5 ms·
Looks very interesting since their technology actually measures brain waves instead of just physical activity. However, the cost of it $400 is a bit expensive.
by ktharavaad 17y ago
Looks very interesting since their technology actually measures brain waves instead of just physical activity. However, the cost of it $400 is a bit expensive.
- DenisM 17y ago$400 is cheap, a real EEG device will cost you about $800. This is excellent news.
- ShabbyDoo 17y agoExpensive relative to what? Let's say you do fixed-cost software development and you know that you can get 5% more done when you sleep well. If your goal is to earn $50/hour, then you'd pay for the device in about seven months. I use a CPAP, and I bet the co-pays alone for the sleep studies to determine that I needed it exceeded $400. *Presuming you could train yourself to sleep sufficiently better to work 5% better (in whatever units better is)
- DenisM 17y agoAre you buying one of these? I'm really tempted.
- ShabbyDoo 17y agoMy wife pointed it out to me. It's kind of a light-weight version of the huge wiring harness they attach to you when you get a sleep study. I'm tempted as well.
- DenisM 17y agoI wonder if there is any first-hand user experience out there. The short summary of clinical trials looks very promising so far.
- Derek_At_Zeo 17y agoYou can check out what two users have said on their blogs about Zeo here: http://bit.ly/DxKdF http://bit.ly/DxKdF and here: http://bit.ly/okzE2 http://bit.ly/okzE2 Or you can let us know if you have any questions in particular on twitter - @Zeology Hope this helps, -Derek@Zeo
- IsaacL 17y ago"Presuming you could train yourself to sleep sufficiently better to work 5% better (in whatever units better is)" That's the thing, I know I wouldn't be able to presume that - trying something like this out would be an experiment for me, and I couldn't justify spending that amount of money on an experiment. Still, it's a very cool concept, and if a had a testimonial from a friend I would be more tempted.
- ShabbyDoo 17y agoI agree with you -- the risk-adjusted rate of return may not be so good.