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 impos

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.