Low Cost PCB's Low Cost Components

Author Topic: The uBeam FAQ  (Read 206009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3333
  • Country: be
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #425 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 #426 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: 3800
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #428 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: 1856
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #429 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 #430 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: 24352
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #431 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: 24352
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
« Last Edit: May 14, 2016, 11:53:43 AM by EEVblog »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24352
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #433 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: 1841
  • Country: ca
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #434 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 #435 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 #436 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 »
 

Offline Raj

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Country: in
  • Self taught, experimenter, noob(ish)
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #437 on: May 14, 2016, 10:34:51 PM »
sounds gimmicky  :bullshit:
i'll stick to IR, same features but faster
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24352
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #438 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 #439 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
 

Offline georgesmith

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 16
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #440 on: May 18, 2016, 09:54:39 AM »
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product and was convicted of fraud in federal court. (Edit: The company and its executives were sued for fraud, and the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff when the company disputed it. One executive then settled out-of-court, while the other was ordered to personally pay $165,000 in damages. Sources aren't online, but are available via PACER.)

(Edit: Paul Reynolds, former VP of Engineering at uBeam, has said:

Quote
I asked nicely in one of my blog posts - please don't insult any engineer, current or former, at uBeam.

There were several world-class engineers there. He's one of them, both in capability and character.

Thanks to Paul for all the great material he's posted to his blog. I apologize for using an inaccurate source here.)
« Last Edit: May 18, 2016, 07:00:27 PM by georgesmith »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24352
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #441 on: May 18, 2016, 10:42:55 AM »
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product and was convicted of fraud in federal court.

And he stayed there to switch off the lights. From his LinkedIn:
Quote
Market pressures came to bear on Hashfast and I was fortunate/unfortunate enough to close the doors after a bankruptcy fight.
 

Offline georgesmith

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 16
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #442 on: May 18, 2016, 10:57:33 AM »
Apple now hiring uBeam engineers (The Verge)
 

Online wilfred

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4402
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #443 on: May 18, 2016, 10:59:45 AM »
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product and was convicted of fraud in federal court.

Does "A US District Judge has approved claims" mean convicted in a US court? But thanks @georgesmith for providing links to your sources. I wish more people would do that.
 

Offline georgesmith

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 16
  • Country: us
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #444 on: May 18, 2016, 11:10:47 AM »
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product and was convicted of fraud in federal court.

Does "A US District Judge has approved claims" mean convicted in a US court? But thanks @georgesmith for providing links to your sources. I wish more people would do that.

Thanks. The judge ruled against them, but the suit was then settled before trial, so you're right that "convicted" isn't fully accurate. Post edited, more details here.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2016, 11:25:55 AM by georgesmith »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 24352
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #445 on: May 18, 2016, 11:36:36 AM »
Apple now hiring uBeam engineers (The Verge)

Oh dear, now the true believers will say that vindicates the idea of ultrasonic charging  :palm:
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2593
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #446 on: May 18, 2016, 11:42:49 AM »
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product and was convicted of fraud in federal court.

And he stayed there to switch off the lights. From his LinkedIn:
Quote
Market pressures came to bear on Hashfast and I was fortunate/unfortunate enough to close the doors after a bankruptcy fight.
So uBeam has hired a guy with experience of shutting down a failed business? Sounds like good relevant experience. :)
 

Online amspire

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3194
  • Country: au
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #447 on: May 18, 2016, 11:45:19 AM »
Apple now hiring uBeam engineers (The Verge)

Oh dear, now the true believers will say that vindicates the idea of ultrasonic charging  :palm:
My reaction too. Of course Apple is interested in ultrasonics. Using ultrasonics is a fairly unused method of sensing up to now in phones and tablets so there is a huge of potential. To think that Apple is even slightly interested in 155dB loud charging systems with a 1% efficiency or less is a stupid conclusion.
 

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1841
  • Country: ca
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #448 on: May 18, 2016, 12:49:46 PM »
HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product and was convicted of fraud in federal court.

Wow, look who ran their finance (quoted from Reddit):

Quote
The company’s new CFO, Monica Hushen.
This woman is the death of hardware personified.
Her career is amazing. She was with Apple during the time when Apple was for all intents and purposes dead, then she went to Iomega right when Zip drives fell out of favor. Afterwards she went to some B2C solution provider not even Wikipedia remembers that was promptly bought and killed by eBay, then she went to work for the smoldering almost-corpse of Palm Inc, which HP finally axe murdered. Noticing a trend she had a brief stint at ECS Refining, which is a recycling company for dead hardware.
And now she's with Hashfast, a hardware "company" floundering dead in the water before it sold its first product..

Can you make a guess who she is with now  ::)
 

Online Cerebus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1623
  • Country: gb
Re: The uBeam FAQ
« Reply #449 on: May 18, 2016, 12:56:30 PM »
Today a friend noticed that Sean Taffler, uBeam's VP of Engineering, was previously the VP of Engineering at HashFast Technologies. HashFast made Bitcoin mining hardware, but never delivered a product and was convicted of fraud in federal court.

Does "A US District Judge has approved claims" mean convicted in a US court? But thanks @georgesmith for providing links to your sources. I wish more people would do that.

Thanks. The judge ruled against them, but the suit was then settled before trial, so you're right that "convicted" isn't fully accurate. Post edited, more details here.

Erm, the judge also ruled for them as well. And "convicted" even if not "fully accurate"? The document you point to is a ruling on a motion to dismiss. It is not a substantive finding of fact, nor a judgement, and nowhere anything like a conviction or finding against any party.

You ought to be a lot more careful before making defamatory statements about someone, particularly about criminal misconduct. Do it to the wrong person and you could find yourself with a big legal bill and some nasty damages. More than that it's just plain unkind unless you've got all your facts right and the person either legitimately deserves it or there's a legitimate public interest in advertising their wrongdoing. I should point out that the person you named (Sean Taffler) is not even one of the individuals cited in the case.
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf