Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Hello DIB:

I will add one more point to consider.  iRobots are purchased to supplement the existing mainstay vacuum(s).  Dysons are purchased as the primary/mainstay cleaner.  In some respects, the iRobots are a luxury household item.  They are not needed  as much as wanted since a main cleaner probably is already in use in most households.   This would tend to make the robotic sales inherently lower.  But as I've read and seen, the sales of iRobots have been and continue to be very brisk.  People justify their need due to lack of time and effort to use/run the daily vacuum.  The low prices are a balm to people who may feel some guilt to make the expense, especially in bad economic times.

I was surprised the professional gift advisor did not include robotic vacuums as a possible Mother's Day gift.  Instead honing in on the dysons as representative of all vacuums as unworthy for the gift giving occasion. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Why would anyone be so cruel as to give their mother a prank gift on their special day?  Most moms have outgrown toys.

HARDSELL wrote:

Probably a loving, caring, concerned husband, son/daughter who wants to make their Wives' and Moms' lives easier and simpler so they have more free time to themselves.  It's like doing the vacuuming for them.  Many husbands, sons/daughters do this for their Wives and Moms for Mother's Day for the same reason.  Why not make it a permanent daily gift with a robotic vacuum? 

Come on HS.  You've been inhaling too much powdered baking soda and its nuking the limited thought processes you have.

Carmine D

CarmineD wrote:

Why not just spend $40 on a swivel sweeper.  A loving, caring husband would rather see his wife get some exercise and not contribute to her sitting on the sofa getting obese while a toy raoms the house. 

HARDSELL wrote:

Be my guest.  It's your money.  $40 dollars wasted for a manual sweeper that requires a constant user to operate.  Or $140 for an automatic sweeper that is self-sufficient and needs little/no user intervention.  Now...let me think: What is the better expenditure?  Dah?

Keep the sign.  Especially if you want to justify being a cheapskate by telling your wife that she can use the exercise.  That's real smart!  She'll just love you for that one.  And you can sleep on the sofa for the rest of your life too.  At least you'll have your sign for comfort and security.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
The Roomba is not a REAL vacuum cleaner.  True, it may have a suction motor, but many toy vacuums have a suction motor as well, and most are twice as powerful.  Even that POS Oreck will remove more dirt than a Roomba, and just barely.  The Roomba is no more of a vacuum cleaner than the Swivel Sweeper.  Anyone who takes these things seriously must have some REALLY dirty rugs...

Hello Carmine, with all respect, I think justifying the Roomba's low sales figures because it's not a 'real' vacuum is missing the point. It's little more than a toy robot, that happens to be a surface cleaner.

I will concede that it appears to represent the best feature to value choice in the market at the moment and that's not to say that iRobot's trial and error won't lead to an improved product in the near future which could well be a replacement for the household cleaner. The reason I take issue is that, in this regard, they're much the same as Dyson. They're both launched products that might not be 100% perfect, but that if they strive too close to perfection each time, they're at risk of their R&D costs putting them out of the race for good. In summary, iRobot is allowed to launch products with shortcomings, but Dyson is not?

Hello M00seUK:

It is most definitely a surface cleaner.  And most robots these days are that: surface cleaners.  That's the reason in part I said they are used to supplement full sized user required vacuums.  As a supplement, I would not expect the sales to rival full sized vacuums.  They are not counted along with vacuum sales.  But in a specialty category for household appliances. 

iRobot for 14 years was in the business of making robotic bomb detonators.  Still does.  But it was unprofitable all the time.  Why? Because there was no pervasive demand for bomb detonators among the buying US public.  When it used the robotic technology to mass produce the Roomba in 2002, the company's profits soared.  First time in 14 years it did not run a loss.  The following spring, the privately held company went public at $12 per share.  Prices of the robotic vacuums went down with subsequent generations of models, due in part to the influx of investors' capital for the purchase of its stock.  Sales are and have been brisk [at least here in the USA].

iRobot owns the market for robotic vacuums in the USA.  And will I suspect for the near term.  There is no viable competition even close in performance, price, or sales.  All this in the same time [actually 6 months less] than the time dysons have been in the USA.  Roombas are number 1 in their class.    

Carmine D.

Hello M00seUK:

If you haven't seen, here is a link on the various household and garden products offered.  More importantly the number of products, on-line customer support to maintain all the products, and tips for use.  Very impressive to me. 

http://homesupport.irobot.com/cgi-bin/irobot_homesupport.cfg/php/enduser/home.php?clear_cookie=1

BTW, despite the economic market downturns and additional issuance of more irobot stock, which generally dilutes the stock market price, the iRobot share price has held steady at $12.50.  Not many stocks can make this claim so far even this year to date.  Most have seen stock hits of 10-20 percent.  Must be doing something right for everything wrong. 

Carmine D.

Dyson’s launched the Airblade in Canada.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080512.RDYSON12/TPStory/Business

 

 

Dyson on HSN (I have not idea what will be selling) this Friday and Saturday.

http://www.hsn.com/cnt/program_guide/default.aspx?typ=1&pg=0&disp=0&usai=0&date=5/16/2008