6 ms·

Someone will eventually do this, or at least something similar, just maybe not with ultrasound. Whether that company is uBeam or another company is hard to say.

Someone will eventually do this, or at least something similar, just maybe not with ultrasound. Whether that company is uBeam or another company is hard to say. I was a little surprised to see Suster's response. One half of me says that is great to see an investor sticking his neck out for one of his investments and conveying the faith he has in that investment. Personally, I don't get judging uBeam and calling them a failure quite yet. I think it is unfair to compare them to Theranos. At least with uBeam there is no claim they have faked results or compliance issues. There are no criminal investigations over falsified technology. The only issue really at hand with uBeam is an overzealous CEO who stated they would have a prototype available and they haven't delivered yet. So what? They are behind, it is bleeding edge tech that will have a huge impact if they are able to pull it off. Is it because she is a female everyone is quick to judge her a failure at this point? Or because she is a young, first-time CEO? If Elon Musk was the CEO would the same negative press be surrounding uBeam about a failure to deliver? Now on the flip side, even Suster's post lends truth to Reynolds' statements. This part, to me at least, is a little more damning, and leads me to believe that Reynolds really was trying to put a stop to the hyperbole marketing. Suster states, "Throughout my many discussions with Paul over our time together, he never questioned the viability of uBeam and the technology that he was critical in developing. Instead he expressed concerns that we not overstate our capabilities or fall prey to hyperbole." To me these are one in the same essentially. Reynolds apparently was concerned about the claims being made, said something to Suster, which Suster confirms in this statement, and now Suster is downplaying those concerns. In the end this seems like drama over nothing to me. So what if they fail to deliver? Thousands of companies before them and thousands of companies after them will fail to deliver on a product at some point. That's the nature of the beast. To me it seems the only issue is that there is a young CEO who is excited about a product that has yet to be developed. She makes exciting, dramatic statements about her company and product than she really should be making, and both Reynolds and Suster tend to confirm this. But I believe her statements and the Theranos situation are in two different ballparks, so I think the comparison is far from fair to uBeam.

madengr 10y ago
They aren't going to do it with EM either, as most of the same fundamental limits apply.
gundar 10y ago
What will matter is to see if they seriously tried to address the technical problems or were just collecting investors money. Looking at their demo video makes me very skeptical. It's basic science that all sound waves including ultrasound carry energy. Producing a voltage into a high impedance and wow'ing a tech journalist seems very decptive to me. Using basic science to trick the uninformed. [0] And same with Theranos, it's very suspicious that they have published nothing and produced nothing. After years and millions of dollars. If someone gets their product 99% done, but the market doesn't buy it, thats a business failure. If someone raises millions by lifting a piece of metal with an electromagnet and promises to make maglev cars, that's a con job. The Theranos R&D man also quit and told his wife that none of the techonology worked. Very bad sign. [0] http://allthingsd.com/20110618/how-to-charge-your-iphone-over-the-air-ubeams-d9-demo-video/ http://allthingsd.com/20110618/how-to-charge-your-iphone-ove...
revelation 10y ago
You could write the exact same post about any random IndieGogo scam. This kind of interchangeability is a common feature of comments who make no attempt at all of discussing the subject matter at hand. You can not exactly discuss uBeam when ignoring the entire body of work done on the feasibility of the concept.
- gundar 10y ago
  Exactly. If you don't enforce a minimum level of due diligence for the laws of physics and prior art, then you are just tossing money at any fool or scam artist that can whip up a convincing story. Many scientific researches get much less money and produce much more tangible results.
- jeffmould 10y ago
  I am by no means overlooking the work that has gone into determining the feasibility. Sorry if my comment came across that way. My point was really two-fold. The idea itself should not get discredited simply because of the method they are using. If you take the idea, wireless power at a distance, and separate that from the method, via ultrasound, the idea is game-changing. The question then becomes how do you go about doing it. Ultrasound is apprently one option (I am by no means a scientist or have vast knowledge of this area). It is obvious, based on the research conducted to date, that ultrasound as a long-term solution is not viable, both from a technology and health perspective. So what is? Just because ultrasound is not going to work, does that mean the idea itself should be thrown out? Maybe, maybe not. But if we threw out every idea simply because existing technology was incapable of implementing said idea, we would be rolling around in Fred Flintstone cars. If VCs want to gamble on developing the technology by throwing money at it, that is their choice. The real issue is that at some point, the VCs need to stand up and say enough already with the ultrasound theory. Instead they should be guiding the company more towards exploring the idea itself and finding viable solutions. More importantly they need to rein in the CEO, and hyperbole marketing claims she makes, to take the focus from wireless power via ultrasound to just the idea of wireless power. That is my second point, that people seem to be looking at this solely from the claims the CEO has made, and not from the idea itself. Suster's defense of the company was a case of right idea, wrong words. He, in my opinion, through his choice of wording, made the situation worse. While essentially bashing Reynolds in one sentence, he completely lends credit to Reynolds statements. He acknowledges that Reynolds expressed doubts regarding the marketing and public statements. The problem I see with this whole issue is that everyone, from the company executives and VCs to the media, is hyper-focused on the method (ultrasound), that they have lost focus on the idea (wireless power at a distance).
dingo_bat 10y ago
> Is it because she is a female everyone is quick to judge her a failure at this point? Stopped reading here. Not everything is a "struggle against the patriarchy".
- hinkley 10y ago
  Some people are struggling against the laws of physics though

madengr 10y ago

They aren't going to do it with EM either, as most of the same fundamental limits apply.

gundar 10y ago

What will matter is to see if they seriously tried to address the technical problems or were just collecting investors money. Looking at their demo video makes me very skeptical. It's basic science that all sound waves including ultrasound carry energy. Producing a voltage into a high impedance and wow'ing a tech journalist seems very decptive to me. Using basic science to trick the uninformed. [0] And same with Theranos, it's very suspicious that they have published nothing and produced nothing. After years and millions of dollars. If someone gets their product 99% done, but the market doesn't buy it, thats a business failure. If someone raises millions by lifting a piece of metal with an electromagnet and promises to make maglev cars, that's a con job. The Theranos R&D man also quit and told his wife that none of the techonology worked. Very bad sign. [0] http://allthingsd.com/20110618/how-to-charge-your-iphone-over-the-air-ubeams-d9-demo-video/ http://allthingsd.com/20110618/how-to-charge-your-iphone-ove...

revelation 10y ago

You could write the exact same post about any random IndieGogo scam. This kind of interchangeability is a common feature of comments who make no attempt at all of discussing the subject matter at hand. You can not exactly discuss uBeam when ignoring the entire body of work done on the feasibility of the concept.

gundar 10y ago
Exactly. If you don't enforce a minimum level of due diligence for the laws of physics and prior art, then you are just tossing money at any fool or scam artist that can whip up a convincing story. Many scientific researches get much less money and produce much more tangible results.
jeffmould 10y ago
I am by no means overlooking the work that has gone into determining the feasibility. Sorry if my comment came across that way. My point was really two-fold. The idea itself should not get discredited simply because of the method they are using. If you take the idea, wireless power at a distance, and separate that from the method, via ultrasound, the idea is game-changing. The question then becomes how do you go about doing it. Ultrasound is apprently one option (I am by no means a scientist or have vast knowledge of this area). It is obvious, based on the research conducted to date, that ultrasound as a long-term solution is not viable, both from a technology and health perspective. So what is? Just because ultrasound is not going to work, does that mean the idea itself should be thrown out? Maybe, maybe not. But if we threw out every idea simply because existing technology was incapable of implementing said idea, we would be rolling around in Fred Flintstone cars. If VCs want to gamble on developing the technology by throwing money at it, that is their choice. The real issue is that at some point, the VCs need to stand up and say enough already with the ultrasound theory. Instead they should be guiding the company more towards exploring the idea itself and finding viable solutions. More importantly they need to rein in the CEO, and hyperbole marketing claims she makes, to take the focus from wireless power via ultrasound to just the idea of wireless power. That is my second point, that people seem to be looking at this solely from the claims the CEO has made, and not from the idea itself. Suster's defense of the company was a case of right idea, wrong words. He, in my opinion, through his choice of wording, made the situation worse. While essentially bashing Reynolds in one sentence, he completely lends credit to Reynolds statements. He acknowledges that Reynolds expressed doubts regarding the marketing and public statements. The problem I see with this whole issue is that everyone, from the company executives and VCs to the media, is hyper-focused on the method (ultrasound), that they have lost focus on the idea (wireless power at a distance).

dingo_bat 10y ago

> Is it because she is a female everyone is quick to judge her a failure at this point? Stopped reading here. Not everything is a "struggle against the patriarchy".

hinkley 10y ago
Some people are struggling against the laws of physics though