I approached First™ as a parent would: not looking for a flashy way to keep a child busy, but for something that could fit naturally into a short learning moment. This free education app from First Media US is aimed at babies, infants, toddlers, and their families, so its real test is not whether it can entertain an older child for a long session. The better question is whether it gives a very young learner a gentle, manageable activity while an adult stays involved.
My overall impression is that it works best as a shared screen experience rather than a digital babysitter. The age rating is Everyone, and the app has been available since September 2012, which gives it a much longer history than many children’s apps that appear and disappear quickly. It currently sits at version 7.6.2.0, has passed one million installs, and holds an average rating of 3.9 from around eight thousand ratings. Those figures suggest a familiar product with a substantial audience, although they also point to an experience that will not satisfy every family equally.
How First™ feels in everyday family use
The most useful way to think about this app is as a collection of early-learning moments. A parent can open it when a child needs a calm change of activity, when a toddler is beginning to recognize basic ideas, or when an adult wants to sit beside the child and talk through what appears on screen. That last part matters. With very young children, the educational value often comes from naming, pointing, repeating, and asking simple questions, not from leaving the child alone with a device.
I would use it in short sessions rather than treating it like a full lesson. For example, during a busy morning, I might let a toddler explore for a few minutes while I sit nearby, then pause to ask what they saw or heard. On a long wait at a clinic or while traveling, it can provide a familiar activity without requiring a complicated setup. The app is more suitable for these small windows than for a planned preschool curriculum with clear progress targets.
That distinction also explains why the app may feel limited to families with older children. A child who already reads independently, expects challenge, or wants a game with goals and rewards may outgrow the experience quickly. The intended audience is much younger, and the adult’s participation is part of the design in practice, even if the child can interact with the screen alone.
I also appreciate that the app is free to install. That makes it easier to test without committing money first, particularly when every child reacts differently to an educational app. The trade-off is that in-app purchases range from $0.99 to $74.99 per item. I would therefore check the purchase flow before handing over the device, and I would use the operating system’s purchase restrictions on a shared family phone or tablet.
A better routine than simply handing over the device
One practical approach is to choose a small purpose before opening the app. A parent might decide to focus on vocabulary, recognition, listening, or simply a calm transition between activities. Even if the app does not replace a teacher or a structured program, that intention keeps the session from becoming random tapping.
Another useful habit is to stop while the child is still interested. Very young children can become frustrated when an activity goes on too long, and repeated exposure is usually more valuable than one extended session. I would rather return to a familiar activity on another day than push a toddler through a long stretch of screen time.
The strongest hidden advantage is the conversation around the content. A parent can connect what appears in the app with objects in the room, sounds outside, or a picture book. That turns a digital prompt into a real-world exercise. For instance, after encountering a color or object on screen, the adult can ask the child to find something similar nearby. This takes more effort than passive viewing, but it is where the app becomes more meaningful.
What the long development history tells me
First Media US released the app in 2012, and the current version is 7.6.2.0. I see that history as evidence of continued maintenance rather than proof that every part of the experience is modern. An app that remains available for many years can become a dependable option for families, but it may also carry design choices from different periods of mobile software.
For existing users, a current version can be reassuring because compatibility and basic access matter more than novelty in a family app. Parents do not usually want to rebuild a child’s routine every few months. At the same time, a version number alone does not tell me that the learning approach has been transformed. I would judge updates by how smoothly the app runs on the family’s device and whether the activities still feel comfortable for the child, not by the number attached to the release.
The app’s continued presence also changes how I compare it with newer alternatives. A recently released preschool app might have a cleaner interface or a more obvious progression system, while First™ may appeal to families who prefer something established and straightforward. Neither choice is automatically better. The right fit depends on whether the child needs open-ended early exploration or a more structured sequence.
Where it fits beside books, videos, and preschool platforms
Compared with a picture book, the app offers interaction and immediate visual engagement, but it cannot replace the flexibility of an adult turning pages, skipping ahead, or following a child’s questions. A book also avoids the distractions and purchase considerations that can come with a mobile device. For quiet bedtime learning, I would usually choose a book first.
Compared with children’s video apps, First™ is more appropriate when I want the child to do something rather than only watch. That does not automatically make it more educational, because the result depends on how the child interacts and whether an adult joins in. Video can be easier during a difficult moment, while an interactive app demands more attention from the child and often from the parent.
Compared with subscription-based preschool platforms, this app is easier to try because the download is free and it does not require a full educational commitment at the outset. A larger platform may offer clearer age pathways, broader subject coverage, or stronger parent controls. Families seeking a complete home-learning system should compare those features carefully instead of assuming that a long-running app will provide the same depth.
