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.
> 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.
Personally, I can't picture my childhood without those "injection-molded fossil fuel by-products" called LEGO.