| General > General Technical Chat |
| The uBeam FAQ |
| << < (305/396) > >> |
| PaulReynolds:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on February 10, 2019, 01:47:28 pm ---A sentence in there brings up an interesting point. What's next for Perry? --- End quote --- Good question and one I'm interested to see myself. All my opinion of course, but Mark Suster's (not Cuban) deletion of his "I'd fund her next company" posts tells you the opinion within the primo VC community of her. Normally having a failed startup, if you follow the 'rules', can be viewed as a positive, you're experienced, know mistakes to avoid, built up contacts who know and trust you because you dealt fairly and honestly with them, a tech team who will follow you and back you because you backed them when times were tough - but how much of that do you think applies to Perry? More, I wouldn't be surprised if her exit from the company was not done in a 'calm and professional manner', and on top of how she may have acted with the VCs in the past (I have some stories there I would love to tell but frustratingly cannot, though Dave's late 2017 publicizing of her Twitter argument with a prominent VC might give you a taste of things), there may not be many in that community who want to work with her. The only way that changes, I think, is if somehow uBeam sells for a sizable amount, and even then I'm skeptical. Senior tech people won't want to work with her, IMO, so you won't have a chain of competent people like uBeam had (Berte, me, Taffler, Chandler, Pendergrass) to keep things propped up and lend legitimacy in front of a VC. So I could be wrong, but I don't see any significant funding, or any talented tech teams, beating the door down. I'm wondering about your crowdfunding idea, it's possible, and the general public are easily led on complex tech (see Energous etc), but having worked on crowdfunding campaigns, holy hell they are a lot of work to do well and require discipline and consistency. I'll say no more on that. Now remember she's been CEO with the power to hire and fire since college, never had a "regular job" with a boss, following instructions, being in by 8 and staying until 5, 5 days a week, every week, being held to metrics and expectations and the same rules as "little people", so while I think there's a potential for a role in marketing I don't see how that happens now. So is there a job where getting the job, and keeping it, are predominantly based on media and PR rather than achievements? With no standard 9 to 5, or boss to tell you to do your job? Where hare-brained unrealistic schemes and exaggeration are the norm, and you are rarely held to account for prior promises, and being a 'victim' is a benefit? Hmmmm. Politics anyone? |
| PaulReynolds:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on February 10, 2019, 01:52:18 pm ---I just realised that sentence also implies "Meh, we don't launch real practical stuff anyway, so it's only a small "plus" tacked at the end of our requirements" --- End quote --- And I don't know why product launch experience is really valuable when the company has publicly shifted to a B2B model, and so supplies IP/components, rather than finished consumer products. Different skillsets. I'm really fascinated to see how the new CEO tries to get this thing sold, and so far I'm not sure how this position (the first to be advertised in months and as far as I know, the first non-technician hire since the major fundraise over a year ago) does that. In part because I'm really not sure from the job requirements what they will be doing! |
| StillTrying:
I can't figure the timestamps here but, the website was gone at least 4 or 5, hours before sdpkom's report above appeared « Reply #1511 on: January 31, 2019, 02:54:19 pm » No links to PR blog before that/then. |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: PaulReynolds on February 11, 2019, 12:10:56 am ---I've had the opinion for a while that certain women CEOs like Perry and Holmes get outsized press on the way up (compared to the many women CEOs who don't... exaggerate... just do a good job and consequently don't get the headlines), and so cause even more harm on the way down to women in STEM. --- End quote --- I don't see it that way at all. I, and I suspect many others just see it as "another stupid idea fails", or "corrupt person got busted", or "another delusional fool who didn't listen inevitably fails hard" etc when they fail. I don't see any damage to "women in STEM", because the women didn't fail because of their gender, that had nothing to do with it, except maybe positive press on the way up that helped make them high profile to begin with. If anything I see the positive far outweighing the negative, with I imagine many girls seeing them succeed and then fail and saying "Gee, I can be like her but without the fail part because they were delusional/incompetent/corrupt etc". But there is a whole zillion page thread on gender politics in engineering, so we'll leave it there. |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: PaulReynolds on February 11, 2019, 12:43:12 am ---And I don't know why product launch experience is really valuable when the company has publicly shifted to a B2B model, and so supplies IP/components, rather than finished consumer products. Different skillsets. --- End quote --- Maybe they are talking about more internal "products" like development systems they can sell/give to B2B companies interested in the tech for some obscure reason. The IoT energy harvesting market is already very crowded, if they try and release a system for that market I suspect they will be drowned out in a sea of noise. They are always welcome to send a dev kit into my Mailbag segment for some publicity 8) |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |