General > General Technical Chat

The uBeam FAQ

<< < (275/396) > >>

PaulReynolds:

--- Quote from: sdpkom on December 02, 2018, 03:54:22 pm ---
--- Quote from: PaulReynolds on November 30, 2018, 11:46:57 pm ---
But if you've built your entire self-image on proving engineers wrong and it's your destiny to bring wireless power to the masses, then no, you're not going to do that.

--- End quote ---

I agree fully, with what you wrote.
I just think she was maneuvered into this position of "engineers are wrong, it's my destiny to bring wireless power", by some "adults" and by her attention seeking personality.

It's stupid but normal for many people to seek a lot of media attention, which helps bring money (as long as it's good attention).
Experienced managers know this will blow up in their face later...

--- End quote ---

I don't think the facts, or my personal experience of the situation, can support the assertion Perry was manipulated into that position.  The TEDx talk (below) where she disparages engineers is from April 2012, not even a year after the "All Things D" demo, prior to even the majority of the seed round money (which I think was summer 2012), and definitively prior to the Series A (~$10m in Sept/Oct 2014). At that time the only "adults" that were around consistently that I am aware of were her father, and Board of Directors member Katie McMahon. I only met McMahon a few times, and she never seemed to me to be someone who manipulated but had been described by many of the senior technical team as "head cheerleader for Team Meredith". Timeline shows, IMO, these characteristics prior to serious funding.

When I wrote the "Must Have The Precious" blog in April 2016 (https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/must-have-precious.html ) a point I wanted to make was that I saw someone who (at least outwardly) to me changed over a period of time - that at each funding round, in my opinion, a set of personality traits that were possibly always there but not necessarily dominant, were rewarded and encouraged, and came to the fore more and more until they were dominant. The interactions with the co-founder in 2011, again in my opinion, show it was always there even prior to "adults" being involved (again, other than her father or others I am not aware of, and I've got a pretty good background on this). That a single minded pursuit of "the precious" (wireless ultrasound power and proving engineers wrong) at any cost changed her and, I thought at the time, would ultimately result in her own "doom". I think I've been proven right on that one.

I thought at the influx of serious money in 2014 that "adults" would make sure what I thought were the worst of her characteristics would be tempered and there would be an opportunity for learning and growth when the stakes got serious. I was very wrong. I don't believe that she was manipulated into that attitude, but I do hold the opinion that she was not stopped and was effectively enabled by many of them.

Perry was her own person, like everyone a product of their personality and upbringing. I don't see her as an easily manipulated child in that regard. Like Elizabeth Holmes, I think there's a drive to find a reason for why they did what they did, and try to apply a logical reason for why someone would act, in our opinion, so illogically. As with so much of human behaviour, it defies logic and simply comes down to the frog and scorpion tale - "I'm a scorpion"


EEVblog:

--- Quote from: PaulReynolds on December 07, 2018, 11:45:51 am ---I thought at the influx of serious money in 2014 that "adults" would make sure what I thought were the worst of her characteristics would be tempered and there would be an opportunity for learning and growth when the stakes got serious. I was very wrong. I don't believe that she was manipulated into that attitude, but I do hold the opinion that she was not stopped and was effectively enabled by many of them.

--- End quote ---

I was quite surprised that she was obviously forced into stepping down, I thought she'd ride this donkey into the ground (and had the shareholder voting power to do so?).
Perhaps she just ran out of puff to fight any more?
I don't see for changing after all this time?
Or perhaps someone was clever enough to subtly convince her that a new tack was the best way to go?

Cerebus:

--- Quote from: PaulReynolds on December 07, 2018, 11:45:51 am ---I thought at the influx of serious money in 2014 that "adults" would make sure what I thought were the worst of her characteristics would be tempered and there would be an opportunity for learning and growth when the stakes got serious. I was very wrong. I don't believe that she was manipulated into that attitude, but I do hold the opinion that she was not stopped and was effectively enabled by many of them.

--- End quote ---

Being a sociopath is almost a career requirement for financiers, they are not the people to look to for spotting and mitigating risky personality traits in other people.

PaulReynolds:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on December 07, 2018, 11:58:47 am ---
I was quite surprised that she was obviously forced into stepping down, I thought she'd ride this donkey into the ground (and had the shareholder voting power to do so?).
Perhaps she just ran out of puff to fight any more?
I don't see for changing after all this time?
Or perhaps someone was clever enough to subtly convince her that a new tack was the best way to go?

--- End quote ---

It really surprised me too, IMO I had expected her to go down with the company in flames screaming "I would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for you pesky misogynists" or equivalent. (Or, carrying on the LotR metaphor, fall into the fires of MtDoom clutching the precious)

My opinion, and purely a guess - Perry did not leave willingly, and that the last round of had enough dilution of her stock and enough increase of major funder's stock that the overall ratio of equity, or the BoD voting structure, shifted so it could be forced. This seemed to happen shortly after the most recent COO left in May, which I expect was the breaking point for the investors.

EEVblog:

--- Quote from: PaulReynolds on December 07, 2018, 03:42:34 pm ---My opinion, and purely a guess - Perry did not leave willingly, and that the last round of had enough dilution of her stock and enough increase of major funder's stock that the overall ratio of equity, or the BoD voting structure, shifted so it could be forced. This seemed to happen shortly after the most recent COO left in May, which I expect was the breaking point for the investors.

--- End quote ---

This reminds me of Altium. Founder Nick Martin (a really nice and smart guy) ran the company with an iron fist for over 20 years and drove the share price into the ground in pursuit of whatever his latest vision was. He just wasn't a practical business guy and really had place no running a public company. It wasn't until he bailed out his buddy (and former early employee) buy buying his company (Morfik) with stock did hid buddy along with the board then have enough voting power to do a hostile takeover and finally boot him out.
They then righted the ship and focused on core stuff, ran it like a business, and within 8 years the stock climbed from 10 cents to $30.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod