4 ms·
>The actual engineers working on the project (including the one in this "spat") at some point realize the actual limitations of what is possible physics wise.
by logicallee 11y ago
>The actual engineers working on the project (including the one in this "spat") at some point realize the actual limitations of what is possible physics wise.
I read until here and would like to cut you off. So, at this point, can you tell me YOUR perspective on the alternate history where the company, exactly at this point, starts behaving exactly like Apple, consumer-driven instead of fundamental R&D driven, and simply pivots and enters some totally unrelated part of the power or battery market. Literally any other part of it - not just super capacitors (which were making the rounds around that time) but literally ANY part of the market, since they had obscene gobs of money in the bank for the stage they were at ($10M+) and lots of extremely talented engineers.
What would have happened? Could they have retained their goodwill, credibility, and name, and simply successfully pivoted?
- manigandham 11y agoIf they were that rational, they wouldn't have started the original project in the first place.
- logicallee 11y ago-4 for asking? Well, okay. I wrote to them when it became obvious that they were selling snake oil, urging them to pivot to tech that can work. I'm curious if people think they could have pivoted, or if they were married to the snake oil (ie a pivot would have failed) . It's a yes/no question without preconception from me and I'd appreciate a response or explanation...
- ChuckMcM 11y agoI think its a valid question on pivots, but its also pretty much the sole discretion of the founder/CEO to actually do the pivot. Without them on board and leading the change you end up with a mess, some people following the "strong" leaders and some people following the "original" leaders, and nobody gets anything done to their satisfaction. It also affects your team makeup, since at the small scale one tries to craft a team with overlapping but interlocking skill sets. Pivots require restructuring for that reason, and being able to pull that off is a skill as well. At the end of the day, if the CEO is thinking the "least risk / best shot" is to stay the course, then a pivot is off the table until you replace the CEO.
- logicallee 11y agoNonono, I'm actually curious if in harryh's nuanced view, Meredith Perry (not someone else) had this option open and could have done so once she realized the tech couldn't work. What do you think?
- ChuckMcM 11y agoTo what end? Not enough information for speculation. One of the nice things about HN discussions is that generally folks who comment have some line of reasoning that leads to their opinion. Unless someone was actually working at uBeam and a confidante of Perry, what ever they speculate is useless. And if they are an employee and confidante, what ever they say will no doubt lead to at least the end of their position and at worst legal action. And the really relevant point is that uBeam hasn't, according to its current press, pivoted into anything other than its stated mission. So debating why not is like debating why you didn't ask out someone back when you were in high school and now has turned out to be someone you didn't expect. Kind of a waste of time :-)
- logicallee 11y agoShe had a proof of concept that turned out didn't scale. If you think it's "useless" to discuss whether and how it's possible for such a CEO to pivot we have nothing further to discuss. I will say that I expect any and every world-changing CEO to be at risk of being in such a position now and in the future, and that the development of a game plan by the startup community for when (not if) this happens again is the difference between billions of dollars of value and the statement "unfortunately I have to say no to changing the world because I only have a working proof of concept. Personally I do not want to run even a 1% risk of ending up in the position that Perry ended up in - and in my conservative opinion I have a 20-90% chance of that. Oh well - I'll put this proof of concept aside and go do something else. " Well, okay. But I hope it's blindingly obvious that we all lose. . That pre-CEO and the world. EDIT: Whoever is downvoting me doesn't get it. She had a proof of concept. The proof didn't scale. She raised money - millions - anyway. To me this is all fine. The question is whether she HAD to stick with this non-working concept, or whether she could have pivoted, when she had all that money in the bank and learned that the concept does not work/scale. You guys just don't get the question.
- pjc50 11y agoHow do you pivot a hardware startup that's built around a single idea?