Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

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. 

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.

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.

Carmine,

My money is on the findings of the court with regards to Dyson v. Hoover UK.        

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

Keep your money in your pocket.  But if you would, please post the excerpt from the court's decision that uses the verbage "liars and thieves" with respect to HOOVER UK in the suit brought by dyson.  I'm sure all would be interested to read/know exactly how and why you authoritatively arrived at your conclusion.   

Carmine D.

I'm sure all would be interested to read/know exactly how and why you authoritatively arrived at your conclusion. 

Just as "should" means "must" to you when applying to BISSELL, it means "maybe/maybe not" to you when applying to dyson.  Where one stands ofentimes depends on where one sits.

I didn't condone HOOVER UK's actions.  The court decision was correct and it levied a hefty fine and penalty on HOOVER UK, as it should.  But the decision did not use the words you did to describe HOOVER UK's actions.  

Carmine D.