4 ms·

Am I the only one who thinks the HN reaction to uBeam is pretty gross? Now we're encouraging shit-talking by former employees? It's an innovative hard tech co

Am I the only one who thinks the HN reaction to uBeam is pretty gross? Now we're encouraging shit-talking by former employees? It's an innovative hard tech company with an audacious goal that would change the world if successful and was funded by knowledgeable investors using private money. Why is everyone here so eager to trash talk them? Because their stated goal of wireless phone charging is likely too hard to get to work right? If they "only" figure out short distance beam-formed wireless power at 25% efficiency, is the company a failure? Look around any apartment in an 'old' city and you'll see dozens of things that would benefit from being able to throw power like WiFi. 60-watt equivalent LEDs are something like 9W -- there are about 100 places in my apartment I'd like to have better light but my landlord has no interest in running new power lines. Smoke detectors trickle charging at even 1W would never run out of power. Modern 40" TVs can use as little as 25W of power -- with a powerful uBeam and a Chromecast, you could attach it to any wall and never see a cable. Those "smart mirrors" that everyone builds then never shows full frame due to the ugly cord running out of it could easily be charged via wireless tech. There are obviously many obstacles and who knows if they'll make it, but it seems extremely short sighted and against the spirit of HN to actively cheer for a company's failure. Edit: Apparently, yes, I'm the only one.

flashbang 11y ago
We believe in science here, not voodoo.
minimaxir 11y ago
The official numbers from uBeam are 1.5W maximum, in ideal circumstances: http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/ You may want to read the writeup which forced that disclosure: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/ http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  Yes yes, for their phone-sized receiver. If you change the receiver size or transmitter size, you can change the power delivered.. If you fix the distance and take away the requirement to track a moving object, you can reliably send more power as well.. Adding battery capacity to a TV that's used 4 hours per day effectively cuts the power requirement to 1/6th. Lights that are used for a few hours each night are in the same range. Why does everyone's creativity suddenly disappear when the hivemind has decided to attack a company? I'll run some better numbers tomorrow for a fixed distance / size, but intuitively, eliminating the "tracking a phone from 5M away" requirement dramatically expands the use cases.
  - onion2k 11y ago
    Those are good ideas, but, and this is quite important, they're not what uBeam are saying they're going to make. There are definitely use cases where wireless power transmission would be brilliant. That alone is not enough to support uBeam - we can only judge them by what they say (and demonstrate), not be what we imagine they might do if they succeed.
    - mikeyouse 11y ago
      Edit -- Actually, I take it back. That's not fair -- according to their investors they don't have any intention of only making phone chargers; > And the truth is that Team uBeam doesn’t want to stop at phones. With the explosion of “wearables’ wouldn’t it be nice if you didn’t have to charge your watch, fitness tracker or noise-canceling headphones? What about if elderly people never had to ask a relative or healthcare worker to change the batteries on their hearing aids? The practical uses for uBeam technology is limitless. Or the company themselves; > With wires virtually eliminated, TVs can sit in the middle of a room cord-free and light fixtures will become “stick-on” without the need for routed power. <--Original post--> That's fair, but it sure seems like the obvious path to getting cell phone charging to work is to get a fixed object charging to work -- at which point, if they'd hired any bizdev people, they'll sell the hell out of the fixed object systems to anyone and everyone. It's just striking to recollect the many complaints about only easy, derivative ideas being funded when a hard idea with tons of applications is being derided in such an intense fashion. I'd rather they fund 10 uBeams that could yield useful insights or pivots than 0.
      - onion2k 11y ago
        Ambition is great, but it doesn't really mean much unless they can show current, visible results that demonstrate they might actually get there. When Elon Musk says he's launching a rocket to Mars in 2 years time we all get pretty excited because he's already launched a rocket to transfer orbit today. He's demonstrated that he can bring a similar thing to the market. If I had $80m I could pay SpaceX to launch something in to space. When uBeam say they're going to make wires a thing of the past, I will remain skeptical until they have a product on a shelf that I can buy. Until then I am as excited about their wireless power transmission as I am by any other startup in the same space - it's a great idea, but it needs to be seen.
dmitrygr 11y ago
I am happy to cheer for failure of a company that took millions on a premise that is physically impossible.
a_small_island 11y ago
Yeah that's great and all, but science.
rasz_pl 11y ago
uBeam has been laughed at from the start by every engineer worth his soldering iron. It was a SCAM, or at the very best a misguided attempt at something by very clueless person. I dont get that linked blog. This engineer, who apparently is too ashamed to use his real name on the blog, is part of the problem. He was either in on the scam, or is as clueless as the founder. Want similar magic 'under appreciated' startups? look up solar road scam, or batteriser.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  I actually wrote a few blog posts debunking the feasibility of the solar road, so I'm well aware of it and I may not be an engineer but I was a scientist once upon a time and I'm pretty handy with a soldering iron - uBeam seems like something else entirely. There's a very good idea inside of uBeam's probably misguided goal to act as a phone charger, which from what I read, is a big part of their pitch to VCs.
jn1234 11y ago
They are getting shit-talked by their VP of Engineering, you know that person who is actually responsible for creating that hard tech and is saying that it's impossible. This is one of the better posts that explains it. http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/tilting-at-windmills.html http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/tilting-at-wind...
URSpider94 11y ago
The reason for the negative reaction is that there is a difference between "there are obviously many obstacles," and "they are promising something that is impossible under the laws of physics." Many people here on HN feel that it's the latter. I also personally know people who are legitimate potential uBeam customers, who were approached by uBeam looking for funding, and who were given the brush-off when they asked to see a working demo. While it's nice to think that we could let uBeam toil along in the minute hopes that they might succeed, the problem is that they don't exist in a vacuum. The impossible specs that they are putting out there are almost certainly preventing legitimate technologies from getting funded, since you'd have to address the elephant in the room in your pitch deck. Additionally, companies like uBeam and Theranos create massive undertows when they go under -- no VC is going to go within a mile of a blood testing or wireless power delivery company for years after. Finally, there's a simple way that uBeam could silence all the critics -- they could show some data in a public forum that proves that they can overcome even a few of the basic physics challenges that have been posed. Despite the withering criticism, they've refused to take that step. That's very telling.
techitreal 11y ago
I personally don't at all think spending $10M in solving a challenging problem is the issue at all! I'd say it's more worthwhile than spending money in doing another snapchat! Who knows - there could be many wireless applications where even for short distance, you'd not want to use say inductive charging. National labs spend millions on solving problems the solutions of which aren't used for years. You can almost think of startups trying to push some fundamental engineering - based on a similar model- but at a faster pace than in academia. Even if it doesn't get immediate ROI, I think it's worth investing in them! What I think is the problem- and there are many parties to blame is--- (1) Press and some new tech founders are so obsessed with selling a good story rather than a good "real" impactful product- that they overhype WAY too much, claim way too many UNREAL things, stomp their feet with arrogance, talk about how the world is against young naive people (not true)- rather than just projecting some realistic expectations and just be enthusiastic about what they want to do(Sure, some level of optimism is needed, but don't go so much overboard!). But I guess, non tech or VC people get demoralized if you don't claim you can be a >$1B company overnight. The unicorn fallacy. May be that's what encourages this. (2) Problem with overhype is-- when it doesn't work out, it creates skepticism for genuine companies. When a founder of a tech startup says "It can charge faster than wire"- that worries me. (3)The world/press is obsessed about finding the next Steve Jobs/Tesla/Musk. You listen to Perry's TED talk- she keeps criticizing the PhDs and the engineers, how they cannot think "out of the box". Perry is very good sales person, she can bring in money and you certainly need that in a company. But, you don't need to bring someone down to rise up the ladder. http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxNashville-Meredith-Perry-Ho http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxNashville-Meredith-Perry-... (4)The media wants to find the good story of how a "dropout" or a "non technical" person turns out to be the next Tesla- and solving the hardest physics/bio problem. Worries me, cause I feel this might not be the best picture you want to portray to the young ambitious kids. Inventions and real disruptions involves lots and lots of hard work,and in-depth understanding of how things work, and I think the engineers and scientists who ACTUALLY make it work should be appreciated. Instead it is projected as if all these engineers are dumb ones who Perry has to keep telling what to do. (5)People want the world to change overnight, and some people want to believe that. People who "actually" work to create that change, know its not true. And I think at HN many of us are tech people. We don't like to be told - "oh you guys are way too stupid and cannot think out of the box" or "you wasted your time learning engineering, and I can just solve the big problems by just reading up wikipedia"- when obviously she had no clue. Good luck building it with no engineers?

flashbang 11y ago

We believe in science here, not voodoo.

minimaxir 11y ago

The official numbers from uBeam are 1.5W maximum, in ideal circumstances: http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/wireless-power-charger/ You may want to read the writeup which forced that disclosure: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/ http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/

mikeyouse 11y ago
Yes yes, for their phone-sized receiver. If you change the receiver size or transmitter size, you can change the power delivered.. If you fix the distance and take away the requirement to track a moving object, you can reliably send more power as well.. Adding battery capacity to a TV that's used 4 hours per day effectively cuts the power requirement to 1/6th. Lights that are used for a few hours each night are in the same range. Why does everyone's creativity suddenly disappear when the hivemind has decided to attack a company? I'll run some better numbers tomorrow for a fixed distance / size, but intuitively, eliminating the "tracking a phone from 5M away" requirement dramatically expands the use cases.
- onion2k 11y ago
  Those are good ideas, but, and this is quite important, they're not what uBeam are saying they're going to make. There are definitely use cases where wireless power transmission would be brilliant. That alone is not enough to support uBeam - we can only judge them by what they say (and demonstrate), not be what we imagine they might do if they succeed.
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    Edit -- Actually, I take it back. That's not fair -- according to their investors they don't have any intention of only making phone chargers; > And the truth is that Team uBeam doesn’t want to stop at phones. With the explosion of “wearables’ wouldn’t it be nice if you didn’t have to charge your watch, fitness tracker or noise-canceling headphones? What about if elderly people never had to ask a relative or healthcare worker to change the batteries on their hearing aids? The practical uses for uBeam technology is limitless. Or the company themselves; > With wires virtually eliminated, TVs can sit in the middle of a room cord-free and light fixtures will become “stick-on” without the need for routed power. <--Original post--> That's fair, but it sure seems like the obvious path to getting cell phone charging to work is to get a fixed object charging to work -- at which point, if they'd hired any bizdev people, they'll sell the hell out of the fixed object systems to anyone and everyone. It's just striking to recollect the many complaints about only easy, derivative ideas being funded when a hard idea with tons of applications is being derided in such an intense fashion. I'd rather they fund 10 uBeams that could yield useful insights or pivots than 0.
    - onion2k 11y ago
      Ambition is great, but it doesn't really mean much unless they can show current, visible results that demonstrate they might actually get there. When Elon Musk says he's launching a rocket to Mars in 2 years time we all get pretty excited because he's already launched a rocket to transfer orbit today. He's demonstrated that he can bring a similar thing to the market. If I had $80m I could pay SpaceX to launch something in to space. When uBeam say they're going to make wires a thing of the past, I will remain skeptical until they have a product on a shelf that I can buy. Until then I am as excited about their wireless power transmission as I am by any other startup in the same space - it's a great idea, but it needs to be seen.

dmitrygr 11y ago

I am happy to cheer for failure of a company that took millions on a premise that is physically impossible.

a_small_island 11y ago

Yeah that's great and all, but science.

rasz_pl 11y ago

uBeam has been laughed at from the start by every engineer worth his soldering iron. It was a SCAM, or at the very best a misguided attempt at something by very clueless person. I dont get that linked blog. This engineer, who apparently is too ashamed to use his real name on the blog, is part of the problem. He was either in on the scam, or is as clueless as the founder. Want similar magic 'under appreciated' startups? look up solar road scam, or batteriser.

mikeyouse 11y ago
I actually wrote a few blog posts debunking the feasibility of the solar road, so I'm well aware of it and I may not be an engineer but I was a scientist once upon a time and I'm pretty handy with a soldering iron - uBeam seems like something else entirely. There's a very good idea inside of uBeam's probably misguided goal to act as a phone charger, which from what I read, is a big part of their pitch to VCs.

jn1234 11y ago

They are getting shit-talked by their VP of Engineering, you know that person who is actually responsible for creating that hard tech and is saying that it's impossible. This is one of the better posts that explains it. http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/tilting-at-windmills.html http://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/2016/04/tilting-at-wind...

URSpider94 11y ago

The reason for the negative reaction is that there is a difference between "there are obviously many obstacles," and "they are promising something that is impossible under the laws of physics." Many people here on HN feel that it's the latter. I also personally know people who are legitimate potential uBeam customers, who were approached by uBeam looking for funding, and who were given the brush-off when they asked to see a working demo. While it's nice to think that we could let uBeam toil along in the minute hopes that they might succeed, the problem is that they don't exist in a vacuum. The impossible specs that they are putting out there are almost certainly preventing legitimate technologies from getting funded, since you'd have to address the elephant in the room in your pitch deck. Additionally, companies like uBeam and Theranos create massive undertows when they go under -- no VC is going to go within a mile of a blood testing or wireless power delivery company for years after. Finally, there's a simple way that uBeam could silence all the critics -- they could show some data in a public forum that proves that they can overcome even a few of the basic physics challenges that have been posed. Despite the withering criticism, they've refused to take that step. That's very telling.

techitreal 11y ago

I personally don't at all think spending $10M in solving a challenging problem is the issue at all! I'd say it's more worthwhile than spending money in doing another snapchat! Who knows - there could be many wireless applications where even for short distance, you'd not want to use say inductive charging. National labs spend millions on solving problems the solutions of which aren't used for years. You can almost think of startups trying to push some fundamental engineering - based on a similar model- but at a faster pace than in academia. Even if it doesn't get immediate ROI, I think it's worth investing in them! What I think is the problem- and there are many parties to blame is--- (1) Press and some new tech founders are so obsessed with selling a good story rather than a good "real" impactful product- that they overhype WAY too much, claim way too many UNREAL things, stomp their feet with arrogance, talk about how the world is against young naive people (not true)- rather than just projecting some realistic expectations and just be enthusiastic about what they want to do(Sure, some level of optimism is needed, but don't go so much overboard!). But I guess, non tech or VC people get demoralized if you don't claim you can be a >$1B company overnight. The unicorn fallacy. May be that's what encourages this. (2) Problem with overhype is-- when it doesn't work out, it creates skepticism for genuine companies. When a founder of a tech startup says "It can charge faster than wire"- that worries me. (3)The world/press is obsessed about finding the next Steve Jobs/Tesla/Musk. You listen to Perry's TED talk- she keeps criticizing the PhDs and the engineers, how they cannot think "out of the box". Perry is very good sales person, she can bring in money and you certainly need that in a company. But, you don't need to bring someone down to rise up the ladder. http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxNashville-Meredith-Perry-Ho http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxNashville-Meredith-Perry-... (4)The media wants to find the good story of how a "dropout" or a "non technical" person turns out to be the next Tesla- and solving the hardest physics/bio problem. Worries me, cause I feel this might not be the best picture you want to portray to the young ambitious kids. Inventions and real disruptions involves lots and lots of hard work,and in-depth understanding of how things work, and I think the engineers and scientists who ACTUALLY make it work should be appreciated. Instead it is projected as if all these engineers are dumb ones who Perry has to keep telling what to do. (5)People want the world to change overnight, and some people want to believe that. People who "actually" work to create that change, know its not true. And I think at HN many of us are tech people. We don't like to be told - "oh you guys are way too stupid and cannot think out of the box" or "you wasted your time learning engineering, and I can just solve the big problems by just reading up wikipedia"- when obviously she had no clue. Good luck building it with no engineers?