5 ms·

I remember this being posted on HN before and many in the tech industry criticising HN's negative reaction and dismissal of the idea. Marc Andressen tweeted "H

I remember this being posted on HN before and many in the tech industry criticising HN's negative reaction and dismissal of the idea. Marc Andressen tweeted "Hater News" on that day. But still , noone really knows how this thing works but I assume that VCs aren't going to throw 10 million dollars at somebody without doing atleast some due diligence. Atleast they got a few PhDs to audit this device and its working. So maybe we don't have the full story on how this works. Here's a VC saying it works: http://www.quora.com/Is-uBeam-practical/answer/Ben-Parr?srid=3ZRI&share=1 http://www.quora.com/Is-uBeam-practical/answer/Ben-Parr?srid...

tinco 11y ago
It should be very easy to debunk this article though. Just a single line tweet along the lines of "you discount xxxx". A bit weird to call it hater news without really engaging.
- corkill 11y ago
  They might value that knowledge being kept private to them more than debunking the article in the short term.
  - droopyEyelids 11y ago
    This might be the time to drag out the old quotation "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" In general your point is correct, there is value to secrecy in some instances. And often people who really know whats going on can laugh at naysayers. But, for example, if someone said they have a perpetual motion machine, and laughed at people who questioned it, the laugh would seem more like delusion than informed confidence.
- ebbv 11y ago
  They respond with "hater" and claiming the "criticism is unfounded" because they have no real response. If uBeam truly had a way of making this work, it would be a Nobel Prize contender. The credulous VCs are being taken for a ride by a charismatic, possibly naive but possibly purposefully misleading founder.
  - BurningFrog 11y ago
    The Nobel Prize is only $930k. There is a lot more potential money in building a company.
    - ebbv 11y ago
      If you would truly rather keep a Nobel quality breakthrough to yourself in order to maximize personal gain, then I worry about you.
danieltillett 11y ago
I am not sure English lit PhDs are qualified to determine if uBeam will work.
- dang 11y ago
  That's a nasty thing to say, though flattering to local prejudice.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Sorry it was a bit snarky. I was making a serious point which is a phd does not make you an expert in an area outside your area of study. I have a phd and I know I don't have the expertise to judge the physics involved.
ebbv 11y ago
> I assume that VCs aren't going to throw 10 million dollars at somebody without doing atleast some due diligence. This is a dangerous assumption. VCs often trust founders more than they should, especially when it comes to areas the VCs are not knowledgeable. Add in an idea that would obviously be adopted everywhere, and the allure of a billion dollar idea overrides sanity checks.
- S4M 11y ago
  So, why hasn't anybody raised millions for a company making flying cars or other crazy but wonderful technology like that?
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    Because people have been trying to build flying cars for a long time, haven't really had any success, and in the process have exposed most of the problems with the concept. Since most people understand flying cars and have a pretty good idea as to why they can't be built, it's much more difficult to bamboozle someone out of money by telling him you're going to build a flying car. Things that either haven't been attempted (at least publicly) before and/or rely on physics or other underlying behavior that isn't widely understood have a much better chance of getting funded. It's just easier to snow someone with something they don't understand.
  - ebbv 11y ago
    People have raised millions for flying cars. It continues to bilk credulous investors. But that one's been going on for 40+ years so at this point most investors are wise to it.
striking 11y ago
The tweet: https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/529079603482996736 https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/529079603482996736

tinco 11y ago

It should be very easy to debunk this article though. Just a single line tweet along the lines of "you discount xxxx". A bit weird to call it hater news without really engaging.

corkill 11y ago
They might value that knowledge being kept private to them more than debunking the article in the short term.
- droopyEyelids 11y ago
  This might be the time to drag out the old quotation "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" In general your point is correct, there is value to secrecy in some instances. And often people who really know whats going on can laugh at naysayers. But, for example, if someone said they have a perpetual motion machine, and laughed at people who questioned it, the laugh would seem more like delusion than informed confidence.
ebbv 11y ago
They respond with "hater" and claiming the "criticism is unfounded" because they have no real response. If uBeam truly had a way of making this work, it would be a Nobel Prize contender. The credulous VCs are being taken for a ride by a charismatic, possibly naive but possibly purposefully misleading founder.
- BurningFrog 11y ago
  The Nobel Prize is only $930k. There is a lot more potential money in building a company.
  - ebbv 11y ago
    If you would truly rather keep a Nobel quality breakthrough to yourself in order to maximize personal gain, then I worry about you.

danieltillett 11y ago

I am not sure English lit PhDs are qualified to determine if uBeam will work.

dang 11y ago
That's a nasty thing to say, though flattering to local prejudice.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Sorry it was a bit snarky. I was making a serious point which is a phd does not make you an expert in an area outside your area of study. I have a phd and I know I don't have the expertise to judge the physics involved.

ebbv 11y ago

> I assume that VCs aren't going to throw 10 million dollars at somebody without doing atleast some due diligence. This is a dangerous assumption. VCs often trust founders more than they should, especially when it comes to areas the VCs are not knowledgeable. Add in an idea that would obviously be adopted everywhere, and the allure of a billion dollar idea overrides sanity checks.

S4M 11y ago
So, why hasn't anybody raised millions for a company making flying cars or other crazy but wonderful technology like that?
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  Because people have been trying to build flying cars for a long time, haven't really had any success, and in the process have exposed most of the problems with the concept. Since most people understand flying cars and have a pretty good idea as to why they can't be built, it's much more difficult to bamboozle someone out of money by telling him you're going to build a flying car. Things that either haven't been attempted (at least publicly) before and/or rely on physics or other underlying behavior that isn't widely understood have a much better chance of getting funded. It's just easier to snow someone with something they don't understand.
- ebbv 11y ago
  People have raised millions for flying cars. It continues to bilk credulous investors. But that one's been going on for 40+ years so at this point most investors are wise to it.

striking 11y ago

The tweet: https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/529079603482996736 https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/529079603482996736