Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Dyson is in the news frequently and so a dedicated thread.

.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
DIB, come on already.  I was just teasing you a bit.  HOWEVER . . .

I do think Dyson -- especially in light of recent reports claiming the company is attempting to bring others like LG to court for product that isn't even on the market yet -- may well be lawsuit happy.  As well, may I ask how can Dyson be worth the 1.5 billion dollars you estimate and still be "the little guy" in court?  Anyway . . .

In the instance of the Air-Way it isn't about Dyson who, by the way also produces "non-steerables".  It's all about Air-Way.  Thinking selling jargon, the Air-Way apparently was the first "two-motor system" vacuum and, if you will, the first maker of a "power nozzle".  As earlier mentioned, I am surprised that adaptations and, pardon the pun, new spins didn't catch on much earlier in the game despite the Hoover sent mentioned in an earlier post.  Though a separate device of some advantage, a good number of years passed before we saw Electrolux or the maker of Sears and Whirlpool vacuums provide canisters with practical power nozzles and even years more for two-motor clean-air uprights to show up.  And there's been a definite advantage in both.

I hardly see many of what I view as illustrious vacuum makers as lazy.  Electrolux lazy?  This is the company whose attachment design made best use of little old 500 watt or less motors.  Was the company also lazy when it came up with that little but very sophisticated mechanical device that shut the machine off when the bag was full?  The components weren't much.  Just a rubber diaphragm, a little tubing and a lever. Anyone could have thought of it I guess.

In past, vacuum companies that wanted to succeed strove to develop product that was set apart from what the next guy made.  That is how we ended up with Hoovers, Rexairs, Compacts, Eurekas, Electroluxes, Filter Queens, Air-ways, Whirlpool/Kenmores, Kirbys, Bisons and countless other brands.

If in current times times there is evidence of laziness it is due to the greater desire to rake in cash than make good product.  Dyson is probably just as guilty of this as any other vacuum manufacturer.

Venson

As well, may I ask how can Dyson be worth the 1.5 billion dollars you estimate and still be "the little guy" in court? 

Hi Venson:

As I recall, dyson wasn't the little guy in the legal case with Kenneth J., an engineering student, over the owner of the rights to a ball wheel facilitator.  Kenneth J. patented the invention over 10 years before dyson's DC15.  Dyson employed a high powered NY law firm with 3 names, in 3 piece suits and all 3 present.  In addition to a cadre of in-house dyson lawyers.  The dyson legal representation occupied all the seats in the hearing room.  Kenneth J. lost on a technicality.  But won, I believe, and still winning in the courts of street justice.

James should have, as the proverbial little guy advocate, given Kenneth J. a dyson job, and made the patent for his newly hired employee retroactive.  It would have cost dyson alot less.  And a fair compromise for both parties.  Of course, the NY lawyers probably bill out at $10,000 an hour each not counting expenses.  Had to cost dyson a small fortune to win that case, bearly.

Carmine D.

Model2 wrote:
Model2,

Thanks for your scans, links and sharing of history.  I'd like to hear more of the Air-Way v. Hoover someday.  Surely Dyson would prefer to be completely original, when he can and if he can.  Below is a carpet washer patent that uses a supporting assembly too.  The DC18 roller is pure genius, who would of thought a tiny roller could make a this vacuum turn as well as it does.        DIB

Venson wrote: Venson,

Mocking Dyson in the past would certainly frame my conversations somewhat differently.  Are you going non-mocking of Dyson from here on out?

Typically the way I work is to learn my topic[s] and then discuss.  I research much.  I am fairly sure the lawsuit is over sequential separation (DC22 - Core + Root) and if so, Dyson’s been there first.

When a $1.22b guy stands next a richer and/or richer and more powerful $20-$24b (state sponsored?) corporation, it can be downright frightening.  LG sells $12b just to North America.

Re: lazy manufacturing.
You had to travel half way around the world to Electrolux as your premiere example of - vacuum makers are not lazy.  Certainly the U.S. vac makers of the last 10 years did little to nothing...  This is about it...  Turn vac on > the 70-80 year old brush roll does it’s thing > motor suctions > and a bag filters.  Am I missing something?  Certainly this is how the masses viewed a vacuum cleaners function until Dyson.

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Hi DIB,

Of course not.  Though you may consder my having a chuckle or two due to Dyson stories that I find peculiar as blasphemous -- Dyson is not God.  Nor is any other vacuum manufacturer.

AND -- you mention only my mention of Electrolux. AND -- how did I go halfway round the world pointing a vacuum that has been literally historic for decades upon decades here in the United
States?  To go into detail about years and years of  innovation and invention regarding all the other vacuums brands I listed would be redundant and boring here as there are so many veteran sales and repair people here who through personal experience know these brands and their history thoroughly.

As well, trust me the masses are no wiser with the coming of Dyson.  Quoting MOLE again -- to the larger part of us a vacuum is still just a vacuum.  There is still a large large amount of the public that ask, "What do I need a vacuum for?  I don't have any rugs."  When a vacuum is acquired the main issue of "function" remains whatever the buyer needs it to do not what must be done to protect the investment or prolong its service. 

What changed with bagless option,  in general,l is that people are led to believe there  is NO maintneance required.  The person on the floor in stores where these machines are being sold usually feels no great need to go into detail beyond, "You just take off the container and dump it." 

I have a cousin -- well educated no less -- that has the same idea and came by it honest.  Her mother, whom I loved dearly was probably one of the greatest vacuum killers I've ever known.   New or used, high-end, low-end, built like a battle ship or of flimsy plastic -- any vacuum that made six months in her house merited somebody's seal of approval.  Apple not falling far from the tree, her aforementioned offspring didn't splurge on a Dyson, just a low priced DirtDevil.  Seems it didn't strike her to empty the machine much or check the drive belt. When I pointed this out her reply was, "But it's bagless!"  

The upside to all this was, any family Cousin Venson belongs to need not fear or despair regarding the ills of their vacuum . . . I fixed it and its working well again.  BUT I can't belong to everyone.

Venson

Hi Venson,

Agreed, having a laugh is not blaspheme.

Steve Jobs once said...  “Give people what they want most.”  ... it is the “most” part that vac manufacturers have not quite figured out.  Dyson did.

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

As an aside on your quote, DIB, hopefully Jobs will follow his own advice and speak candidly with his stakeholders and stockholders who want to know about his health concerns and issues.  As a CEO who is singularly identified with APPLE, he owes them honesty and forthrightness.  So far, he hasn't provided them with the information they need to know about his future with the company.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
People love clean graphics and a high tech commercials! ....oh... that's not what you were reffering to....sorry. LOL

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Lucky1 wrote:
Lucky1,

When Dyson says “Bags clog.”, consumers can identify with this and [some] buy Dyson.  Sales are based on the function, not form.  What else would explain the Dyson technology adoption rate (copying) by other manufacturers?      DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

"Bag clogging" is a very miniscule factor.  Bag "buying" [and even possibly "expense" to a much lesser extent] accounted for the initial rash of bagless [dyson] buying.  It's a nuisance.  Takes time and effort.  If there's no new bag, what does the user do?  Stuck. 

Dyson bagless came on the scene and was marketed specifically to these bagged consumers as THE panacea.   It was all about convenience [cost to a lesser extent].  Not technology.  Dyson's fault, among others, was pricing bagless technology [read: convenience] too high.  [Recall dyson's DC15 ball for $599.  You paid $300].  Industry competitors picked up to this and copied dyson for less.  Their bagless convenience was cheaper.  Nothing to do with technology.  Price and convenience rule in the market price. 

Carmine D.