Review: Baby 2.0

A lot has changed in the 5-plus years since the release of Baby 1.0. We’ve seen massive developments in both input and output language parsing, and the implementation of a self-cleaning function has been a godsend. Baby 1.0 has also reached the point where we can send it out to a development facility for several hours each day.

Since Baby 1.0 we’ve had quite a number of attempts to get hold of a new model, with a distinct lack of success. Thankfully, back on the 12th of August, we acquired a brand new version.

We’ve spent three weeks testing the new model Baby 2.0, and it has been a mixture of surprise and familiarity. The first surprise was the new quality control facility that had been constructed since 1.0. The facility is bright and clean, with much better views than the previous one. Great work to all involved.

The acquisition of Baby 2.0 was much more controlled than 1.0. With 1.0 we had to battle with the production facility for some 30 hours before finally resorting to a manual retrieval. After the failures with 1.1 and 1.2, the experts suggested we pre-book a retrieval for 2.0. We did this, and everything went swimmingly well. The package arrived intact, with all the correct parts. It was a little smaller than 1.0 (3.9kg vs 4.15kg), but equally appealing to look at. We did of course have no opportunity to select between the two main versions, but have ended up with one of each, which is great.

In general, Baby 2.0 has been equivalent to 1.0 in terms of behaviour and usability. The integrated alarm function is still poorly calibrated, waking us up several times a night. It took us several months to debug this function in 1.0, and I’ m hoping we can do the same with 2.0. The new model has a greatly improved ingestion system however, requiring very little help and causing a heck of a lot less pain and anguish than 1.0.

Overall I’m very happy with the acquisition. I couldn’t recommend it highly enough. 5 stars out of 5!

Join the Conversation


  1. I’ve had a Baby 2.0 for about ten months now. I think mine might be a slightly different revision from yours, but I am still unable to sucessfully configure the alarm system.

    What I have noticed especially about Baby 2.0 is how much it’s almost exactly the same as Baby 1.0 in appearance, yet seems to have very different user experience.

    Thanks for your helpful review. Perhaps you can demonstrate Baby 2.0 on your Breakfast slot?

  2. May I suggest as a supplemental to your review of Baby 2.0, you may want to delve into the vast array of third party literature available to those who are struggling with their own Baby acquisitions. I find the lack of first party documentation to be a tremendous oversight by the production process of Baby models, and have found that the third party documentation available is incredibly variable in not only content but in authoritativeness.

    As a future potential owner of Baby models and a former Baby 1.0 myself who was in Child 1.0 when Baby 2.0 and 3.0 hit the scene, I wonder what one requires to make the upgrade from Adult 1.0 to Parent 1.0 … I have been recommended the book “If Your Kid Eats This Book, Everything Will Still Be Okay” by another reviewer I trust, via but I was wondering on your views, as a local reviewer of some repute on such matters.

  3. Moss, that’s a brilliant idea. There was some third party documentation that we used for Baby 1.0 that was really, really good. I can’t recall the title but I’ll look it up.

    You are right about the lack of included documentation. We were told that the user experience was “natural” and “straightforward” but it was far from the truth.

  4. The problem I’ve found with third-party documentation for Baby models is the total lack of uniformity of technique. Almost all of the literature I’ve read suggests different techniques for the same fundamental tasks, often completely contradictory. In fact in many cases I find the advice completely incompatible with our own Baby units (actually to be fair Baby 1.0 has been ungraded to Child 1.0, but the same documentation issues exist with that model).

    Another interesting thing I’ve observed since obtaining Baby 1.0 was the incredible number of people willing to offer unsolicited operating advice, many of whom have never operated a Baby unit themselves, and may have only seen some basic demonstratration videos on television or the internet.

    While throughly satisfied with Baby 1.0 (now a Child 1.0 model) and Baby 2.0… I am not sure we’ll be acquiring any future Baby units. Although I perhaps shouldn’t discount the chance of an impulse purchase at some stage. 🙂

  5. Are you finding any incompatibility between Child 1.0 and Baby 2.0?

    My own versions of Child 1.0 and Baby 2.0 seemed to interact satisfactorily but there do seem to be intermittent compatibility issues with Child 1.0 and Toddler 2.0 since upgrading from Baby 2.0 to Toddler 2.0

  6. So perfectly Geeky. I am just 3 months in with version 1.0 myself and all is great thus far. The hand — mouth calibration activity is currently running most hours of the day, but the drool/teething boolean is false for the moment.

  7. One of the many things I love about our Babies (or, I should say, Teen 1.0 and Tween 2.0) is the automatic upgrades. There’s no fiddly downloading or installing, no rebooting or rewiring; they just quietly get on with expanding their capacity and software over time.

    Plus it’s all open source: I haven’t had to mess about with a single EULA since we got them (though we did have to register them on first purchase, apparently due to legal requirements).

    Of course, we still encounter bugs in the programming now and then (system meltdown anyone?), but really I can’t recommend them highly enough.

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: