Apple Should Address Youth Phone Addiction, Say Two Large Investors (reuters.com)

Two large Apple shareholders, Jana Partners and the California State Teachers' Retirement System, are urging Apple to take steps to address what they say is a growing problem of young people getting addicted to Apple's iPhones, Jana partner Charles Penner said. From a report: Jana, a leading activist shareholder, and CalSTRS, one of the nation's largest public pension plans, delivered a letter to Apple on Saturday asking the company to consider developing software that would allow parents to limit children's phone use, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier on Sunday. Jana and CalSTRS also asked Apple to study the impact of excessive phone use on mental health, according to the publication. Jana and CalSTRS together control about $2 billion worth of Apple shares, the Journal reports.

Comments

What else can they do

[Chrisq]

They already make their phones more expensive than anything a kid should have. What else can they do apart from this public-spirited action ;-)

Re:What else can they do

[Boss, Pointy Haired]

Bury something in the EULA about not being allowed to hand down iPhones to your kids when you upgrade.

Re:What else can they do

[Hal_Porter]

Apple do have a reputation for selling overpriced stuff.

E.g. the replacement for to buy machine with the same Ram (16GB) and half the SSD size(512GB instead of 1024GB) of my 2012 Macbook Pro would cost $1,899.00. Even though the original machine was around $1100 and buying 16GB of Ram and a 1TB SSD from Crucial only cost about $400. So rather than paying $1100 up front to Apple and $400 to a third party when the machine gets a bit slow I need to pay $1900 up front and can't upgrade. That's a hefty price increase. And you can't upgrade the Ram because it's soldered and even the SSD which is socketed is proprietary and only available from Apple. Great.

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy...

Still if you look at iPhones they do do a kids one, the SE

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy...

Oh wait, that's still $349 for the 32GB version

It used to be $399 for the 16GB version but people like CNet complained

https://www.cnet.com/news/ipho...

Now, to be clear, I can think of at least two types of people for whom a 16GB iPhone is a reasonable choice. There are the utilitarian non-shutterbugs: They're getting a smartphone because their flip phone finally bit the dust, and they like the convenience of browsing the Web, reading email and using a few key apps -- Facebook, Google Maps, Candy Crush, Pandora and the like. But they don't care about Instagram, and they don't expect to carry around a few zillion MP3 files.

The second group is anyone with limited or bad credit. If your carrier won't allow you to pay off the phone in 24 monthly installments of $17 to $21, then the 25 percent increase in price from the 16GB to the 64GB model could well be a bridge too far. It's 16GB -- or hello, Android. (And, if you're on such a tight budget, the $12 to $30 a year for a good iCloud backup plan may be out of reach as well.)

Actually kids would have been OK with 16GB. However Apple decided to offer only 32GB, admittedly at a lower price than 16GB used to be or 128GB.

Re:What else can they do

[Hal_Porter]

I guess that means some people have a reputation for buying overpriced stuff. Android is just as guilty as is Apple

Android is an OS Google give away for free. You can buy Android devices from a wide range of manufacturers. macOS/iOS is single sourced which means if you're hooked on their ecosystem you must buy from Apple. And Apple don't make low end devices. E.g. no netbook class machines. I got my Mum a Zenphone 5 for 4000 TWD, ie about $US 135. The cheapest iPhone is ~$350.

Now you may say "But I don't want a cheap machine, they're underpowered". Well good for you. But the problem iOS/macOS users have that Android/Windows/Linux ones do not is that you can't legally run Apple OSs on low end devices because Apple won't sell them.

So once you commit to the Apple ecosystem you're also committing to buying only high end devices and only buying them from Apple.

This is not a problem Android/Windows/Linux users have.

For the same price as a replacement for my Macbook I could either get two comparable Windows machines - e.g. Asus Zenbooks, or one really high end gaming laptop, or about 8 really low end netbook class machines.

But if I want to build iOS apps I need a Mac, and I can only buy from Apple.

Re:What else can they do

[ShanghaiBill]

Bury something in the EULA about not being allowed to hand down iPhones to your kids when you upgrade.

My daughter got a new phone for Christmas, and gave me her old iPhone 6. So that EULA wouldn't affect me.

Re:What else can they do

[rogoshen1]

Sad day when parental responsibility has eroded to the point that benevolent corporations such as Apple are tasked with protecting kids from themselves.

Re: What else can they do

[ShanghaiBill]

That just means you're a bad parent.

Maybe. Or perhaps the moral panic that the world is going to hell because teenagers are using technology to SOCIALIZE is just the predictable result of yet another generation reaching cranky geezerhood.

Meanwhile, until I see some objective evidence that mobile phones are really more harmful than TV or landlines (the targets of previous moral panics), I will decline to micromanage my kids social lives, and let them learn responsibility by making their own decisions.

Re: What else can they do

[dgatwood]

There's actually a lot of objective evidence that people are a lot more mean online than they are in person. There's even a name for this difference—the online disinhibition effect. It should be self-evident, then, that doing most of your socializing online will lead to people not being as nice, and in aggregate, will cause significant societal harm.

This is not to say that parents need to micromanage their kids, but there definitely comes a point at which parents do need to actually parent, by telling their kids to put down the phone and actually talk to other people. That said, I'm not sure how Apple could address that—Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc., sure, but not Apple. The problem isn't the hardware, and thus can't realistically be solved by the hardware, I don't think.

Re:What else can they do

[reboot246]

Amen! What kind of jobs do these kids have that would let them buy their own iPhone? No, they get them from their parents and it's totally the parents' responsibility for limiting the use of the phones. Apple, as much as I hate them, bears no responsibility for raising your children.

Re: What else can they do

[Wycliffe]

That said, I'm not sure how Apple could address that—Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc., sure, but not Apple. The problem isn't the hardware, and thus can't realistically be solved by the hardware, I don't think.

No, not hardware but IOS software would help greatly. Even with MDM, apple phones are almost impossible for third party developers to develop parental controls. Even on android, they have to exploit accessibility options to get something halfway usable but IOS has everything sandboxed so it's practically impossible for a parental app to influence another app. Most parental apps on IOS end up using MDM plus VPN to get a very weak solution.

What apple could do is either develop or create hooks for third party developers to develop software that allows a parent to put reasonable restrictions on a device for instance no more than 20 hours per week of phone use or no more than 2 hours per day of video games.

Re: What else can they do

[ShanghaiBill]

There's actually a lot of objective evidence that people are a lot more mean online than they are in person. There's even a name for this difference—the online disinhibition effect.

The "disinhibition effect" is driven by anonymity. People are "mean" to strangers online. Teenagers spend most of their time socializing with close friends.

It should be self-evident ...

Asserting that something is "self-evident" is very different from providing actual evidence. I have seen no evidence of causative harm from teenagers socializing online, rather than say, watching TV.

Re: What else can they do

[dgatwood]

The "disinhibition effect" is driven by anonymity. People are "mean" to strangers online. Teenagers spend most of their time socializing with close friends.

No, read that article again. Anonymity is just one of several factors that contributes to the effect, and it occurs even without anonymity. It turns out that actually seeing the look on someone's face when you hurt his/her feelings results in a lot more empathy than a text message sent ten minutes later, and not seeing that person in the flesh until the next day.

Asserting that something is "self-evident" is very different from providing actual evidence. I have seen no evidence of causative harm from teenagers socializing online, rather than say, watching TV.

You aren't paying attention, then. Studies have shown that teenagers today are significantly more narcissistic, on average than twenty or thirty years ago. This may or may not be visible by looking at specific individuals in isolation, but in aggregate, the effect is very real and well documented. And that's precisely the effect that one would expect from a loss of empathy, which is precisely the effect that one would predict from people socializing online too much and in person too little. I mean, this isn't absolute proof, but it is about as close as you can get without a randomly selected control group.

Re: What else can they do

[ShanghaiBill]

Studies have shown that teenagers today are significantly more narcissistic.

This was not a study of behavior, but a survey of self-reported "feelings". Another way to interpret the data is that "teenagers today are more honest about themselves".

Re:What else can they do

[mjwx]

They already make their phones more expensive than anything a kid should have. What else can they do apart from this public-spirited action ;-)

No they dont.

Iphones are not priced to be exclusive in the slightest. They're like the Toyota Camry of phones, white, boring, old tech and so common even someone on benefits can get a contract for one.

Parent's aren't paying £1000 a pop for one, they're paying £75 a month over 24 months for one (that's with a family discount).

You cant really get more average and peasant than an Iphone these days.

Re:What else can they do

[david_thornley]

E.g. the replacement for to buy machine with the same Ram (16GB) and half the SSD size(512GB instead of 1024GB) of my 2012 Macbook Pro would cost $1,899.00.

Which is why, if you value your computers for raw power, you don't buy Apple. An Apple computer has other advantages. The customer service is the best I've seen. It's the only way to reliably run Mac OSX, in case you wanted a user-friendly Unix. Lots of people like the construction quality. You can get always get raw power cheaper.

Re: What else can they do

[lsatenstein]

That just means you're a bad parent.

Maybe. Or perhaps the moral panic that the world is going to hell because teenagers are using technology to SOCIALIZE is just the predictable result of yet another generation reaching cranky geezerhood.

Meanwhile, until I see some objective evidence that mobile phones are really more harmful than TV or landlines (the targets of previous moral panics), I will decline to micromanage my kids social lives, and let them learn responsibility by making their own decisions.

Its worse. The cellphone-addiction problem means that kids do no sports, have problems with learning, and have reduced family bonding. Parents, Grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins are last place, compared internet friends. I see a full lack of social skills and responsibilities.

Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[erapert]

Let me get this straight: some super rich people are looking around and decide that they don't like "how all those young'uns are spending a lot of time on them there phones (that I'm making a lot of money on...). T'ain't right. We gotta get them kids to go out an' play!"
How is it any of their business how other people run their own lives? Why isn't there a counter news article saying "butt out and mind your own business"?

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[DaveV1.0]

"We must signal our virtue by threatening to take our money out of a business that provides a product that some teens and children use to distraction and feel addicted to even though it is the parents' and not the business's fault unless the business does something about this thing that is not their fault or even their problem because they make money for us and have deep pockets!"

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you miss the part where it says "California" in the organization's name?

"some super rich people are looking around and decide that they don't like X" might as well be their state motto.

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[infolation]

The super-rich often school their children in low-tech or anti-tech Waldorf Steiner and Montessori schools. This is especially true of the offsping of the wealthy tech elite.

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[swb]

I think this is right, my question is why? I've run across this more than once with really smart people from public school backgrounds who have made it in technology and decide that their kids should go to some touchy-feely alternative school.

An overly romantic view of education tied to some kind of idyllic liberal fantasy?

A kind of bias that assumes technology is inherently easy (because they succeeded in the tech field)?

Some kind of political bias? Nearly all those kinds of schools are about a half-step from a hippie commune. Around here they only really attract the kind of well off liberal cognoscenti, with the traditional high-end private schools capturing the usual rich and corporate up and comers.

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[sound vision]

There are people who think that kids spending all day on the phone might not be healthy. Some of these people are rich. You did get that part straight.
The part you didn't get straight is when you assumed that someone is telling someone else how to run their life. What's being proposed is for Apple to put software on their phones to facilitate parents who, on their own, make the decision to limit their kids' screen time.

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[gfxguy]

I'm a libertarian and don't see why anyone is complaining about this. OMG! Extra functionality that I wouldn't be required to use! It also doesn't take the place of parenting, it has the potential to make modern parenting easier. Why is that a problem? And if your problem is that you're paying a few extra cents for an iPhone because of "nanny state" software you don't want, then don't buy one - that's exactly the libertarian philosophy about stuff like this anyway.

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[DogDude]

It's not a matter of "rich people don't like kids on their phones". I don't know how you got that from this little article. It sounds to me like a couple of groups are concerned for the health of people addicted to their phones. Take your meds and calm down.

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[DogDude]

What in the fuck are you even talking about? Did you read the article?

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[sound vision]

I'm curious what differentiates these low-tech schools from normal schools. I graduated high school 10 years ago, and we were taught computer skills in computer courses, which would typically take about an hour each day. Things like basic video editing, basic HTML. In our other classes, we'd often have to type up our papers in Word or make a slideshow in PowerPoint to go with our presentation. (After many years of hand-writing those things to get penmanship skills.) Technology was present and utilized, but it wasn't thrown around unnecessarily - no iPad on every desk. Pencil and paper worked fine for your geometry worksheets.

What is it that these low-tech schools do differently?

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[DaveV1.0]

Yes, I did read the article. It is a couple of activist investor groups virtue signalling.

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[DaveV1.0]

Let me be a bit clearer.

This is not a problem with Apple's products. Apple provides a device, one that is very popular as a way to signal affluence and hipness, which is why a lot of kids want an Apple device. But, they only make up 35% or so of the market. The real problem is the services and the parents. But, the groups who are doing this are taking aim at Apple instead of the services because Apple is high profile and something they have stock in right now. They would have to adjust their portfolios to include a large amount of stock in FaceBook, Twitter, etc. in order to address the actual problem and they don't.

If they actually cared about the problem, they would have researched the issue and then applied pressure where it would do the most good. Instead, they applied the pressure where it would get the most eyeballs. In all reality, they are not doing anything about the problem, they are just putting on a show to signal how deeply caring they are about children while not actually doing what it would take to fix the problem. It is like praying for the victims of a disaster and not actually sending aid.

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[DogDude]

If they actually cared about the problem, they would have researched the issue and then applied pressure where it would do the most good. Instead, they applied the pressure where it would get the most eyeballs. In all reality, they are not doing anything about the problem, they are just putting on a show to signal how deeply caring they are about children while not actually doing what it would take to fix the problem. It is like praying for the victims of a disaster and not actually sending aid.

What the fuck are you talking about? The owners of a company are trying to change the company. What else are they supposed to do?

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[DaveV1.0]

If you had actually read my comment you would have seen this:

This is not a problem with Apple's products. Apple provides a device, one that is very popular as a way to signal affluence and hipness, which is why a lot of kids want an Apple device. But, they only make up 35% or so of the market. The real problem is the services and the parents.

The problem is not with the company. Apple doesn't give away iPhones. Apple doesn't own or control SnapChat, Twitter, FaceBook, Instagram, or any of the other services. Apple doesn't even make most of the apps available on it's phones, Demanding Apple do something about something it does not control is not just futile, it shows either a basic misunderstanding of the issue or, much more likely, not actually caring about the problem and just wanting attention and eyeballs.

Again, the problem is not with Apple nor it's products. Changing Apple WON'T fix the problem.

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[DaveV1.0]

Maybe analogies will help:

"Kids are addicted to using third party services/websites on their phones. Apple should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to watching reality shows on TV. Samsung should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to watching sports on TV. Samsung should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to watching movies on HBO. Comcast should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to watching porn on the internet. Dell should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to looking at people waving signs on the street while driving. GM should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to eating junk food. Cattle farmers should do something about that"
"Kids are addicted to playing video games on Play Station. Sony should do something about that"

Re:Hypocrites. Mind your own business.

[Medievalist]

Wait, what? "anti-tech Montessori schools?" You guys have those?

Here on the East coast we only have the regular kind of Montessori schools, that give kids an early jump on techie stuff like physics and numbers.

They Have Been

[Luthair]

They do their damnedest to ensure people use their phones as much as possible.

Re:wrong target

[cayenne8]

And why do parents need help in cutting their own childrens' phone usage?

What happened to the good old "Turn the damned phone off"....or even better..."Give me that phone".

No need for Apple to get involved there.

Hell, why would parents buy children (less than teens at least) a phone in the first place?

The need a new app.

[nospam007]

The iParent app.

Re:wrong target

[DaveV1.0]

And why do parents need help in cutting their own childrens' phone usage?

What happened to the good old "Turn the damned phone off"....or even better..."Give me that phone".

No need for Apple to get involved there.

Because mommy and daddy want to be their kids' friends and don't want to traumatize the kids by actually parenting.

Hell, why would parents buy children (less than teens at least) a phone in the first place?

Because it is a lot easier to let the phone entertain the kids instead of actually parenting.

You can be Addicted to anything.

[foxalopex]

I think these investors are missing the point. You can be addicted to *anything*. But something that they've long pointed out is many addictions are the result of some other gap or need that is missing in life. I often get the impression that online a lot of folks are quite literally lonely. As much as you can make do with a virtual social life, I suspect having a real social life is a part of being human. So parents throwing their kids a near $1000 phone because they don't have time to deal with them is not really making the situation better. Instead encourage your kids to be with other kids in person and better yet take a more active approach to the community you belong to.

Re:You can be Addicted to anything.

[lucasnate1]

It coudl also be the opposite way. What if what humans need is just something to occupy them? In the past we had to settle for a social life to do that, and had to be nice to shitty people and tolerate opinions differing from our own. Now that we have personal mother boxes, we no longer need the crutch of social life to stave off boredom.

Re:You can be Addicted to anything.

[gfxguy]

I'd mod you up, but have already posted in this thread. I'm not against giving kids phones (although there's a limit... I'm not talking about 5 and 6 year old kids - maybe double digits or older), but it's been shown that "online" socialization actually makes people more lonely and distanced from actual meat-space social life.

But while you can be addicted to anything, some things are more addicting than others. The gratification of ever increasing number of online "friends" and "thumbs ups" to posts feeds a cycle that encourages even more online socializing, which necessarily starts taking time away from other things.

Re:You can be Addicted to anything.

[gfxguy]

Idle hands are the devils playground.... but what if people are now not doing fruitful things they would otherwise have been doing? Creating works of art, reading, writing, getting exercise and developing meat space social skills? That is a problem that will rear it's ugly head in the future, IMO.

Re:You can be Addicted to anything.

[lucasnate1]

Why is it a problem?

Re:You can be Addicted to anything.

[gfxguy]

Well, I did add "IMO." In my opinion, when people stop creating works of art, when they stop exercising and stop interacting socially in person, it's a problem. Have you seen the movie "surrogate?" I didn't think it was very prescient at the time.

Heard this one before

[zifn4b]

Oh think of the children! We should:

- Address profanity in music by censorship (Tipper Gore)
- Address video game addiction (think World of Warcraft)
- Address violence in video games because it's causing crime to increase
- And now... TADA! Phone addiction

These so-called "values groups" do the same thing every now and then. They claim X is going to ruin society and some overarching entity needs to intervene and forcefully make people "behave appropriately".

This claim has been made again and again and again and every prediction of society turning into a bunch of lazy, dangerous degenerates proves to be false because it's not supported by any evidence. Get off your high horse and worry about yourself instead of thinking yourself superior and others being too stupid to think for themselves thus needing you to think for them.

Re:Heard this one before

[PoopJuggler]

Can you cite where in TFA they claim iPhones are turning kids "into a bunch of lazy, dangerous degenerates" ?
You can't, because it doesn't. All they're saying is that the phones should have better parental controls, which is a perfectly reasonable thing.

Re:Heard this one before

[ljw1004]

Get off your high horse and worry about yourself instead of thinking yourself superior and others being too stupid to think for themselves thus needing you to think for them.

The people are asking for Apple to provide "parental-control" software so that parents can, well, parent.

I give my four-year-old daughter an iPad to use for half an hour a day because I think that Sesame Street, Mr Rogers and a few games are a good way to grow up. I think that "having an adult always hovering over her shoulder" is a bad way for her to grow up, and creates bad expectations on her part. Nevertheless it's the only way I have to stop her delving into iPad stuff that she shouldn't.

I decided to switch to Amazon's Kindle Fire for Kids for my younger children. This has its own different set of problems. It has a Kid Mode called "FreeTime Unlimited" which thinks the best thing for 2-4 year old kids is hand them complete unfettered access to 9000 curated streamable titles and cross-advertising. I think this is also a bad way for them to grow up at this stage (with reference e.g. to "The Paradox of Choice"). Amazon let me hand-curate this list down to just the four videos/apps/books I want them able to consume, but only by manually blacklisting the remaining 8996 items. It took about four hours to achieve to achieve this and required a factory reset because apparently they don't expect people to use the device this way and Amazon's software couldn't handle it right. You can't accuse me of being lazy! :)

Either way, I think the market is still way open for better parental-control software. There's "Disney Circle" which has signature Apple-style friendliness for managing internet connected stuff. But there's nothing that yet nails it for younger kids or downloaded software.

Re:Heard this one before

[fluffernutter]

You can only restrict some applications that come with the phone. There is no way to restrict instagram and snapshat specifically while allowing a third party alarm clock app or organizer app. Also this seems to have to be locked or unlocked from the phone directly. It's a weak effort by Apple so they can say they did *something* while probably not being of much use to most people.

Re:Heard this one before

[houghi]

If what they claim is valid or not I do not know.

There is however a difference between addiction and censorship.Music and violence is censorship. When pointed to kids, we already have censorship. In some places they are not allowed to hear bad words or to see female nipples.

Addiction is a different thing. People are warned about the issues with cigarettes and other addictive things are either regulated, age restricted or both or forbidden.

When it comes to addiction, I could see that there are several things that could be done.
1) Age restriction
2) Warnings
3) Combination of both.

The question obviously is if it is indeed addictive or not. The next thing is if you treat addiction as an illness or not. In the US the answert is no for many things. "Just stop it" seems to be the general idea on treatment.

Re:Heard this one before

[Zorro]

WOW and Profane Lyrics never caused anyone to die.

Cell Phone Addiction causes car crashes and pedestrians to walk out in to traffic.

Re:Heard this one before

[gfxguy]

The only comparable thing in your list is game addiction - and really, what is the problem with allowing a parent to set limits to the amount of time one of their own children can play games or use a phone? And if that's actually acceptable to you - you know, actually allowing a parent to parent - then what is the problem with giving them a technological tool to make it easier?

Re:Heard this one before

[sound vision]

You seem to be confused about what's being proposed here, because "forceful intervention" doesn't describe any part of it. What's proposed is for Apple to develop software that lets parents who have chosen of their own volition to limit their own kids' screen time, to do so. The people proposing this are Apple shareholders - part-owners of the company.

Re:Heard this one before

[ljw1004]

You can only restrict some applications that come with the phone. There is no way to restrict instagram and snapshat specifically while allowing a third party alarm clock app or organizer app.

??? Sure you can, and existing products already do something roughly similar...

Amazon's FreeTime works on a whitelist basis. As a parent, I specifically chose to allow which of the installed apps my children can use.

Amazon's FreeTime Unlimited, a bit like Amazon Prime Video, provides access to 9000+ videos, apps and books. They are curated and assigned an age-appropriate level. As a parent, I can specifically chose to let only material appropriate for 2-4 year olds be available on my Kindle Fire. The curation also indicates whether a given item is education or entertainment. As a parent I can have the software allow 30 minutes entertainment a day and that only after 30 minutes education. It also curates youtube videos, so as a parent you can let your child browse just an Amazon-curated subset of youtube.

Disney's Circle works at the wifi level via ARP spoofing (for folks whose routers aren't as configurable or friendly to configure). It lets you specify, for instance, which social media sites are allowed to be served to which MAC address and which aren't, or at what times of day. Yes it can certainly limit snapchat and instagram without limiting BBC News.

Apple's Guided Access sort of works with i-devices in more limited ways, but kids by their early teenage years pretty soon learn to disable it by powering off the device and then powering it back on again. And then social-engineering the passcode out of their parents.

That was just the technical answer to your comment. On a parenting philosophy level, I'm following an approach called "RIE" promoted by Janet Lansbury. It stresses that it's important to respect your children (e.g. give them freedom in their playtime to make their own autonomous choices), but always give them the solidity of knowing there are boundaries (e.g. it's in their nature to ask for more than what they should have, and it ultimately reassures them when they can't get it). I've so far found that a whitelist like I use with Amazon's Kindle works best for this, in hand with me setting time limits. It's certainly better than hovering over their shoulder all the time -- that would take away their autonomy at a time when they should be developing it, and I'm not the helicopter parent either at the playground or at home.

On another parenting philosophy note, after reading stuff about "The Paradox of Choice", I believe it's bad parenting to give kids huge unlimited choice. So they get the autonomous choice to use their device for only 4 things that I think are age-appropriate and formative right now... at the moment, Sesame Street, Mr Rogers, videos of their grandparents from the other side of the world reading stories to them, and The Snowman (soon to be replaced by Kipper The Dog). And one game, "Peekaboo Barn".

Re:Heard this one before

[fluffernutter]

I'm not clear on how Amazon FreeTime is used or how it relates to Apple devices. I tried searching on it and found a lot of Amazon advertisements but no real information on how it would be used on an iPhone or Android phone.

Re:Heard this one before

[ljw1004]

I'm not clear on how Amazon FreeTime is used or how it relates to Apple devices. I tried searching on it and found a lot of Amazon advertisements but no real information on how it would be used on an iPhone or Android phone.

FreeTime doesn't exist for Apple devices. There have been lots of requests to Amazon for this, but so far complete silence.

It is available for Android devices. You install it from the app store. I'm not an Android expert, but as far as I understand, (1) the Android OS provides the necessary hooks/APIs for restricting access, (2) the Android OS also provides app-specific APIs that each individual app author can use to expose or hide bits of the app. Amazon's FreeTime app provides a user-friendly control panel to control those things. I assume that folks are asking for Apple to provide both. https://forums.developer.amazo...

Think of FreeTime as a customised restricted profile: https://developer.android.com/...

In addition to that, a few other things are disabled (mobile ads, in-app purchasing, browsing the web, opening settings, social networks, etc.) Please look through this high level overview: https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UT...

Also check this FAQ with regards to app submissions: https://developer.amazon.com/a...

Re:Heard this one before

[tlhIngan]

You can only restrict some applications that come with the phone. There is no way to restrict instagram and snapshat specifically while allowing a third party alarm clock app or organizer app. Also this seems to have to be locked or unlocked from the phone directly. It's a weak effort by Apple so they can say they did *something* while probably not being of much use to most people.

Sure you can. Instagram and Snapchat are 18+ apps because none of those censor their content, and thus cannot guarantee that the content they show will be suitable for kids.

Third party alarm clocks and organizers (especially ones that don't sync to social media) have no such problem and can be rated at lower ages.

Apple's parental controls can prohibit access to inappropriate apps.

Now, I suppose you could ask Apple to add support for time limits and such - so if you want your kid to only use snapchat for 30 minutes a day, you could. Problem is now it's going to be tedious to configure limits on all the apps...

Re:Heard this one before

[fluffernutter]

I'm still not clear on why I have to go to Amazon for this and not the phone's vendor. Using a proprietary app to lock down a child's device could be like robbing peter to pay paul; sure they won't go to Instagram any more but they will see 'Amazon' advertising all over the place.

If this is something I can install on my kid's phone that will block their access to Instagram when I want it blocked and they don't have to see anything 'Amazon' I will use it. When I look at the link for this on Amazon it seems like a full Amazon store and that's not what I want either.

Re:Heard this one before

[fluffernutter]

I just want to be able to pick what apps I limit, by individual app. It really isn't that complicated.

Re:Heard this one before

[ljw1004]

I'm still not clear on why I have to go to Amazon for this and not the phone's vendor. Using a proprietary app to lock down a child's device could be like robbing peter to pay paul; sure they won't go to Instagram any more but they will see 'Amazon' advertising all over the place. If this is something I can install on my kid's phone that will block their access to Instagram when I want it blocked and they don't have to see anything 'Amazon' I will use it. When I look at the link for this on Amazon it seems like a full Amazon store and that's not what I want either.

I agree with you. Amazon's heart and soul is in advertising. Also, Disney's "Circle" offering is all about cross-advertising too (e.g. its 404 page says "Sorry, that website is blocked; do you want to go to this Disney content instead? or this Disney instagram account?")

I would much rather trust Apple than anyone else, given Apple's better-than-anyone-else track record for respecting privacy. If Apple did decide to enter the "Parental Controls" market in earnest, I'd buy their products in a heartbeat, even if it means buying expensive iPad Minis rather than $50 Amazon Fire tablets.

Re:Heard this one before

[zifn4b]

All they're saying is that the phones should have better parental controls, which is a perfectly reasonable thing.

They said "Phones are addictive" therefore "Parental Controls". Give parents Parental Controls and let them decide what to do with it. You, the phone manufacturer, are not the fucking parent!

Re:Heard this one before

[zifn4b]

The people are asking for Apple to provide "parental-control" software so that parents can, well, parent.

I get that and that's fine. But don't spew your propaganda that "phones are addictive". That's not your place to make that claim. Make the phones, write the software, but don't preach. Let me be the parent of my own kid. I don't need you to think for me. If I want to use a tool for parenting, I will. If I don't think it's necessary, I won't use it. My kids, my choice.

More of the same.

[Hylandr]

Another article that bleats about the evils, the dangers, the perils of kids addicted to the latest X technology that is ruining society, making people anti-social, homicidal maniacs incapable of holding a job.

Fuck, Slashdot has joined the media-hoard and they aren't even bothering to hide it anymore.

Re:More of the same.

[DaveV1.0]

Actually, the article is about how two groups of investors are bleating about the dangers of technology X and how kids get addicted to it and so are threatening pull their investment capital from a tech company. In this instance, Slashdot is simply reporting on what OTHER PEOPLE are doing and saying.

Re:More of the same.

[Hylandr]

A clever redirect but the same bleating nonetheless.

My statement remains.

Re:More of the same.

[Ultra64]

Yes, your statement remains wrong.

Re:More of the same.

[Hylandr]

Wishful thinking won't make it wrong.

Re:wrong target

[grub]

I have a phone addiction (according to my wife, at least), and I only have Android. How is this Apple's problem?

It's not. Apple is an easy target because they're the sole source for iPhones and iOS.

Re:wrong target

[Anonymous Coward]

I always find it interesting that it is always APPLEs fault when anything related to a smart phone appears in the news. Apple doesn't have the largest market share, so why go after them? Go after the Google phone makers. That is where the majority of the problem is.

Oh, right those companies don't have an easy to remember name for their widely dispersed family of smart phones, iPhone is easy to type and everyone knows that the fark those are.

