First™ | Fun Learning For Kids

Analysis by Appcrazy

When I tried First™, I approached it less like a traditional children’s game and more like a shared learning tool for very young children. It is an education app from First Media US, aimed at babies, infants, toddlers, and the families helping them explore. That audience matters, because the best way to use it is not to hand over a phone and walk away. I found it more useful when an adult stayed nearby, talked through what appeared on screen, and treated the app as a starting point for a short activity.

The app is free to install and suitable for Everyone, which makes it easy to consider for a family device. It has been available since September 13, 2012, and the current Android version is 7.6.2.0, requiring Android 6.0 or later. First Media US has built something with a long presence in the children’s education space, and its scale is reflected in more than a million installs. Its average rating is 3.9 from around 8,100 ratings, alongside roughly 1,600 written reviews. Those figures suggest a broadly useful experience, though not one that every family will find equally smooth.

How connectivity changes the learning experience

The most important thing I noticed is that the quality of the experience can depend on what is happening around the app, not only on what a child sees inside it. A parent may open it while waiting at a clinic, during a restaurant break, or on a quiet morning at home. In those moments, a stable connection can make the difference between getting into an activity quickly and spending the child’s attention on loading or retrying.

I would not plan an important distraction around it without checking the app first. Before leaving home, I would open the sections I expect to use and make sure the device is behaving normally. That simple habit reduces the chance of discovering a connection problem when a toddler is already impatient. It also gives me time to decide whether I should bring a book, toy, or downloaded alternative as a backup.

This is especially relevant for families who use mobile data. A child may tap repeatedly when a screen does not respond immediately, and repeated attempts can create unnecessary network activity. I prefer to start one activity, keep the device in the adult’s hands when possible, and avoid switching rapidly between areas. The app works best as a planned part of a routine rather than as an emergency button that must always be ready instantly.

What happens during ordinary mobile use

On a phone, the experience feels most practical for brief sessions. A parent can hold the device while sitting beside a child, or place it where both can see without turning the moment into a long period of passive screen time. The younger the child, the more valuable that shared positioning becomes. I found that talking, pointing, and asking the child to identify or imitate something made the app feel more educational than simply letting the screen run.

Advertisements

A tablet is a more comfortable choice when several family members want to participate. The larger display gives an adult more room to guide a child’s attention, and it is easier for two people to look at the same activity. Even then, I would keep the session focused. Moving from one item to another just because it is available can make the experience noisy rather than useful.

The app is a better fit for short transitions than for replacing a full preschool lesson. I can imagine using it while preparing lunch, waiting for an appointment, or giving a child a calm activity before bedtime. I would be more cautious about using it during travel if the journey depends on uninterrupted access. Connectivity can be unpredictable in cars, trains, airports, and crowded public places, so the app should be one option in a larger travel plan, not the only one.

Take a Look at Our Blog

There is also a practical device question. Young children press unpredictably, and an adult may need to intervene quickly. I recommend setting up the phone before handing it over, lowering distractions from other apps, and keeping the child within reach. This is not a criticism unique to First™; it is simply more important with an app designed for very young users, who are unlikely to understand why a screen has changed or why a connection message has appeared.

Handling interruptions, errors, and recovery

My preferred recovery method is deliberately simple: stop tapping, check whether the device still has a connection, and reopen the activity only once. Rapidly pressing buttons rarely helps a young child, and it can make it harder for an adult to tell whether the problem is temporary or caused by the device itself. If the app does not return promptly, I switch to a non-screen activity instead of turning troubleshooting into part of the child’s session.

This approach matters because the emotional cost of a failure is higher with toddlers than with adults. A small delay can end the activity completely. If I am using the app in a public place, I would rather have a backup ready than promise that the next screen will appear. A board book, a conversation about nearby objects, or a simple counting game can continue even when a signal cannot.

At home, recovery is easier. I can close and reopen the app, move closer to the router if needed, or try again later. I also prefer to test a new section when the child is not watching. That lets me notice whether it starts correctly and prevents the child from associating learning time with repeated waiting. The best workflow is a little preparation before the session, followed by a quick exit when technology becomes the main event.

Parents should also remember that an app update can change how an experience behaves. The current version is 7.6.2.0, so keeping the installation current may be sensible, but I would not update immediately before a trip or an important appointment. I like to update at home, open the app afterward, and confirm that it still fits the way I intend to use it. That is a small step, but it avoids discovering a change at the worst possible time.

Using it without wasting mobile data

Because the app is free to install but includes in-app purchases ranging from $0.99 to $74.99 per item, I would set expectations before giving a child access. A child may not understand that a tap can lead beyond the free experience, and a parent may not notice every on-screen prompt while supervising play. I recommend that the adult explore first, use the device’s purchase protections, and decide which parts belong in the family routine.

I would also avoid treating mobile data as unlimited simply because the app opens quickly. Network activity can be easy to overlook when a child moves between activities. Families with limited data should use the app mainly in places where they are comfortable with the connection, monitor the device’s data usage, and avoid leaving it open for long periods when nobody is actively participating.

