out, the American Academy of Pediatrics agrees with the petition, saying that kids under 2 should not be using any electronic screens.
So far, the petition has 9916 signatures, just 84 short of the 10,000 goal. But even if the target numbers of signatures are reached, we wouldn't count on Fisher Price pulling the product anyway. By the way, parents buying the child seat get access to free apps for the iPad that are made specifically for the age group of those using the seat.
I am writing to urge you to stop selling the Fisher-Price Newborn-to-Toddler Apptivity™ Seat for iPad® device. It’s troubling enough when companies promote screen time for babies – the American Academy of Pediatrics discourages any screen time for children under two. But this product is clearly designed to occupy infants alone and free parents up from interacting with them. Placing an iPad directly above baby’s face blocks his or her view of the rest of the world. And to make matters even worse, Fisher-Price is marketing the Apptivity Seat -- and claiming it’s educational -- for newborns.
Babies need laps, not apps. Fisher-Price should focus on developing products that actually facilitate learning and development instead of encouraging parents to strap down babies -- even those too young to sit up -- inches from a screen.
Please immediately recall the Fisher-Price Newborn-to-Toddler Apptivity™ Seat for iPad® device.
Petition tries to get Fisher Price to stop selling child seat that supports iPad
source: FisherPrice, LATimes, CCFC via CNET
1. eldyagustius (Posts: 124; Member since: 30 Oct 2013)
Soon the baby will be the next Steve Jobs LOL
6. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6239; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
iFisher price. I'll sign the petition. Don't think a iPad will keep any baby occupied
20. tedkord (Posts: 4504; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
They will. I saw a commercial on TV in which a baby was using an iPad to make stock trades from his crib. He was occupied.
44. joey_sfb (Posts: 2748; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
There a demand for the product. Most parents pass their old iPad to their toddler. They are already doing it and its popular pacifier for modern parents.
Anyway we reap what we sow.
3. XperiaFanZone (Posts: 1201; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)
They shouldn't be using any tablet computers.
23. RandomUsername (Posts: 424; Member since: 29 Oct 2013)
They shouldn't be using any computers. :)
4. Planterz (Posts: 682; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)
How dare parents leave their kids with an interactive iPad! They should neglect them in front of the TV to watch Barney or Dora or 16 and Pregnant like a responsible parent of the previous generation!
7. bigstrudel (Posts: 518; Member since: 20 Aug 2012)
Wow I cant wait to see my kids victimize these kids with underdeveloped physical and social skills.
9. kozza3 (Posts: 574; Member since: 17 Oct 2012)
if you don't agree with ANY product simply don't buy it!
vote with your wallets!
do not tell me what i can and can not buy.
but i wouldn't buy this anyways :P
edit: not sure how this was a reply to #bigstrudel... nothing personal :D
25. JMartin22 (Posts: 758; Member since: 30 Apr 2013)
To play devil's advocate, consumers aren't always fully aware of their actions and the consequences that they harbor down the line. Sometime's it's not as easy as letting them "vote with your wallet" - sometimes a decision made, isn't always an educated one. But w/e.
8. Furbal (Posts: 263; Member since: 22 Sep 2012)
Or let parents raise their kids as they see fit....
11. TBomb (Posts: 92; Member since: 28 Dec 2012)
Nothing against you... but depending on who that is that can reap very bad consequences. Elementary school shooting in CT. The 16 year old drunk driver who "is too rich to go to jail" in Texas.
But I do agree with the point you're making on freedom... but to a certain extent depending on the circumstances.
34. haseebzahid (Posts: 1812; Member since: 22 Feb 2012)
dont agree on your opinion. you should atlest be bound to raise a good kid for society then people complain.....
what have this country given us ... then my question is first tell us what kind of genration have you given to your country. just one example
37. Pancholo (Posts: 377; Member since: 27 Feb 2012)
Cool story, but keep in mind that we're the ones that are gonna have to deal with said kids after their papis and mamis raised them as they saw fit.
10. Sauce (unregistered)
Wooowwwwwwwww hahaha. Pathetic petition lol.
13. cozze02 (Posts: 1; Member since: 25 Nov 2012)
Even thought its a crapy iPad, I would let my soon to be genius kid use it
14. makio9 (Posts: 47; Member since: 23 Jul 2012)
Fisher price is the company doing the patent? Ummm..isn't it their product...that they made.
i hate the business world mayne
15. sckortyman (Posts: 23; Member since: 19 Sep 2013)
I really really hope no parent uses this thing. However, they have the right to sell it and consumers will decide with their wallets if they feel the same way.
16. PBXtech (Posts: 970; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)
At least the baby seat didn't get the worst toy of the year award.
19. tigermcm (Posts: 693; Member since: 02 Sep 2009)
shut up and sit down somewhere, unfortunately they will win just like those who shut down your baby can read because a child shouldnt be in front of the tv long. so if this promotes leaving your child unattended wouldnt the regular toys that hang from it do the same?
