3 ms·

The back story of this company is intriguing. The founders presented a prototype way back in 2011 at the D9 conference[1], and apparently weren't able to get an

The back story of this company is intriguing. The founders presented a prototype way back in 2011 at the D9 conference[1], and apparently weren't able to get any traction until they found a believer in Scott Nolan at Founders Fund[2]. Interestingly, Nolan seemed most impressed by the company's distribution plans: > Mr. Nolan said Ms. Perry had shown that chain stores and some “quick-service restaurants” were eager to integrate a wireless charger into their plans. She “had addressed all these key risks and got them nailed down early,” he said. To me, it's not surprising that folks would be excited by the concept of wireless charging, just as you could easily find plenty of people who would tell you they'd buy a Back to the Future-style hover board if you could actually build it. The big question is whether the technology is real and commercially viable. One physicist who has worked on wireless charging applications says he reviewed uBeam's patent applications and ran the numbers. His conclusion: it isn't[3]. Who is correct? [1] 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... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/technology/an-inventor-wants-one-less-wire-to-worry-about.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/technology/an-inventor-wan... [3] http://lookatmeimdanny.tumblr.com/post/101432017159/how-putting-10m-into-ubeam-illustrates-everything-that http://lookatmeimdanny.tumblr.com/post/101432017159/how-putt...

mikeyouse 12y ago
I don't know who keeps that [3] blog or his credentials, but as an admitted appeal to authority, the CTO of uBeam (dual BS & MS from MIT) also ran some numbers before joining the company. As did Andreessen Horowitz's due diligence team before investing, which I'd imagine has a physicist or two in waiting. One obvious shortcoming in [3]'s analysis is assuming that you'd still need 5W of charging power if you could wirelessly charge. Delivering 1/50th of that power is probably enough to maintain a charge throughout the day and people spend ~95% of their time in reliable locations that could support wireless charging (home, car, office, etc.)
- malandrew 12y ago
  the CTO of uBeam (dual BS & MS from MIT) also ran some numbers before joining the company I would hope that the CTO of uBeam essentially is the reason the company exists. i.e. he invented something fundamentally new and needed a partner that could sell it. If the business started with a charismatic business founder that recruited the CTO based on the business model being sound, I'd be very skeptical. A business like this doesn't exist yet not because the business model is hard, but because the physics is.

mikeyouse 12y ago

I don't know who keeps that [3] blog or his credentials, but as an admitted appeal to authority, the CTO of uBeam (dual BS & MS from MIT) also ran some numbers before joining the company. As did Andreessen Horowitz's due diligence team before investing, which I'd imagine has a physicist or two in waiting. One obvious shortcoming in [3]'s analysis is assuming that you'd still need 5W of charging power if you could wirelessly charge. Delivering 1/50th of that power is probably enough to maintain a charge throughout the day and people spend ~95% of their time in reliable locations that could support wireless charging (home, car, office, etc.)

malandrew 12y ago
the CTO of uBeam (dual BS & MS from MIT) also ran some numbers before joining the company I would hope that the CTO of uBeam essentially is the reason the company exists. i.e. he invented something fundamentally new and needed a partner that could sell it. If the business started with a charismatic business founder that recruited the CTO based on the business model being sound, I'd be very skeptical. A business like this doesn't exist yet not because the business model is hard, but because the physics is.