There is a useful trade-off here. A connected experience can be convenient because it may let a family access changing or additional material without carrying physical resources. At the same time, that convenience makes planning more important. If I need a guaranteed activity on a flight or in an area with weak reception, I would choose a resource specifically designed for dependable access in that situation rather than assume this app will cover it.

Parents should also think about battery use. A long session with a bright screen and network activity is not ideal when a phone is already low on power. I would charge before leaving, reduce unnecessary screen time, and keep the app as one short activity among several. These habits are not about making the child’s experience rigid; they simply prevent a learning tool from becoming a source of avoidable stress.

Where First™ fits among children’s learning alternatives

Compared with a physical picture book, the app is more interactive and easier to carry, but it depends on a device and may be affected by connectivity. A book has no loading moment, no battery concern, and no accidental purchase path. It also encourages an adult to control the pace naturally. For a quiet bedtime routine or a child who becomes overstimulated by screens, I would choose the book first.

Compared with a general video service, a dedicated education app feels more purposeful. A video can hold attention, but it often encourages watching rather than responding. First™ is more suitable when I want to sit with a child and turn what appears on screen into a conversation. Still, families looking for a tightly structured curriculum, detailed progress tracking, or formal teaching sequences may prefer a specialized learning platform built for older children.

Compared with offline toys, the app offers variety without filling a playroom. That is useful for travel and for families who want a compact activity on a shared device. The compromise is that the device itself becomes part of the learning environment. A child may start asking for the phone rather than the activity, so I would set a clear beginning and ending, then put the device away.

The app is strongest for caregivers who want a flexible prompt for early learning and are willing to participate. It is less convincing for someone searching for an independent digital babysitter. Babies and toddlers need context, repetition, and real-world interaction; no screen can supply all of that by itself. I see the app as a tool that can support those moments, not as a replacement for talking, playing, reading, or exploring physical objects.

Practical routines that make it more useful

One effective routine is to choose a single theme for a short session and connect it to the room around you. If the app presents something related to colors, sounds, objects, or early vocabulary, I would pause and find a matching example nearby. That turns a network-dependent screen activity into a broader exercise that can continue even if the connection fails. The child learns that the phone is pointing toward the real world, not replacing it.

Another useful habit is to let the child lead within a small boundary. I might offer two activities, allow the child to choose, and then stay with that choice rather than opening every available option. This reduces random tapping and makes it easier to notice what holds the child’s attention. It also helps an adult judge whether the material is genuinely engaging or merely colorful.

I would use repetition intentionally. If a child responds well to one activity, repeating it on another day may be more valuable than constantly searching for something new. Young children often learn through familiar patterns, and a parent can add difficulty by asking a different question or connecting the screen to a household task. The app becomes more useful when the adult supplies the progression.

For families with more than one child, I would avoid assuming that the same session suits everyone. A baby may need simple shared attention, while an older toddler may want to tap and answer more actively. Taking turns can work better than placing the device between children and hoping they cooperate. It also makes the app a social activity instead of a competition for control of the screen.

Privacy and purchasing habits deserve the same attention as educational value. I would review the app’s access and purchase behavior on the device, use a parent-controlled account where available, and avoid leaving a payment-enabled screen in a child’s hands. The price range for individual in-app purchases is wide enough that this preparation is worthwhile, especially in a family setting where several people may use the same device.

Who should choose it, and who should skip it

I would recommend First™ to parents, grandparents, and caregivers who want a free starting point for early-learning play and who can stay involved. It makes sense for short shared sessions, mobile moments where a device is already available, and families that enjoy turning digital prompts into conversations and hands-on activities.

I would be more hesitant to recommend it to someone who needs guaranteed access in places with unreliable service, or to a parent who wants a complete lesson plan with measurable academic progression. I would also skip it for a child who becomes frustrated by waiting, switches attention quickly, or is already asking for too much screen time. In those situations, a physical activity or a more deliberately offline resource may be the better choice.

The Everyone age rating makes the app approachable for a broad family audience, but that does not remove the need for supervision. Age suitability and developmental fit are not exactly the same thing. A caregiver still has to decide how long a session should last, whether the material matches the child’s stage, and when the child would benefit more from moving, talking, or handling real objects.

My connectivity verdict

First™ is most successful when I treat connectivity as part of the planning rather than an invisible background detail. I would test it before leaving home, keep sessions short, watch for purchase prompts, and bring a backup for travel or weak-signal locations. Those steps take little effort and make the experience calmer for both adult and child.

What I like is its potential to turn a spare few minutes into a shared learning moment without requiring a large collection of materials. What limits it is the same thing that limits many mobile learning tools: the device, the connection, the battery, and the need for an adult to guide the experience. Its free entry point is appealing, while the optional purchases mean families should establish boundaries before a child explores freely.

My final view is positive but specific. I would keep this app in a family’s rotation as a flexible supplement, especially for caregivers who enjoy participating rather than supervising from a distance. I would not make it the only learning resource or rely on it as a guaranteed offline travel solution. Used with preparation and a real-world follow-up, it can be a pleasant, practical addition to early education.