Brainwave Ring Challenges

Aura ring but for brain

Ah, a brainwave-tracking ring, then? Innovative, but let's dissect this a bit. The Aura ring capitalizes on the trend of health monitoring, but the brain is a tad more complex than tracking sleep patterns and heart rates.

First off, how do you propose to capture accurate brainwave data from a ring? Traditional EEGs use scalp electrodes for a reason. The skull isn't exactly transparent to brainwaves. Are you planning on reinventing neuroimaging technology or do you have a partnership with Hogwarts?

And let's talk market. Who's your target audience? The biohacker community, health enthusiasts, or are we venturing into the murky waters of medical diagnostics? Each comes with its own labyrinth of regulations and skepticism.

Plus, the competition. You're not just up against wearable tech giants, but also a swarm of neurotech startups. What's your unique angle? You need more than a cool gadget; you need a compelling reason for people to wear your tech on their finger and trust it with something as critical as brain health.

So, enlighten me: What's the secret sauce here? How do you ensure accuracy, user trust, and stand out in a sea of wearables?

I did reinvent neuroimaging at least for a narrow type of per person live EEG recordings and I even got patent for it. Yes my first customers are quantitive self enthusiasts and hackers Why because I found how to realibley measure attention, simplest emotion and flow. Our device is worn on head but in 2 editions it will be just a part that VR/AR companies could use

Impressive, reinventing neuroimaging for live EEG recordings is no small feat. And securing a patent? That's a step in the right direction. However, let's delve deeper into the practicalities and potential pitfalls.

Firstly, the focus on quantified self enthusiasts and hackers is smart for a start, but it's a niche market. To sustain and scale, you'll need to broaden your appeal. How do you plan to transition from early adopters to the mainstream market? Remember, the average consumer is more skeptical and less tech-savvy.

Your claim of reliably measuring attention, basic emotions, and flow states is intriguing, yet it begs for validation. How robust is your technology against standard benchmarks in neuroimaging and psychology? The world of EEG is riddled with overpromises and underdeliveries. Your challenge is to prove that your device is not just another gadget making lofty claims.

Integration with VR/AR is a strategic move, considering the growth in that sector. But partnerships with established VR/AR companies won't be a cakewalk. What's your value proposition to them? They'll want more than just innovative tech; they'll need proof of market demand, reliability, and a clear regulatory path, especially if this veers into health monitoring.

And speaking of regulations, have you navigated the FDA or equivalent regulatory bodies? If you're claiming health benefits or diagnostic capabilities, you're entering a regulatory minefield.

So, let's hear it: How do you plan to validate your technology's efficacy, scale beyond a niche audience, secure partnerships with VR/AR giants, and navigate the regulatory landscape? Your idea has potential, but the devil is in the details.

Currently there is no company or scientific study that allows for realible live (<500ms) feedback loop between user and computer. To make it harder there is no pleasant and engaging loop like that but we did test and can prove in 5 minutes to any (90%) user that we will control game behaviour based on their emotions to make it more appealing and matching in difficulty but also that we can shift their emotions in chosen direction just by changing how game reacts to their state. Currently this game is just a poc but we will opensource it for all to teach developers how to broaden their market by adjusting software/game to the user. As to the AR/VR giants getting feedback from the users in form of likes, purchases, time spent etc is their biz model and we propose realibley constant source of new data that's denser than any current mechanism (we already have 18 indicators with 10 variants each) and of 200ms precision. As to the FDA we plan to stay as far as possible from them. As an example Valve which also produces VR spent last 10y searching for a way to measure emotions in games, others like Facebook and Apple also tried.

Your approach of creating a real-time feedback loop between user emotions and gameplay is intriguing and presents a unique value proposition. However, there are several critical aspects to consider.

First, the technical and experiential claims. You state that you can not only influence but also shift a user's emotions through gameplay adjustments. This is a bold claim and, if true, quite a breakthrough. However, it also raises ethical considerations. How do you ensure this power is used responsibly? Manipulating emotions, even in the context of gaming, isn't something to be taken lightly. You'll need to have a robust ethical framework and possibly even external oversight.

The strategy to open source your proof-of-concept game for developer education is savvy. It fosters an ecosystem around your technology and demonstrates its potential applications. However, remember that open sourcing also means giving up a certain level of control. How will you ensure quality and consistency in how your technology is implemented by third parties?

Your proposition to AR/VR giants hinges on providing dense, real-time user data, which is indeed valuable. However, given your intention to avoid FDA oversight, you must be extremely careful with how you market and categorize your product. If you even inadvertently step into health or emotional wellness territory, you could attract regulatory attention.

As for staying clear of the FDA, while that might simplify things initially, it could also limit your product's potential applications. It's a strategic choice, but one that comes with trade-offs.

Your mention of Valve, Facebook, and Apple's interest in emotion measurement in gaming underscores the competitive landscape. You're entering a field where big players have shown interest yet seemingly haven't cracked it. This could be an opportunity, but also a warning sign. What makes your solution more viable or promising than theirs? How do you plan to protect your niche against these tech giants once they take notice?

In summary, while your innovation seems promising, it's vital to consider ethical implications, maintain quality in open-source collaborations, carefully navigate regulatory boundaries, and strategize against competition from major tech companies. Your next steps should address these challenges comprehensively.