Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 338082 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9502
  • Country: 00
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #400 on: May 12, 2016, 07:01:04 pm »
Can't wait to see the famous "3 backup plans" activated.  :popcorn:

Plan #1 was "Data Transmission"... charge your phone and transmit data.

Slowly. Much slower than the WiFi you already have.

If that was Plan #1 then I can't wait to see how visionary Plans #2 and #3 are.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9502
  • Country: 00
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #401 on: May 12, 2016, 07:06:46 pm »
Mike beat me to it. It's quite clear what the next step for Perry is: claiming the naughty engineers sabotaged her wonderful vision from the start, and that's why she didn't make it.
They didn't sabotage it, they just weren't smart enough to make it work.

The materials needed for the transducers weren't there yet and she ran out of money before they could get make them.

The underlying scientific principles were demonstrably correct so it's clearly not her fault. She can even go back on Ted and explain this.

This leaves her free to start over again on the next project with a clean slate.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2016, 07:13:17 pm by Fungus »
 

Offline mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11838
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #402 on: May 12, 2016, 07:16:34 pm »
The really stupid thing is that even if all the tech were entirely feasible, practical and safe, it would STILL fail as a product as phone manufacturers would never build it into phones (how many have even incorporated qi type chargers yet?).

I can understand VC's being uBeamed ( yes I want that to become a verb)  into believing that the tech may be feasible, but it doesn't take much tech knowledge to work out that it had zero chance of widespread market adoption for simple practical reasons.
 
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline HackedFridgeMagnet

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1918
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #403 on: May 12, 2016, 07:23:16 pm »
I can understand VC's being uBeamed ( yes I want that to become a verb) 
 

Probably double meaning too. VCs being like rabbits caught in the beam of car headlights?
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9502
  • Country: 00
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #404 on: May 12, 2016, 07:36:31 pm »
The really stupid thing is that even if all the tech were entirely feasible, practical and safe, it would STILL fail as a product as phone manufacturers would never build it into phones (how many have even incorporated qi type chargers yet?).

Yep. Apple would never add 2mm to the thickness of their phones just for this (even if it worked brilliantly and could be made 2mm thick!).
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4192
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #405 on: May 12, 2016, 07:56:42 pm »
...as phone manufacturers would never build it into phones (how many have even incorporated qi type chargers yet?).
A lot of phones have QI charging built in. They don't come with a QI charger, though, and few people seem to buy them as after market devices. I expect few people have even noticed that their phone has the QI feature. I guess short range wireless charging just isn't that compelling. Would longer range charging be more compelling?
 

Offline VNFTW

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 5
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #406 on: May 12, 2016, 08:05:07 pm »
Mike beat me to it. It's quite clear what the next step for Perry is: claiming the naughty engineers sabotaged her wonderful vision from the start, and that's why she didn't make it.
They didn't sabotage it, they just weren't smart enough to make it work.

The materials needed for the transducers weren't there yet and she ran out of money before they could get make them.

The underlying scientific principles were demonstrably correct so it's clearly not her fault. She can even go back on Ted and explain this.

This leaves her free to start over again on the next project with a clean slate.

If the company said that, then IT would be disparaging the engineers...those agreements typically go both ways.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28351
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #407 on: May 12, 2016, 08:32:13 pm »
My prediction - Meredith will write a book ready for the Christmas sales period, whining about how "the industry" destroyed her vision, and probably pulling the sexism card while she's at it.

I hope she spends her time doing that that instead of trying to do another tech startup.
I recommend another followup TEDx talk as well, given her stellar performance last time. Title it "How Closed Thinking Engineers Ruined My World Beating Innovation"
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28351
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #408 on: May 12, 2016, 08:42:44 pm »
I can understand VC's being uBeamed ( yes I want that to become a verb)

It is deemed thus.

Quote
into believing that the tech may be feasible, but it doesn't take much tech knowledge to work out that it had zero chance of widespread market adoption for simple practical reasons.

It took a fairly trivial amount of tech knowledge to see it would never be practical.
It sinks alone on practicality with dicky beamforming, positional trouble, and limited range.
It sinks alone (ironically) on convenience, having to dick around with a positioning system and make sure you don't bock it etc.
It sinks alone on cost.
It sinks alone on potential safety.
It sinks alone on inefficiency, even taking their own figures on their website.
And many more gems.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28351
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #409 on: May 12, 2016, 08:45:17 pm »
I expect few people have even noticed that their phone has the QI feature. I guess short range wireless charging just isn't that compelling. Would longer range charging be more compelling?

Yes, too bad it's laughable useless and inefficient.
Qi actually works and is pretty efficient and convenient (although mine is very touchy, I much prefer my magnetic charging dock.
 

Online NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4223
  • Country: nl
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #410 on: May 12, 2016, 11:34:37 pm »
I expect few people have even noticed that their phone has the QI feature. I guess short range wireless charging just isn't that compelling. Would longer range charging be more compelling?

Yes, too bad it's laughable useless and inefficient.
Qi actually works and is pretty efficient and convenient (although mine is very touchy, I much prefer my magnetic charging dock.
Except it chirps like a bird. Which I dont like. And this was an IKEA charger with a Nokia phone, not some noname chinese whatever.
 

Offline Danseur

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 21
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #411 on: May 13, 2016, 06:34:48 am »
The sexism card is already flying in this short story devoid of facts.
http://fortune.com/2016/05/12/ubeam-is-not-the-next-theranos/

Another Fortune writer also wrote this apologist piece on uBeam that blatantly distorted the story.
http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/meredith-perry-ubeam-criticism-science/

I responded to it last year with these comments in their comment section.

1. Nobody says ultrasonic power transfer is impossible.  What they are saying is that uBeam is so inefficient that it can't even deliver 1/10th of a watt at maximum power levels safe to be near humans, and that it will result in 99% energy loss.

2.  Your article cites the tumbler article as a rebuke of uBeam cynics on the basis that the article acknowledges power transfer is possible, but you missed the part where the same tumbler article estimates that ultrasonic charging will be 100 times slower than plugging the phone in.

3. Critics are actually pointing out that uBeam has back peddled on range claims and the ability to charge a phone while it's in a pocket or purse.  uBeam now admits they can't go through clothing.  That means you'll be forced to use the phone with screen face down when it's charging which makes it impossible to use the phone while charging for anything but listening to audio.

4. TechCrunch owners are early investors in uBeam and their pro-uBeam article fails to disclose this relationship.

5. It doesn't matter how much Mark Cuban or Mark Suster raves about uBeam or Meredith Perry because they're also early investors.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2016, 07:14:22 am by Danseur »
 

Offline bazsa56

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 24
  • Country: hu
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4550
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #413 on: May 14, 2016, 09:30:25 am »
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/engineer-and-investor-in-spat-about-wireless-charging-startup-ubeam

New IEEE article just posted.

I note they refer to a Suster blog https://bothsidesofthetable.com/what-is-it-like-to-wake-up-and-have-the-press-ready-to-torpedo-your-business-351f27ca6d67#.i7pzqinbk where he puts on a brave face. If he truly believes what he's saying then he's an idiot. More likely he's regretting not doing the most basic of due diligence homework, and is trying to minimise his losses, as well as those of his investors, by maintaining what little hope and value he can before getting out.

Somewhat irritating are the swarms of blind sycophants praising his blog entry who appear to believe him... if they are real of course, and not paid shills.

Even more unbelievable is that he says he will continue to invest in the porcine** owning CEO if (when) uBeam fails.

** Meredith owns a pet pig, Albert. Any suggestion of snouts in the trough, or owners resembling their pets are facile and will not be tolerated, not to mention being unfair to Albert who appears to be a perfectly reasonable and trustworthy porker.
 

Offline helius

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2814
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #414 on: May 14, 2016, 09:43:00 am »
If he truly believes what he's saying then he's an idiot... Somewhat irritating are the swarms of blind sycophants praising his blog entry who appear to believe him...
The assumption that angel investors who have previously made millions in the tech space are blessed with broad and deep business wisdom is a type of Fundamental Attribution Error.
 

Offline LabSpokane

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1899
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #415 on: May 14, 2016, 10:16:18 am »
Quote
I note they refer to a Suster blog https://bothsidesofthetable.com/what-is-it-like-to-wake-up-and-have-the-press-ready-to-torpedo-your-business-351f27ca6d67#.i7pzqinbk where he puts on a brave face. If he truly believes what he's saying then he's an idiot. More likely he's regretting not doing the most basic of due diligence homework, and is trying to minimise his losses, as well as those of his investors, by maintaining what little hope and value he can before getting out

This whole "torpedo your business" thing is horseshit. Suster's "business" is suckering late-to-the-party investors so he can take his "profits" and make an early exit. I don't believe for a nanosecond that Suster had any intention of seeing this ridiculous idea to functional fruition.

Like most of his ilk, Suster's greatest regret is that of being caught before the payout.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28351
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #416 on: May 14, 2016, 10:43:51 am »
I note they refer to a Suster blog https://bothsidesofthetable.com/what-is-it-like-to-wake-up-and-have-the-press-ready-to-torpedo-your-business-351f27ca6d67#.i7pzqinbk where he puts on a brave face.

Wow, so much wrong with that blog post I don't know were to start.
What is abundantly clear is that uBeam is now dead in the water. Not that it ever had a chance of sailing unless they hugely pivoted the tech, but probably had another 12 months in it before the money simply ran out. The rats will abandon this ship quick smart now.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28351
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
« Last Edit: May 14, 2016, 11:53:43 am by EEVblog »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28351
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #418 on: May 14, 2016, 12:39:04 pm »
Once supportive journalists turnign on Theranos
http://fortune.com/2015/12/17/how-theranos-misled-me-elizabeth-holmes/
They will do the same to uBeam, just like TechCrunch took the lead on.
It'll be a bloodbath  :popcorn:
 

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3135
  • Country: ca
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #419 on: May 14, 2016, 02:32:16 pm »
No surprise here. As the previous article said:

Quote
Be wary of fawning reporters and press. The same guys who built you up will tear you down to save their asses before moving onto the next thing. There is zero integrity in much of the tech press.
 

Offline LabSpokane

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1899
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #420 on: May 14, 2016, 02:36:00 pm »
No surprise here. As the previous article said:

Quote
There is zero integrity in much of the tech press.

This.
 

Offline Danseur

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 21
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #421 on: May 14, 2016, 05:24:43 pm »
Mark Suster wrote:
Quote
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.

So let me get this straight.  You’ve seen every single prototype after millions of dollars over years of research and an army of big name PhDs and you’re already hedging for failure?

Suster keeps talking about passion.  A con man/woman has passion.  Passion is great but it's no substitute for competence.  What Suster means to say is that he saw Meredith Perry as “marketable” to other investors who are late to the party so that he can flip the startup for a quick profit.

Looking at this thing some more, I think this article has more to do with making Suster look like a good supportive investor than him trying to save uBeam.  Hell he's practically written them off already so he is already hedging his bet to save face!  Suster is one of the "superstar" VC celebrities where the mere mention of Suster being a backer will encourage other investors to jump on.   Mark Cuban was so confident in Mark Suster's assessment that he didn't even need to look at uBeam's prototype!

Now Suster is in full spin control mode to save his own reputation and you see the comments praising him for his kind supportive words.  He's already admitting that maybe uBeam will fail but eh so what, you have to take big risks for big rewards and this is just one of those risks that didn't pan out and couldn’t have been predicted no matter how many real engineers told us exactly why this is a nonstarter.  But it's not his fault and it's not Perry's fault.  It's just one of those shitty things that happen to innovative risk takers and it's the vicious sexist media to blame!  ::)
« Last Edit: May 15, 2016, 10:31:29 am by Danseur »
 

Online Raj

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 358
  • Country: in
  • Self taught, experimenter, noob(ish)
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #422 on: May 14, 2016, 10:34:51 pm »
sounds gimmicky  :bullshit:
i'll stick to IR, same features but faster
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 28351
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #423 on: May 15, 2016, 12:20:05 am »
This article has more to do with making Suster look like a good supportive investor than trying to save uBeam.  In fact Suster is already hedging his bet to save face!
Mark Suster wrote:
Quote
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.
So let me get this straight.  You’ve seen every single prototype after millions of dollars over years of research and an army of big name PhDs and you’re already hedging for failure?
Suster keeps talking about passion.  A con man/woman has passion.  Passion is great but it's no substitute for competence.  What Suster means to say is that he saw Meredith Perry as “marketable” to other investors who are late to the party so that he can flip the startup for a quick profit.
Suster is part of the elite "superstar" VC crowd where the mere mention of Suster being a backer will encourage other investors to jump on.  In fact Mark Cuban was so confident in Mark Suster's assessment that he didn't even need to look at uBeam's prototype!  Now Suster is in 100% spin control mode and you see the comments praising him for his kind supportive words.  He's already admitting that maybe uBeam will fail but eh so what, you have to take big risks for big rewards and this is just one of those risks that didn't pan out.  But it's not his fault and it's not Perry's fault.  It's just one of those shitty things that happen to good people and the vicious sexist media are to blame!

This.
 

Offline Danseur

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 21
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #424 on: May 18, 2016, 08:51:19 am »
Says UBeam got a "bridge round" of investment in 2015 after failing to secure Series B.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scholars-doubt-ubeam-claims-pitch-deck-calls-tech-commercially-viable-1463484603
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf