Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

1)  Nov 21, 2007 James Dyson t.v. commercial parodied on Saturday Night Live.

2)  March 17, 2009:  While many independent vacuum dealers bad-mouth, lie of and/or dismiss James Dyson and his teams contributions, many others champion the man.  Watch James Dyson in his element - in his Malmesbury Headquarters.  NBC’s “Today Show”  http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=71fa9222-10d2-413c-bf31-0007895697ac

2)  Older video news:  I could not resist...  A Hottie car-news chick mentions the rumor of Dyson working with car makers, and Oreck gets a mention too (funny).

www.blinkx.com/video/hamann-stallion-audi-a7-fast-lane-daily-24jun08/JQ18e2m7y5hiULCgEQWSvw

CarmineD wrote:

Hello Carmine,

I think it's unconceivable that Dyson *didn't* investigate the validity of Kenneth J's patent during the course of developing their own invention. Indeed, patent filings often reference similar, pre-existing patents for the purpose of describing why their invention is different.

Dyson would be very foolhardy to have committed several millions pounds of R&D spend, testing, tooling and marketing - only to risk withdrawal of the product due to legal action.

What do you think Dyson should have done? Offered Kenneth J. a token amount for his patent or licensed it as a goodwill gesture? That would have set a dangerous legal / financial precedent. If he didn't have the foresight to word the patent correctly or Dyson have been ingenious enough to design around pre-existing methods then they can hardly be accused of using underhand techniques.

What had Kenneth J. been doing for the previous 10 years to bring his invention to market? Why hadn't anyone else licensed it from him during that time?

If the patent in question *had* been watertight, what's the odds that one of Dyson's competitors would have brought it, not to develop it in to an actual product (their shareholders wouldn't want the risk / expense), but to 'put it on the shelf' like Hoover UK admitted they would have done with the Dyson dual cyclone patent back in the day, to prevent anyone else using it against them. Is this the net benefit to the people, 'supporting the underdog' in this example??

DysonInventsBig wrote:
It's taken from a shop training DVD given out at DC15 launch. There's other video clips, but that's all there is with regards to the development.

M00seUK wrote:

No problem.  If there is anything of other interest to us Dyson guys, please post too.  Thanks.        DIB

M00seUK wrote:

Hello M00seUK:

Thank you for the repsonse and your thoughts.  I can understand HOOVER's point of view with regard to the bagless.  As a proponent of bagged and not bagless, bagless are a fad and will eventually fizzle out except on hand/stick vacuums and inexpensive big box store brands.  Perhaps that is the reason in part HOOVER UK wanted it shelved.  And not the pernicious self-serving reasons that most dyson fans ascribe to HOOVER.

While the pretense of not buying bags is enticing to most initially, the side effects of more frequent dumping of the dirt bin than bag replacement is more and more mentioned by bagless users as a major drawback.  Add to this, the obvious health risks and associated hazards to the air in your home by having all this ilk [that is well contained and isolated in a bag] up close and personal to the bagless vacuum user.  And constantly in the dirt bin and bin components.  Then throw in the high costs of pre-post motor filters and labor intensive filter maintenace.  What are you left with?  A one-two-three punch combination for likely fading of the bagless fad especially in high priced full sized vacuums.

I don't fault HOOVER UK at all for wanting to shelf the dual cyclone.  That would have been my recommendation too except, as I said, for hand and stick vacuums and inexpensive vacuums sold in the big box stores.

Carmine D. 

Indeed. Hoover UK's position was that they (and others) were happy with their bagged vaccums and the continual revenue it brought in, for little investment. The bagless vacuum can be seen as a disruptive technology, one they were keen to avoid. Unless someone can perfect a bagless dumping method that is as clean and easy as a bagged, I think we'll have both types on the market for sometime yet.

CarmineD wrote:

Are you sayin that it is permissable to use a stick vac or a cheapo although they (according ot you) could be  hazardous to one's health?

Typical for a hypocrite.

HARDSELL wrote:

Hello HARDSELL:

No hypocrisy here.  Good business and common sense.  Hand held and stick vacuums have considerably smaller dirt bin capacities and scope of uses than full sized vacuums.  These are also more conducive to in-home dumping than the large full sized bagless vacuums.  Therefore the dirt/health risks posed with these vacuums are minimized [not eliminated] compared to their full sized counterparts.  Also, with the smaller dirt capacity, replacing bags is more expensive relative to the costs of these specialty vacuums vice their full size counterparts.

With the less expensive store brand vacuum makes, buyers who pay $50-$75-$100 for a vacuum won't pay $15-$20 for a year's supply of bags.  It makes business sense to offer these in bagless mode.

Carmine D.  

M00seUK wrote:

Hello M00seUK:

Having been a part of the vacuum industry since the 50's, the bagless fad is regressing to the time when dirt containment was primarily in cloth bags that required dumping and cleaning.  Probably the single most significant improvement to the vacuum industry in the 50's was the advent of replacement paper bags which, save Kirby and commercial model vacuums, made cloth bags obsolete by the 60's.  Dirt bins are nothing more than a plastic version of cloth bags with the added user expense of high priced pre-and post motor filters.

Like HOOVER UK, I would have argued vehemently to shelf the use of dirt bins for full sized vacuums based solely on my knowledge and experience in the vacuum industry.  Money from the sales of bags is irrelevant to the decision.  There is just as much revenue if not more generated in bagless vacuum filters as paper bags.  It's a moot point for the decision by HOOVER to want to shelve dirt bins.

Two of the first full size canister brands that were bagless, Lewyt and Filter Queen, made the switch to paper in the late 40's and 50's and FQ still today.  For the very reasons I previously stated. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I for one draw comfort knowing, that at times, good ideas, ideas that are good for people and economies, are not controlled nor suppressed by *liars and thieves.        DIB

.

*Hoover UK was dertermined in court of stealing James' Dual Technologies and lying about it.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

I sure wish you would tell us where you took the courses in reading peoples' minds and hearts.  You speak with such authoritative proof on the motives of dyson's competitors.  I'm impressed.

My sense is that you would say based on your ability to read minds/hearts that the consistent fall off in dyson vacuum market share in the UK since 2004 is most likely the result of a huge secret conspiracy on the part of the liars and thieves in the vacuum industry.  It certainly cannot be due to the pure and pristine business motives of dyson and its vacuum products. 

I recall when the vacuum makers in mass made the conversion to paper bags an industry standard.  Noone nowhere argued it was due to the profit motive arising from the potential sale of paper bags.  Never heard.  Why? Was it a huge conspiracy on the part of vacuum makers to force this technology on the unsuspecting vacuum buying public?  If so, why did cloth and paper coexist for many many years by vacuum makers on their models before the final cloth good bye?  Profit was not the motive for moving to paper bags then just as it isn't for the aversion to bagless now.  It's all made up in your minds.  Bagged and bagless coexist, at least for now.  Just as cloth and paper did back then.

What drives the vacuum industry and its major companies, like all industry, is providing what works the best for the best price to the buying public.  Using that as the industry standard and guide, then the profits will naturally follow. 

In over 100 years of vacuum industry history, the only liars and thieves that I am aware were the CEO and CFO of Regina in the 80's.  They were both caught, admitted their guilt, and punished.  To my knowledge they have never held a financial/management position/job since due in large part to their sullied reputation.  High price to pay for a few extra bucks.

Carmine D.