Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 641548 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 2699
  • Country: tr
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1300 on: September 23, 2018, 11:40:39 am »
From the manual....

Overunity FTW: 12V*5A= 60W, 2*50W= 100W

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8605
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1301 on: September 23, 2018, 11:52:49 am »
"There is a lot of current interest in proximity sensing for collision avoidance, whether its cars or automated domestic appliances."
Steerable US beams aren't going to work very well in the moving air around a moving car, or even a draughty coffee shop.
Steerable ultrasonic beams for any sweeping application are problematic because of the slow echoes. You just can't sweep very fast. Ultrasonic sensing in a strong wind can make even the current simple parking collision sensors problematic. Having lots of problems is normal in engineering. Don't be too keen to assume they can't be usefully worked around, unless they rub hard against deep principles of physics like the conservation of energy.
"who knows where they currently stand?"
Up panic creek. :horse:
While that appears most likely, its amazing to see the history of some successful companies and the many near death experiences they went through before getting into their groove. Remember that most companies reaching IPO do something very different from what they started out to do.

 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37661
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1302 on: September 23, 2018, 02:07:30 pm »
While that appears most likely, its amazing to see the history of some successful companies and the many near death experiences they went through before getting into their groove. Remember that most companies reaching IPO do something very different from what they started out to do.

In the case of uBeam they got their first funding in Jul 2012, and we are apparently supposed to believe that they are now only suddenly realising that charging phones isn't practical and they are pivoting to licensing their tech for IoT devices. And that change just so happens to coincide with the stepping down of the infamously stubborn founder ::)

 
The following users thanked this post: SeanB, drussell, PaulReynolds, djos

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2850
  • Country: se
  • Country: Broken Britain
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1303 on: September 24, 2018, 02:49:50 pm »
"they are pivoting to licensing their tech for IoT devices."

I think they're just tech words to confuse investors for a bit longer, they might as well say they're developing new technology to keep the 'data cloud' white and fluffy.  :) :horse:
« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 06:33:54 pm by StillTrying »
.  That took much longer than I thought it would.
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5315
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1304 on: September 24, 2018, 04:18:02 pm »
Let's take a moment to look back on some of Mark Suster's gems of wisdom, no doubt gleaned from his mystic skills of tea leaf reading, and engaging the crystal ball that is a prerequisite of the VC modus operandi.

13 May 2016, immediately after Paul Reynold's blog went mainstream. Suster specifically calls out for praise COO Jeff Devine, VP Engineering Sean Taffler, and VP Acoustics Paul Chandler.

Quote
But we do have detailed plans for four generations of product releases through 2019 and we have a very talented COO, Jeff Devine, who is leading our efforts. He was VP of Global Supply Chain for Cisco and held similar roles at Nokia and Palm. He is a calming force, an experienced hand, a straight shooter and a great long-term planner. I have huge confidence in Jeff.

We also have a very talented VP of Engineering, Sean Taffler, who is a Phd from Oxford, and has been with the company since shortly after I funded it. We have a VP of Acoustics, Paul Chandler who is a Phd from UC Irvine and formerly with Philips Ultrasound.

Quote
I’m not at all afraid to put my name behind Meredith, Jeff, Sean, Paul Chandler and all the other great engineers hard at work. I feel confident they will exceed expectations.

Of those, only Meredith remains. There've been a lot of "quitters".

Now here comes a rather more interesting bit. In that same blog post, Suster originally stated:

Quote
We have a lot to prove. The team knows that. It’s hard work. We haven’t yet shipped product or shown the public our prototypes. The product isn’t yet where we want it to be — like most startup products, it is a work in progress.

If for any reason we fall short of expectations we have set in the market, I will be the first person in line to admit it and then to immediately fund Meredith's next company. Her strengths so vastly outweigh any weaknesses and her vision, tenacity and resiliency far exceed any perceived limitations.

That bold part has since disappeared from his blog. Funny that, because Susters' fanbois couldn't stop quoting it at the time, to reference but a few:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/friction-before-great-outcomes-ken-seiff
https://www.inc.com/kimberly-weisul/whats-next-for-blood-testing-startup-theranos.html
https://medium.com/@cliffdailey/mark-my-words-ubeam-will-win-even-if-it-fails-heres-why-560e6ed86e3a



« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 05:44:12 pm by Howardlong »
 
The following users thanked this post: EEVblog, PaulReynolds

Offline Richard Crowley

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4317
  • Country: us
  • KJ7YLK
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1305 on: September 24, 2018, 07:16:38 pm »
I was going to poke fun at Suster's hiring choices and PHd's in general (no offense of any of you are reading this).

But on due consideration, it would appear that he did hire some people (Devine, Taffler, and Chandler) who were actually smart enough, and had enough balls to walk away from an impossible situation.  Are the remaining people really not capable of seeing the fundamental problems?  Or are they just riding the gravy-train until something better (more realistic) comes along?
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • !
  • Posts: 2699
  • Country: tr
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1306 on: September 25, 2018, 06:37:14 pm »
The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
 

Offline JimRemington

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 208
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1307 on: September 27, 2018, 05:10:53 pm »
From: https://ubeam.com/Blog/ubeam-announces-meredith-perrys-transition-from-ceo-to-board-member/

Quote
“Under Meredith’s leadership, uBeam has successfully developed a commercially valuable product that we believe can be the leader in its field,” said Mark Suster, a Board Director at uBeam. “We’re very proud of what Meredith created and we look forward to working closely alongside Meredith as an active member of the board.”
 

Offline StillTrying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2850
  • Country: se
  • Country: Broken Britain
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1308 on: September 27, 2018, 09:39:36 pm »
"uBeam has successfully developed a commercially valuable product that we believe can be the leader in its field,"

I wonder what it is.  :horse:
.  That took much longer than I thought it would.
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5315
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1309 on: October 30, 2018, 05:21:52 pm »
"The innovations set to disrupt and enhance your sector"
Published on: Oct 30, 2018

https://www.director.co.uk/innovations-set-to-disrupt-your-sector/ (I include a link for completeness, but frankly I wouldn't bother).

FFS, this whole article is a waste of time (of course, it had to include key tech buzzwords such as "disrupt", "virtual reality", and "artificial intelligence").

Quote
05 / POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE
...
The uBeam wireless charging system, for instance, turns power into ultrasound waves and then converts these back when they reach a device. Such developments could accelerate the adoption of electric cars or enable people in remote areas to make more use of new tech.
...
 

Offline drussell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1855
  • Country: ca
  • Hardcore Geek
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1310 on: October 30, 2018, 05:53:07 pm »

FFS, this whole article is a waste of time (of course, it had to include key tech buzzwords such as "disrupt", "virtual reality", and "artificial intelligence").

Quote
05 / POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE
...
The uBeam wireless charging system, for instance, turns power into ultrasound waves and then converts these back when they reach a device. Such developments could accelerate the adoption of electric cars or enable people in remote areas to make more use of new tech.
...

Indeed.

"Such developments could accelerate the adoption of electric cars or enable people in remote areas to make more use of new tech."

Really??!   Ultrasonic car charging?  Long-range remote power distribution?!  ::)  Explain how!!  :palm: 
 

Offline Tony_G

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 899
  • Country: us
  • Checkout my old test gear channel (link in sig)
    • TGSoapbox
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1311 on: October 30, 2018, 06:23:25 pm »
They missed the opportunity to include blockchain....

TonyG
 
The following users thanked this post: Richard Crowley, Howardlong, tooki, nugglix, newbrain, drussell

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1312 on: November 06, 2018, 04:48:23 am »
Someone posted a review of their experience of working at uBeam on Glassdoor. It's... interesting.

"Not sure if uBeam even qualifies as a company."

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/11/ubeam-glassdoor-review-not-sure-if.html

« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 04:53:30 am by PaulReynolds »
 
The following users thanked this post: EEVblog, Cyberdragon, djos

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16560
  • Country: 00
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1313 on: November 06, 2018, 07:58:21 am »
Someone posted a review of their experience of working at uBeam on Glassdoor. It's... interesting.

"Not sure if uBeam even qualifies as a company."