Re:Where are the parents?

[DaveV1.0]

They are busy playing CandyCrush on their phones.

Huh?

[thegarbz]

We don't like return on investment says two major investors.

Problem? What problem? I don't see a problem.

[geekmux]

When everyone involved is in fact addicted, no one sees an addiction problem.

There are no caffeine addicts, the masses are merely supporting the coffee industry.

There are no narcissists or attention whores, the masses are merely very interactive on Social Media.

The more a problem becomes the norm, the less it is viewed as a problem.

As far as a greedy investor worried about stock price? Hold up a mirror if you're wondering where to get started on your ethical cleansing mission.

I think there's something to this

[ErichTheRed]

I have a 7 year old and 4 year old. They have devices (not phones) but we don't let them use them forever. This is definitely an issue though...if we didn't limit what they did on these devices they would be on them to the exclusion of everything else. I can definitely see how smart devices are more addicting that TV or video games were for us. With TV, it's a totally one-way medium and even with the most expensive cable package you can buy there's only so much content available. Video games when most of us were kids are laughably primitive compared to immersive experiences we have today. So parents have to be in control, but it's not entirely a matter of parents being lazy.

Before parents throw stones, or worse, before non-parents throw stones, don't forget that not every family is alike. Some families have serious issues where parents are working 2 jobs, one parent isn't present or is totally checked out, or one or both parents is working an insane amount of hours because that's what their employer expects. And it's not about cost of devices either -- cheap Android tablets or phones are just as addicting as the iPhone X. I live in a reasonably decent neighborhood, and of course I've run into the zombie moms who are either addicted to their own smartphones or want to shut the kids up so mommy can have her wine or painkillers in peace. But, there is something to be said about instant access to all the content in the entire world hitting the same endorphin receptors that other addictive substances do.

Re:I think there's something to this

[fluffernutter]

There needs to be better ways for parents to limit *what* they can do on a device at any given time of the day. Being able to specifically lock down Instagram unless all homework and chores are done would be most welcome.

Re:I think there's something to this

[cascadingstylesheet]

There needs to be better ways for parents to limit *what* they can do on a device at any given time of the day. Being able to specifically lock down Instagram unless all homework and chores are done would be most welcome.

Exactly. It gets tiresome listening to the usual /. parenting experts (generally childless dudes living in Mom's basement) rant about "parents not doing their job".

It's nice to have some good tools with which to do the job.

It's not like these keyboard warriors generally support the "ok, no phones for the kids at all then" solution. But that's the only solution if there are no parental controls or limited functionality phones.

Re:I think there's something to this

[Nidi62]

There needs to be better ways for parents to limit *what* they can do on a device at any given time of the day. Being able to specifically lock down Instagram unless all homework and chores are done would be most welcome.

I think that's called "putting the phone in a drawer and not taking it out until the child finishes their homework".

Re:I think there's something to this

[fluffernutter]

Then you run into a situation where you're going out and you want them to have their phone in some capacity so you can reach them. Or is everyone expected to keep a landline so they can reach their kids when their phones are taken away? Generally there should be no need for a landline if everyone has a mobile phone.

Re:I think there's something to this

[Nidi62]

Then you run into a situation where you're going out and you want them to have their phone in some capacity so you can reach them.

So...your children are old enough, mature enough, and trusted enough to be left home alone but not old enough, mature enough, and trusted enough to use a phone responsibly?

Re:I think there's something to this

[fluffernutter]

Clearly you don't have teenagers. That's pretty much the definition of one. Nor are you fully appreciating how addicted these kids become to their phones or what addiction really means.

Re:I think there's something to this

[fluffernutter]

They aren't being called addictive because kids use them a lot. They are addictive because kids can't stop using them once they start. My kids can pause a TV show or movie and walk away, but once they are on their phones it is almost impossible to divert their attention.

Re:I think there's something to this

[david_thornley]

I raised a teenager. By the time we'd trust him home alone, we trusted him not to do too many inappropriate things. He turned out just fine.

There *is* a need

[cascadingstylesheet]

There is a need - or if you prefer, a market - for phones with limited capabilities, parental controls, etc.

It's been a few years since I looked, but this market was not being served well (or barely being served at all) when I did look.

Re:There *is* a need

[Nidi62]

There is a need - or if you prefer, a market - for phones with limited capabilities....

They have these phones with limited capabilities called flip phones, but I think buying one for a child is considered grounds for calling Child Services in some states these days.

At least the call is from the right place...

[Timothy2.0]

At least the call is being made by Apple's own investors. That will have a much larger impact on corporate policy than if it were just "the people" griping about it.

"engagement"

[jbmartin6]

Given how much effort the various platforms (ad and social) put into researching how to maintain and develop 'engagement' it isn't any surprise that younger minds would be susceptible before they have a chance to develop defense mechanisms.

"Apple Should Address Youth Phone Addiction"

[tsqr]

Well, they are addressing it, the same way the Mexican drug cartels are addressing cocaine addiction: by assuring a steady supply.

Is an application addiction, not a phone addiction

[schwit1]

People are addicted to their social media apps, not the hardware.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

ffs

[Austerity Empowers]

You have to be kidding me. Invent a problem that isn't real, just some bullshit some lunatics invented up, assign it to most successful provider of hardware (but definitely not sole, or even largest stakeholder), make an article.

Slashdot needs to stop feeding the trolls.

I am a parent, I limit my children's phone/pad/tv/computer use based on what I want from them academically (I don't give two shits about 'social', obviously). That's nobody else's job and I don't want "help" or even opinions.

Re:ffs

[Austerity Empowers]

Jana Partners and the California State Teachers' Retirement System are the shareholder groups who are proposing the changes in the company they own. Reuters wrote an article about it. You seem to think there's some backroom dealing between those parties for page views or something... and you rail against "bullshit some lunatics invented up" in the same sentence. Wow.

Any jackass with a marketing department can get stuff on reuters, they're not exactly selective. It would have died there if slashdot had left stupid alone. And yes, I absolutely suspect /. posts these sorts of stories with financial consideration. At face value this is a worthless article that doesn't deserve attention, and I question even the motivation for these "investors" to bring the point up.