Its rating of 3.9, based on around eight thousand ratings and roughly one thousand six hundred written reviews, reinforces my balanced view. There is enough public use to make the app worth considering, but the score is not so high that I would recommend it blindly. For a child who enjoys its style, it may become a useful part of the routine. For another child, the same activities may feel repetitive or too simple.
Who is likely to benefit most
I think the best match is a family with a baby, infant, or toddler who wants a low-pressure digital activity and has an adult willing to stay nearby. It can also suit relatives who need a simple shared activity during visits, provided they treat it as a starting point for conversation rather than a replacement for play.
It is less suitable for parents searching for formal assessment. I would not use it as the only way to teach early literacy, numeracy, language, or social skills. Nor would I choose it for a child who needs accessibility options, advanced customization, or a carefully measured learning plan unless I had tested the app personally on that child’s device and with that child’s needs in mind.
Families should also consider the device itself. A large tablet can be easier for a toddler to see and tap than a small phone, but it may be less convenient to carry. A shared phone is handy for travel, yet it creates more risk of accidental purchases or interruptions. Before a first session, I would make sure the device is charged, notifications are minimized, and purchase protections are active.
Remaining friction and realistic limitations
The broad audience is both a strength and a weakness. An app described for babies, infants, toddlers, and families has to serve several developmental stages, but those stages do not have the same needs. What feels pleasantly simple for a baby may seem unchallenging to a preschooler. Parents may need to decide when the child has moved beyond it rather than expecting the app to scale indefinitely.
The free entry point is helpful, but the range of in-app purchase prices means the total experience may depend on what a family chooses to buy. I would not assume that installing the app gives access to every possible part of it. Instead, I would explore the free experience first, identify whether the child actually returns to it, and only then consider spending money.
Another limitation is that screen-based learning can easily become passive if the adult is busy elsewhere. A child may tap through an activity without understanding the idea behind it. That is not a defect unique to this app, but it is especially important with very young users. I would keep sessions short, talk aloud, and follow the child’s reactions rather than measuring success by time spent inside the app.
There is also a difference between familiarity and innovation. The long release history may make First™ feel dependable, but parents who want the newest visual design, detailed progress reports, or a highly gamified experience may prefer a newer alternative. I would not choose this app simply because it has been around for years; I would choose it if its early-learning style matches the child in front of me.
Questions I would settle before installing
Is it genuinely free? Yes, the app is free to download, but optional in-app purchases are available, with individual items priced from $0.99 to $74.99. That makes device purchase controls important in a household where a child can tap without supervision.
What devices can run it? The listed minimum operating system is Android 6.0, so I would check the software version on an older phone or tablet before planning to use it there. On a newer device, I would still test the interface with the intended child, because performance and comfort are not the same thing as basic compatibility.
Is it appropriate for a young child? Its content rating is Everyone, and its stated focus is babies, infants, toddlers, and their families. I would still supervise use, especially for children who are just learning to handle a touchscreen. An age rating describes suitability broadly; it does not replace a parent’s judgment about screen habits or developmental fit.
Can it replace preschool learning? In my view, no. It can support a short activity, reinforce conversation, and add variety to play, but it should sit beside books, physical toys, movement, music, and interaction with adults. If a child needs a planned curriculum or visible learning records, a dedicated preschool platform may be a better primary tool.
Will an older child enjoy it? That depends on the child, but I would expect the strongest fit during the earliest stages of learning. Once a child wants reading practice, problem solving, or more complex goals, I would compare it with apps designed for that next stage rather than forcing this one to do a job it was not built for.
What I would watch as the app continues
For current users, I would pay attention to whether updates continue to make the experience comfortable on newer devices and whether the app remains easy for a parent to guide. In a family product, small improvements can matter: clearer navigation, fewer confusing transitions, and a purchase flow that is easy for adults to understand all contribute to trust.
I would also watch how well the app serves different ages within its stated audience. A strong future direction would be clearer ways for parents to choose an activity that matches a child’s stage without making the interface complicated. That is an expectation, not a promise, so I would evaluate each update by what is actually available rather than assuming that a higher version number means a broader curriculum.
My final recommendation is cautious but positive. First™ is worth trying if you want a free, family-oriented education app for a very young child and you are prepared to participate rather than simply press play. Its established availability, current version, and large install base make it a reasonable candidate for a test run, while the middling average rating and optional purchases are good reasons to keep expectations measured. Use it as one small tool in a wider routine of play and conversation, and it can be useful. If you need deep progression, detailed reporting, or advanced activities for an older learner, I would look elsewhere.