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/11/ubeam-glassdoor-review-not-sure-if.html

An interesting article was attached to that: It looks like the Theranos people might be going to jail:

“The Theranos story is an important lesson for Silicon Valley,” said Jina Choi, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office.  “Innovators who seek to revolutionize and disrupt an industry must tell investors the truth about what their technology can do today, not just what they hope it might do someday.”

...
I hope that this might be the start of at least some people realizing that if they heavily exaggerate, or try to fake it 'til they make it, regarding investors and customers, that it's not "being an entrepreneur", it's fraud.

Who's next? Meredith Perry?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 08:02:31 am by Fungus »
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline sdpkom

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 83
  • Country: de
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1314 on: November 06, 2018, 01:46:49 pm »
Theranos deceived the FDA and the SEC, government agencies who build their reputation on beeing harsh towards deception.

uBeam deceived venture capitalists..., VCs have a reputation to keep, preventing them from sending CEOs to jail.

VC essentially tell their investors
    We can figure out the companies that have a high chance of succeeding (so they can't admit some 25 yo....)
    Any CEO is dying to get our money (so they can't send a CEO to jail).

That is why the same VCs invested ~$25m, after they knew nothing works, and almost immediately (half a year start to finish)  moved to replace the CEO.

From a VC point of view.
All the old investments in the company are worthless.
But the VC reputation is still intact.
Lets invest additional $25m (of somebody else's money) and sell the company for $27m (probably doable), and get our $25m back (due to liquidation preference) + save our reputation (this would be marked as an exit).
To sell the company for $27m, they needed to replace the inexperienced CEO with an experienced one. Note this happened only ~6months after the investment (e.g. immediately).

I believe they also figured out it would never charge a phone, but, they hope the company could be sold for some ~$10-30 million while there is still some $15-18 million in the bank so they can get their money back + keep their reputation.

If they sell it when ~$18m are in the bank, they need to find a sucker who will buy the IP and lab equipment for $10m, this is certainly doable (although it's a waste of $10m).
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1315 on: November 06, 2018, 04:54:48 pm »
Someone posted a review of their experience of working at uBeam on Glassdoor. It's... interesting.

"Not sure if uBeam even qualifies as a company."

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/11/ubeam-glassdoor-review-not-sure-if.html

An interesting article was attached to that: It looks like the Theranos people might be going to jail:

“The Theranos story is an important lesson for Silicon Valley,” said Jina Choi, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office.  “Innovators who seek to revolutionize and disrupt an industry must tell investors the truth about what their technology can do today, not just what they hope it might do someday.”

...
I hope that this might be the start of at least some people realizing that if they heavily exaggerate, or try to fake it 'til they make it, regarding investors and customers, that it's not "being an entrepreneur", it's fraud.

Who's next? Meredith Perry?

One difference between Theranos and uBeam - Theranos had a service that was used by the paying public, that performed a medical test and that diagnosis informed treatment. uBeam had a lot of publicity and... nothing. Theranos screwed with the most heavily regulated area, and put patient health at risk. Had uBeam released a product that didn't work as advertised and affected health, then it would be in the same league(ish). As it is, they're an "also ran" in that regard. That being said, if you screw with investors, that tends to get a much faster and more definitive response.
 

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1316 on: November 06, 2018, 05:10:55 pm »
Theranos deceived the FDA and the SEC, government agencies who build their reputation on beeing harsh towards deception.

uBeam deceived venture capitalists..., VCs have a reputation to keep, preventing them from sending CEOs to jail.

VC essentially tell their investors
    We can figure out the companies that have a high chance of succeeding (so they can't admit some 25 yo....)
    Any CEO is dying to get our money (so they can't send a CEO to jail).

That is why the same VCs invested ~$25m, after they knew nothing works, and almost immediately (half a year start to finish)  moved to replace the CEO.

From a VC point of view.
All the old investments in the company are worthless.
But the VC reputation is still intact.
Lets invest additional $25m (of somebody else's money) and sell the company for $27m (probably doable), and get our $25m back (due to liquidation preference) + save our reputation (this would be marked as an exit).
To sell the company for $27m, they needed to replace the inexperienced CEO with an experienced one. Note this happened only ~6months after the investment (e.g. immediately).

