3 ms·

When I read the investment announcement I thought "Hmm, there must be something big/new I'm missing." If this author is correct, then there is nothing new here.

• minimaxir 12y ago
  Michael Arrington, who funded uBeam's seed round through CrunchFund [0], wrote about a sneak peek of the product [1] two years ago: "She then performs the closest thing to magic I’ve seen in a long time." Investors fund things because they don't understand it. (Although, two years to a Series A is pretty slow in today's climate.) [0]: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/11/disruptive-defined-ubeam-lands-750k-to-let-you-charge-gadgets-without-plugs/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/11/disruptive-defined-ubeam-la... [1]: http://uncrunched.com/2012/05/23/serendipity/ http://uncrunched.com/2012/05/23/serendipity/
  • notatoad 12y ago
    Don't investors do some sort of due diligence before dumping money on things though? Surely Michael Arrington or Marc Andreesen has a guy who can tell them when some crazy idea violates the laws of physics, even if they don't understand it themselves.
    • wyclif 12y ago
      The analogy I like to make here is The Beatles and "Magic Alex." A cautionary investment tale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Alex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Alex
      • afro88 12y ago
        Wow, you think you know pretty much all there is to know about The Beatles and then someone posts this. Very interesting read, thanks!
  • 7Figures2Commas 12y ago
    From Arrington's blog: > In a year or so when this thing is productized you’ll be hearing a lot more about Mary. As you note, that was written on May 23, 2012, more than 2 years ago. According to this article[1], the company is now aiming to be selling "by 2016." This suggests there was either a misunderstanding about the time required to develop a commercial product, or developing a commercial product has taken a lot longer than anticipated. What's interesting to me is that the recent photo from the New York Times[2], which Mark Suster also included in his blog post[3], doesn't on the surface seem to show substantial progress from what was being demoed back in 2011[4][5]. Charging a single phone from a couple of feet away is not what's being promised. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-raises-10-million-2014-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/ubeam-raises-10-million-2014-... [2] http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/ubeam-technology-will-enable-people-to-charge-devices-through-the-air/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/ubeam-technology-wi... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8541674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8541674 [4] 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... [5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoHxyweJcZI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoHxyweJcZI
    • DanBC 12y ago
      Does the lawsuit between Dweck and Perry account for the time? http://www.businessinsider.com/college-roommates-founded-hot-tech-startup-and-sued-each-other-2014-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/college-roommates-founded-hot...
  • 001sky 12y ago
    Arrington may have been making an oblique literary referance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws & Investors tend to invest to things they can sell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory So they are interested in ideas that have good "pitch". The technology is only a means to an end here.
• theVirginian 12y ago
  Be Mark Cuban and have something to say about everything that you know nothing about. Start there.