This is specifically the area we work in traditionally called slow-wave enhancement which is stimulating the restorative function of sleep.
This paper [1] specifically looks at amyloid response as a result of stimulation and shows a corresponding relationship between stimulation response, amyloid response, and memory. I wouldn't say it's putting a bow on the results, but it is a very promising result.
If you're curious about what we're building, I'll be posting a ShowHN next week which dives into some of the data in a way regulatory requirements don't permit us to do on our website, but until then, check out https://affectablesleep.com
However, I also mis-stated that. It is possible to create a slow-wave, however only through magnetic stimulation (rTMS), but that is not realistic outside of a hospital environment.
You will probably say no but I wonder if those yogis who can exert some control over heart rate, blood pressure, and breathing pattern might try to target this process as well.
What blew my mind when I got into neuro just over 5 years ago, is that the glymphatic system was only discovered in 2012!!!! We have SO much to learn about the brain.
Long-term particularly if we can make the numbers work for a monthly subscription, it makes the technology more accessible.
In the past, subscription models were understood as a way to offer "loyal customers" a "better deal" than the standard alternative. They were a method to entice "loyalty", not a dark pattern to enforce "lock-in", continuous cash-extraction and control by artificially crippling a product. I've watched too many a product introduce unnecessary "restriction-features" or an artificial need for consumables, for the sole purpose of a "greedier" revenue stream, so the immediate reaction when I see such products now is one of scepticism.
If you offered an oldskool "expensive" non-subscription, no-internet-access-needed, lifetime-access-with-updates or pay-for-updates model alternative that made sense to non-perpetual users (even at a higher price compared to the subscription alternative), then I would have had more faith in the subscription argument, but as it stands I do not, and would assume most of your customer base doesn't either. They just put up with the "no-real-ownership-plus-overheads" model until they don't have to. Which also implies a very real expiration date for your product, and I'm sure there's a "reluctance tax" your company pays for this effect.
If you offered subscription as an alternative to the full purchase, but the customer could apply their subscription to count in some manner towards the full purchase at a later date, I'm sure you'd get a larger number of more willing and more loyal customers.
Though I agree that some companies currently use subscription as continuous cash extraction strategy, but that's not us.
The reason SaaS is successful as a strategy is because it lowers the barrier to entry. Software which used to cost hundreds of dollars is now tens of dollars a month, and more people are willing to get on board with that.
As mentioned, we did offer a one-time option, in response to complaints about subscription, and we got zero sales. Even from the people who said "if this wasn't a subscription, I'd buy it".
When looking at our business model, there were a few things we considered when deciding on subscription.
1) The hardware is going to change and improve rapidly over the next few years. We decided to keep the price of the hardware fairly low so the upgrade investment is low.
2) As mentioned the one-time fee didn't sell, likely due to sticker shock. We've seen a few other companies in our space try this before, and they've all failed. Those failures are not only due to pricing, but I think it had a significant impact.
3) As unit economics improve to the point we can offer a monthly subscription as a starting point, that really makes this technology accessible to a wider audience, and particularly to some groups who need it most.
Our headband provides sleep tracking technology without a subscription, we're just not selling it as that right now, as the value, we believe, is in the improved sleep and health outcomes.
We look at the stimulation like an app that is running on the device, and it's just the first capability we are providing. We'll be expanding that offering in the future.
With your last sentence, do you mean a "rent-to-own" model? I'm not against that at all, but I'm not sure that really works today, or how we would explain that. It isn't common anymore, and I don't want us having to explain the business model to people being the barrier to sales. Which is why removed the full price option. Each decision point in a purchase causes friction.