I believe they also figured out it would never charge a phone, but, they hope the company could be sold for some ~$10-30 million while there is still some $15-18 million in the bank so they can get their money back + keep their reputation.

If they sell it when ~$18m are in the bank, they need to find a sucker who will buy the IP and lab equipment for $10m, this is certainly doable (although it's a waste of $10m).

Just a few points:

I don't think they raised $25m in the last round, that was just the number of the equity conversion form submitted to the SEC which I believe included the money from the convertible note round of 2015. I think that was in the $12 to $14m range so my suspicion is that the last round was closer to an actual $11m. Given expenses, I'd say they have $7m to $8m in the bank right now.

I don't know who put in to that round other than OurCrowd and UpFront. Before they realised it was public and hid it, OurCrowd's crowdfunding total for uBeam was around $5.7m, so I'd guess you'd have OurCrowd in for ~$6m, UpFront for ~$5m, and maybe $1m for others. (yeah I know that adds to 12, it's all approx).

The COO brought in about a year ago left in May, after only 9 months. He appeared to be not only a future CEO choice, but history with Intellectual Ventures points to him being someone to monetize the IP, and was likely on a "% of licensing deal" payout. If he looked at the company and walked, there's no value in it worth him spending more time on. Imagine he got 10% of any deal - if he can sell that IP or the company for $10 to $30m, he's going to hang on a year. Walking at 9 months, huge red flag. No significant value.

I also have not seen any new patents since not long after I left the company, 3 years ago. All submitted patents past a year ago should be public, so what we see now is basically what they went into the last fundraising effort with. I'm not expecting a lot more in the pipeline. The fundamental patent on acoustic wireless power transfer is from Charych in 2003.

I'll also bet that the investors in the last round, especially the lead, bent uBeam over a barrel and got really good terms, such as a preference on any sale, or at the least tranched the payment. They will make a multiple of their investment before everyone else gets scraps if that's the case. BTW note of the $37m or so uBeam raised, around half of it was from crowdfunding sources if my numbers are right. Thanks mom and pop!

Staff will likely be fleeing soon, if they aren't already interviewing I'd be stunned. No value there, besides the MBA class see them as replaceable cogs. I'd expect they'd have someone else in already, or soon, to evaluate the company IP value. My guess is the number they come up with is not nearly as high as 8 figures, and will disappoint the VCs. The IP might have been worth something if there was a product, but no such luck. Used equipment is rarely worth bothering with. It won't stop them trying to sell it for a few months, but there's a reason I suggested the best return was to just give the staff 60 days notice, close it down, and return the money for about 20c on the dollar average (heavily weighted to certain investors).
« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 05:12:32 pm by PaulReynolds »
 
The following users thanked this post: edavid, Dubbie, sdpkom

Offline sdpkom

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 83
  • Country: de
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1317 on: November 07, 2018, 11:32:09 am »
For a VC planning to replace the CEO and sell the company, it makes sense to increase the amount of cash in the bank as it increases valuation and the total proceeds they will get from selling the company. The cash in the bank when a company is sold .... goes to the last investors anyway.

The 2015 round is reported to SEC as well, it says $15m in 2015.
After that there was, if I remember correctly, $2.8m from ourcroud. I don't think there was much more.
Which makes sense, because in late 2017, they couldn't extend there rent, so I figure they were out of cash...., which is reasonable for the size and seniority of their linkedin employee count.

I think it really is ~25m as the SEC site says, perhaps some of that is old bridge loans, but most of it is new money, I don't know who the source is though.

I met Meredith Perry and Costas Mallos a short while before he left, thought he was a good person.

You can't file patents if your R&D does not advance....

Late april this year, uBeam had at least 5 patent applications, with Meredith as the sole inventor. The patent examiner rejected the applications on the grounds of being very similar to other 2 uBeam patents.
uBeam filed request to grant the applications as is, and agreed to have reduce the term of them to the term of the original patent (this is called a terminal disclaimer, and is done often).
The applications have now been allowed by the examiner, which means they are now almost granted.
This increases the number of granted patents they will have in a month or two (perhaps at the cost of patent quality), which increases the company IP valuation.
Which resulted in the patents being allowed (e.g. will soon become granted patents).

See attachment example.

It may be standard, or it may be a move towards increasing patent count.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 12:35:01 pm by sdpkom »
 
The following users thanked this post: PaulReynolds

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37661
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1318 on: November 07, 2018, 11:42:20 am »
Someone posted a review of their experience of working at uBeam on Glassdoor. It's... interesting.
"Not sure if uBeam even qualifies as a company."

https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2018/11/ubeam-glassdoor-review-not-sure-if.html



 :-DD
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37661
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1319 on: November 07, 2018, 11:54:55 am »
It wouldn't surprise me if someone like Murata bought uBeam for the patents and IP in transducers. That's actually a large niche market, and more efficient and cheaper transducer tech is valuable.
I'm of the understanding that the sensors are pretty darn good, but manufacturing yield is a problem.
 

Offline sdpkom

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 83
  • Country: de
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1320 on: November 08, 2018, 02:23:47 pm »
The fact that uBeam says they have low cost transducers..... does not necessarily mean they do.

Making something really low cost is extremely difficult, and takes special expertise I did not see among the uBeam team members....
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8605
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1321 on: November 08, 2018, 02:51:39 pm »
The fact that uBeam says they have low cost transducers..... does not necessarily mean they do.

Making something really low cost is extremely difficult, and takes special expertise I did not see among the uBeam team members....
... but you will find that expertise by the bucket load at Murata.  :)
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline PaulReynolds

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1322 on: November 09, 2018, 09:08:02 am »
On the funding:

There's certainly some room for arguing what the total from each round is, the numbers are obscured, some things get double counted, forms not filed, loans get rolled up into funding etc. I'm still going to put the weight of evidence at closer to $11/12m than $25m for that last round. They were talking about having raised $25 to $27m by the previous round, and now say around $40m. If they had actually raised $25m, they'd be saying $50m.

If you check the Form Ds on EDGAR, the 2015 round is listed as 'Debt' and the 2018 round as 'Equity' (Section 9). The Debt from one becomes Equity in the other, I think.

The lead investor almost always puts in the most money, but not always. They just have to be big enough and have the DD capability to be a reliable group to set valuation. If OurCrowd put in around $6m, even if the lead has to put in more, that means $12m + $1 is enough. I think they wanted $20m+, I don't think they got it, though I'm prepared to be proven wrong here. If they were that good, I don't see the big guys letting OurCrowd in for the lion's share, or even 25%.

IP portfolios get evaluated on quality, not just number (until you are one of the truly big guys). I'm not seeing the value in the types of patents you list. I could see someone offering $x00,000 for the lot but that's about it.

Something I found weird after the fundraise nearly a year ago - almost no hiring after. Few new job ads. Who does that after a big raise?

On the COO - I never met him, but I have no reason to say anything negative about him. His resume looks solid and a good choice for the role he was in. It looks to me like he may have assessed the situation and made a very wise decision. 
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 37661
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1323 on: November 09, 2018, 09:57:23 am »
The fact that uBeam says they have low cost transducers..... does not necessarily mean they do.
Making something really low cost is extremely difficult, and takes special expertise I did not see among the uBeam team members....

They have a novel new technique apparently that can make manufacturing much cheaper for given sensistivity
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8605
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #1324 on: November 09, 2018, 10:07:39 am »
The fact that uBeam says they have low cost transducers..... does not necessarily mean they do.
Making something really low cost is extremely difficult, and takes special expertise I did not see among the uBeam team members....
They have a novel new technique apparently that can make manufacturing much cheaper for given sensistivity
Without a cheap transducer their large arrays would be dead in the water, so they have to claim they have a way to get cost under control. However, a lot of markets, like flow meters, have been hampered by the cost of ultrasonic transducers, so every transducer maker has been working hard on the cost issue for a number of years. Who would you bet on?

 
The following users thanked this post: PaulReynolds


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf