Agree that learning from past efforts can be helpful, but I think you're shooting things down way too early here. I'm not seeing any specific critique you're ma

Agree that learning from past efforts can be helpful, but I think you're shooting things down way too early here. I'm not seeing any specific critique you're making about mouth-based input being a bad pursuit, in fact the three efforts you linked hardly qualify as evidence against the opportunity: GlassOuse - very different form factor, bulky and limited appeal to a narrow set of the most extreme users (quadriplegics). Probably too early to market too (2017). Smart Mouthware - what looks like a crowdfunded two person team, seems more like a brief project than a company. Doesn't seem like a serious enough effort. Quadjoy - completely different, plugged-in product tied to a chair, very expensive ($1400). There's all sorts of reasons for having many separate groups pursue the same idea over a period of time until one 'gets it' and defines a category [1]. This includes market timing, tech timing, component costs, financing, eng & biz talent, how the market opportunity is understood and pursued, the myriad of specific product decisions that make subtle but important differences in UX, etc. Just from a tech timing perspective, a serious company building something in this category today would have a product that is considerably smaller, cheaper, and longer lasting than one launched just a few years ago, due to component & supply chain improvements. A smaller, cheaper device means access to a broader market, including out-of-pocket purchases and selling to users who are in a wider spectrum of disability. [1]: I wrote about this process of getting to category defining products here, in case its of interest: https://nickpunt.com/blog/category-defining-products/ https://nickpunt.com/blog/category-defining-products/