The sexism card is already flying in this short story devoid of facts.
http://fortune.com/2016/05/12/ubeam-is-not-the-next-theranos/ Another Fortune writer also wrote this apologist piece on uBeam that blatantly distorted the story.
http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/meredith-perry-ubeam-criticism-science/I responded to it last year with these comments in their comment section.
1. Nobody says ultrasonic power transfer is impossible. What they are saying is that uBeam is so inefficient that it can't even deliver 1/10th of a watt at maximum power levels safe to be near humans, and that it will result in 99% energy loss.
2. Your article cites the tumbler article as a rebuke of uBeam cynics on the basis that the article acknowledges power transfer is possible, but you missed the part where the same tumbler article estimates that ultrasonic charging will be 100 times slower than plugging the phone in.
3. Critics are actually pointing out that uBeam has back peddled on range claims and the ability to charge a phone while it's in a pocket or purse. uBeam now admits they can't go through clothing. That means you'll be forced to use the phone with screen face down when it's charging which makes it impossible to use the phone while charging for anything but listening to audio.
4. TechCrunch owners are early investors in uBeam and their pro-uBeam article fails to disclose this relationship.
5. It doesn't matter how much Mark Cuban or Mark Suster raves about uBeam or Meredith Perry because they're also early investors.