The reason for the negative reaction is that there is a difference between &quot;there are obviously many obstacles,&quot; and &quot;they are promising something that is impossible under the laws of physics.&quot; Many people here on HN feel that it&#x27;s the latter. I also personally know people who are legitimate potential uBeam customers, who were approached by uBeam looking for funding, and who were given the brush-off when they asked to see a working demo.<p>While it&#x27;s nice to think that we could let uBeam toil along in the minute hopes that they might succeed, the problem is that they don&#x27;t exist in a vacuum. The impossible specs that they are putting out there are almost certainly preventing legitimate technologies from getting funded, since you&#x27;d have to address the elephant in the room in your pitch deck. Additionally, companies like uBeam and Theranos create massive undertows when they go under -- no VC is going to go within a mile of a blood testing or wireless power delivery company for years after.<p>Finally, there&#x27;s a simple way that uBeam could silence all the critics -- they could show some data in a public forum that proves that they can overcome even a few of the basic physics challenges that have been posed. Despite the withering criticism, they&#x27;ve refused to take that step. That&#x27;s very telling.