I come to slashdot because I do not want to sift through all the pure shit that accumulates on Reuters, CNN, abc, washpo, huffpo, etc. We're supposed to be selecting stories we see there that are relevant to the interests of nerds, being careful not to feed the damned trolls. If we post everything some jackass wants to do that might affect us, we are only helping them.

Regarding your own kids - even if Apple does add these features to iOS, nobody is going to force you to use them.

Nobody should want this, and definitely nobody should get it. Police your own children, do not try to randomly saddle one corporation with your brain-dead activist burdens. If you can't put forth the work, then why should anyone else? Further, if the majority of us agree this is stupid, and I think that would be the case, then most people would not use this even if much money was spent to get it done. You've created an undue burden on one company in particular, forcing them to waste money. You can't even argue you are being a responsible shareholder.

At 3B ownership in the company (.3%), their investment is trivial and probably disingenuous. Stuff like this shouldn't be given any support without significant unfinanced grassroots support. Such as when these OS "stores" were letting kids rack up huge bills on their parents without parental authorization: THAT was a genuine problem, it just happened to be easy to hold Google & Apple's feet to the fire by threatening to not let their kids use these devices at all.

This shit doesn't belong here, it's not alone, but it's one of the worst I've seen in a while.

Re:wrong target

[fluffernutter]

You're right of course, ultimately this is the job of a parent. However, I can think of a lot of features that could be added to mobile OSes to allow the kids to have access to their phones without having access to the time and attention sucking applications on their phones. As an example case, phone gets taken away and then they want to go for a bike ride outside. Well, I want them to have their phone on them if they are doing that! There should be a way to access the phone features while locking down access to apps. Another example, we can't seem to find a standalone alarm clock that is loud enough to wake my kids up. I would love for them to just be able to use an alarm app on their phones but if we give them their phones at night they'll be up late on them.

I've found some third party apps that kind of do things like this but a lot are expensive, some you even have to pay for on a monthly basis. It could be built into the OS.

Addicted to everything...

[The Grim Reefer]

Why is there supposedly addiction to everything these days?

Back when the internet wasn't ubiquitous, I remember people bitching about internet addiction. Now it's called everyday life.

Video game addiction was another one. But now that everyone is playing goat farmer (or whatever) on their phone, no one cares.

One of my favorites is "sex addiction". You have to be really rich to get that one though. If you're not rich you're just a cheating scumbag. But don't confuse this with "love addiction"

Then to keep a balance, there's food addiction and exercise addiction.

Re:Addicted to everything...

[fluffernutter]

Because with video games and greater technology came a market that is catering to kids. Let's face it they are a juicy target because psychologically a kid doesn't have full impulse control yet. When I was a kid there was no way to bring a video game to school and if you had one of those hand held ones it was likely to be taken away. We can't even prohibit our kid from taking a phone to school because of all the teachers that ask their students to use them for in class research. There almost needs to be a 'school time mode' and a 'play time mode' in the OS.

Re:Addicted to everything...

[sound vision]

It's because addiction can take many forms. There are many ways to trigger addiction-facilitating responses in the brain, without the use of drugs. The fact that some people use addiction as an excuse to absolve them of their bad decisions has zero bearing on that.

You also seem to be confusing "nobody cares" with "there's no problem". But the fact is there are plenty of people who care. The science regarding phone/social media addiction is still in its infancy since it's not an issue our society has dealt with for very long at all. But there have already been studies linking, for example, screen time and suicide rates.

Re:Addicted to everything...

[david_thornley]

A phone is really inconvenient to do research on. If I have to do serious research, I'll use my laptop. Moreover, what sort of school expects every student to be carrying a smartphone? (The high school my son went to had a no-phones policy, which was of course a no-visible-phones policy, and that seemed to work well.) If that's what the school your kids go to does, I'd suggest getting involved in whatever parental advisory board they have and complaining loudly.

Re:wrong target

[fluffernutter]

Let's face it, iOS is basically an OS geared towards children.

Good idea ...

[CaptainDork]

... like the War On Drugs and how successful that's been and stuff.

We could also borrow from the War On Tobacco, you know, the whack-a-mole template.

How about modeling after The War On Alcohol like we did from 1920 to 1933 and just pull the phones and have speakeasies where you tell them Vinnie sent you?

The goddam 'problem' isn't the supply, it's the fucking demand. © 2018 CaptainDork

\o/

[easyTree]

Maybe a warning on the box, iPwn addiction causes cancer? It worked pretty well for cigarettes.

Re:wrong target

[RedShoeRider]

" Another example, we can't seem to find a standalone alarm clock that is loud enough to wake my kids up."

https://www.sonicalert.com/Son...

You don't even need the volume on. The bedshaker alone is more than enough.

Re:wrong target

[gfxguy]

No, no "need" for Apple to get involved, but it would just be another tool a parent had available. It's not like a nanny state solution where you have no choice, it's just another thing available to help parents. I don't see why this is a big story, or why people would be against having another optional tool available.

Re:wrong target

[gfxguy]

I agree - I knew there'd be a bunch of people complaining about a company adding optional functionality that helps a parent (IOW, doesn't take over the job of parenting, just helps). It's just silly to complain about it. I had a great method - as long as my kids were involved in some sort of physical activity, and their grades were good, the only restriction was the phone gets left downstairs in the kitchen to charge overnight. They need to put it there themselves by bedtime, or they lose it the next day. But I can't see complaining about some added functionality that might let me, for example, limit facebook time to X hours a day.

Re:wrong target

[gfxguy]

Are they saying it's Apple's fault? Or are they saying there is a problem that Apple can address?

Re:Parents = Problem

[gfxguy]

I agree, I'd never give an 8 year old a phone - they actually have tablets geared for kids if I thought they needed some tech to watch Thomas the Tank Engine on a 10 inch screen instead of watching it on TV. But what about my 15 year old?

Re:wrong target

[fluffernutter]

Changing the sim card at least twice a day for each child isn't going to work. Too labor intensive and I wouldn't be surprised if the little clips that hold them in would wear if you tried that. I originally did do the firewall blocking thing but it became onerous to manage mac addresses manually for all the devices and plus manual starts and stops because of special situations. Again, in my router it is something that seems to have been given minimal effort so they could say it was 'a feature' but when you actually try to use it, it isn't very realistic. For example in my asus router I can only set the schedule to change state on an even hour boundary.

Re:wrong target

[ShanghaiBill]

What happened to the good old "Turn the damned phone off"....or even better..."Give me that phone".

Or even better "Show me some objective evidence that phone use is actually harmful".

In the meantime, I will let my kids make their own decisions.

Hell, why would parents buy children (less than teens at least) a phone in the first place?

My daughter has had a phone since she was 8 (3rd grade). It is not just a matter of convenience, but also of safety. If she gets lost or is in a bad situation, she can call for me for help, or dial 911.

I have seen no evidence that having a phone is harmful to kids in any way. The moral panic about "excessive texting" just means another generation is reaching cranky geezerhood and thinks "the world is going to hell".

Re: wrong target

[cayenne8]

Because of social reasons? Same reason why parental controls on consoles exist.

Funny...I had a VERY social life before there were such things as cell phones (much less smart phones) and consoles.

I think I'd rather my kids work more on socializing skills that required actual human interaction.

Re:wrong target

[cayenne8]

Or because giving the 12 y/o a locked down phone that I can use to find her in an emergency is a way for me to start to give the kid some freedom.

Hmm....funny, when I was 12yrs, there were no such things as cell phones, and yet, I had FULL roam of my neighborhood and part of the next one to us, no problem.

It is just too much helicopter parenting today that is the problem?

Hell when I was 12, my parents both worked and I stayed home summer days....and I took off in the morning and ran all over the neighborhood to friend's houses, or the neighborhood pool...etc. and didn't generally show back up home till about 4-5pm. I would call from a friends house a couple times a day to maybe check in with mom at her office, but that was about it.

Why can't kids have the same freedom we had as kids before there WERE any cell phones?

Re:wrong target

[Arzaboa]

Parenting isn't setting up a bunch of rules on an OS. Parenting is teaching your kids they shouldn't use the phone after 7pm, showing them how to set the phone to be silent between X and Y, and letting them screw up with the threat of having to learn how to completely lock it down in their parents safe at night if they keep screwing up.

Parenting isn't just setting rules rules about the amount of screen time in a day to use it. Parenting is teaching them how to use the internet responsibly, how to decipher the information they are ingesting, how to know when its click-bait and the like.

--
Doh! - H. Simpson

Re:wrong target

[rogoshen1]

Because of mommy culture and people such as Nancy Grace convincing said mommies that there are pedo's lurking around every single god damn corner.

Re:wrong target

[fluffernutter]

So basically what you're saying is, make my kid live like it's 1998.

Re:wrong target

[Sumus Semper Una]

For that matter, isn't it the apps people are addicted to and not the phone per se? Isn't this like asking LG to step in because you think too many people are addicted to watching reality TV shows on their smart TVs? Or asking Comcast to step in because you feel peoples porn addictions have gotten out of hand?

Re:wrong target

[Wycliffe]

And why do parents need help in cutting their own childrens' phone usage?

What happened to the good old "Turn the damned phone off"....or even better..."Give me that phone".

No need for Apple to get involved there.

Hell, why would parents buy children (less than teens at least) a phone in the first place?

The issue I'm facing as a parent is that a phone/tablet is a multifunction device. They need it for safety to call, they need it to do their homework, they want it for socializing, and they use it for entertainment. Because there are no controls on it for time limits, etc... the only option is the all/nothing that you talk about. I routinely just take their electronics away and/or only let them use them at the table for homework but it would be much easier if there were controls to say allow unlimited use of wikipedia and 10 hours a week for facebook or video games. Then they could see how much time they are using and manage it responsibly without me having to police it constantly.

Parenting? Anyone? Parenting?

[sdinfoserv]

As a parent of 8 children... PARENTS, PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOUR KIDS ARE DOING!
Can not be understated... stay involved. Be an adult, not a "buddy". Say "no" when it's appropriate. Don't be afraid to punish bad behavior. Don't allow yourself to get bullied. It's ok to take away the devices
Bottom line here is legislation can never make up for parenting, or you can't legislate morality. Some things require active involvement.

Re: wrong target

[backslashdot]

Because kids got kidnapped or harmed all the time back then. It didnt happen to you so it seems like it wasnt so bad. Just because you didnt know about it doesnt mean it wasnt happening. The word kidnap wasnt invented recently. In fact it has been happening for centuries, for example people used to get kidnapped and forced to work on board ships.

Re: wrong target

[cayenne8]

Because kids got kidnapped or harmed all the time back then. It didnt happen to you so it seems like it wasnt so bad. Just because you didnt know about it doesnt mean it wasnt happening. The word kidnap wasnt invented recently. In fact it has been happening for centuries, for example people used to get kidnapped and forced to work on board ships.

Well, I'm sure it happened then, but I believe it likely was as RARE of an occurrence as it is today....and not something to worry about that much.

I mean, I was schooled to be cautious and not talk to strangers, etc. I wasn't "stupid" as a 12yr old, I had a sense of what was going on around me, etc.

Re:wrong target

[cayenne8]

So basically what you're saying is, make my kid live like it's 1998.

Well, until they've matured enough, sure, why not?

I mean, many folks lived like this in 1998, and BEFORE there were even cell phones, and go along just fine.

Start parenting

[callahan2211]

Don't allow your kid to have a phone until they are 18.

Re:wrong target

[david_thornley]

It isn't going to provide everything I need, but then no phone OS is going to. It's perfectly adequate for what I want a smartphone for.

Re:wrong target

[david_thornley]

Yup. Back in 1998, lots of people were trying to stomp out any popular teen activity that didn't involve sex or drugs. That hasn't changed.

Re:wrong target

[zentigger]

You, in fact, are part of the problem.

You are asking for technology to solve a job that should be handled as a parent.

By relying on technology to enforce your rules, you are failing to teach your child self-regulation, responsibility and the value of trust.

And seriously: Your kid really needs 2 hours of screen time every day? Teach your kid to read a book, build a model, paint a picture, play a board game, go for a walk, fold laundry, bake some cookies, be creative...