21. tedkord (Posts: 4504; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Is it ironic that Fisher Price is the target of a campaign to get their product removed from the market because it incorporates a device from a company that is constantly trying to get products removed from the market.
22. JakeLee (limited) (Posts: 892; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
Why don't they start a campaign against amoled then?
LED = Light Emitting Diode
Looking at light sources directly harms the eyes regardless of the person's age.
26. o0Exia0o (Posts: 343; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
THEN....THEN.....THEN....WHY DON'T WE ALL GO LIVE IN CAVES IF LIGHT IS SOO DAMAGING? SHOULDNT WE ALL BE BLIND ALL OF THE HOURS WE SPEND IN THE SUN? WHERE IS YOUR RESEARCH AT SO I CAN READ UP ON THIS AND LEARN ABOUT IT??
27. JakeLee (limited) (Posts: 892; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
You don't have to live in caves to avoid looking at the sun directly.
28. o0Exia0o (Posts: 343; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
AH, so what you are basically saying is that it so OK to be in the sun light but do not look at device screens (which are dimmer than the sun) because that amount of light is harmful? Does this include all device screens or are you just trolling against a single manufacturer? Which is it?
30. JakeLee (limited) (Posts: 892; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
Only amoleds where every pixel consists of up to three light emitting color diodes.
LED backlight on LCD is a different story. Since the light has to pass through the TFT, it isn't considered to be a light emitter.
It's not about luminance.
33. o0Exia0o (Posts: 343; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
And your source for this is what? Please name a source any soruce if you would.
You comparing looking at an OLED screen to looking at the sun is like comparing apples to oranges. The reason that people are told not to stare directly at the sun is because of the sun's light output (which if stared at too long can cause permanente retina damage AKA BLINDNESS)
Lets assume for a moment that your are right. There are hundreds of thousands of manufacturing companies producing hundreds of millions if not billions of products that are being used by people around the world that are harming thier user base by using OLEDs. Companies such as Sony, LG, Mitsubishi and (Yes the company your are trolling against) Samsung just to name a few. Why would they want to harm thier user base whom they make thier money off of? Does that make much sense to you?
How 'bout you take off the old tinfoil hat there and quit trying to be a troll for Apple?
35. JakeLee (limited) (Posts: 892; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
Here's what I found in English.
It's scientifically proven that blue lights are the most harmful one.
And blue diodes in amoled have to emit roughly twice as intensive as the other ones for the proper color temperature.
38. Pancholo (Posts: 377; Member since: 27 Feb 2012)
That blue link just gave us eye cancer! UGH! The thumb and reply button! What kind of conspiracy is this?!?!
Darn you, JakeLee!
40. JakeLee (limited) (Posts: 892; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
Are you kidding? The link works perfectly fine.
46. o0Exia0o (Posts: 343; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
LOL YES! ALL BLUE LIGHTS CAUSE CANCER! At least it does in his world. +1 to you sir.
42. o0Exia0o (Posts: 343; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
A FOURM?? A FOURM??? This is your big proof that OLED screens are harmful? A FOURM? Really? I ask you for proof. A scientific paper, a research study or something and your big proof is a forum? Are you really that much of a blind troll to just go grabbing at straws like this? DUDE REALLY GROW UP! GET A LIFE AND QUIT TROLLING!
43. JakeLee (limited) (Posts: 892; Member since: 02 Nov 2013)
I told you what I found in *English*
That post is a decent one, and if you want, you can always read original studies the OP is refering.
What's the problem?
24. nexusdude (Posts: 147; Member since: 22 Aug 2013)
Colors, moving objects and sounds are very important for a young child, but these things should NOT be recreated on a 2D surface. My little cousin is just learning to walk and if she's given a smartphone or a tablet she immediately STOPS moving just to watch the colorful animations. What if she sits like this for hours? Such products can cripple future generations. Remember Wall-E?
29. Lmao2013 (Posts: 17; Member since: 05 Dec 2013)
It's better than those talking teddy bears.
31. Paximos (Posts: 53; Member since: 26 Jul 2012)
Fisher Price could careless how you'll raise your kids...it is all about $$$$$ and I would not be surprised if they were rewarded for this idea!!!
36. GoBears (Posts: 335; Member since: 27 Apr 2012)
Seems like torture to me. No wonder some kids grow up and hate their parents.
47. o0Exia0o (Posts: 343; Member since: 01 Feb 2013)
"Seems like torture to me. No wonder some kids grow up and hate their parents."
Or shoot up schools. +1 to you sir
41. Fuego84 (Posts: 264; Member since: 13 May 2012)
It's so sad. In my opinion babies shouldn't be exposed to addicting eye damaging screens.
45. axllebeer (Posts: 265; Member since: 05 Apr 2011)
Some parents should've never became parents in the 1st place. And yes, I am a parent of a 2 year old.
48. Sondae (Posts: 185; Member since: 02 Jan 2013)
This type of idea promotes Parents to be lazy in raising there babies. Babies supposed to be interacting people, surroundings and play as there age not ipad. I wont be surprise if there will be a raise of obese kids and other causes of to much dependent to technology.