Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

The 'Freedom' and 'Slalom' uprights, and the 'Xarion' cylinder cleaner. All employ 'Airvolution' technology.

You'll have to wander about the Argos site yourselves, as I can't be bothered battling with the silly formatting of pictures on this forum, and the website linking didn't work either.

HARDSELL wrote:

Hello HS:

Read again, my friend.  I said to the BEST BUY store sales staff I would buy the better of the two vacuums. Matching the most expensive vacuum at BEST BUY, a dyson DC17 Animal for $549, against the least expensive, the HOOVER TEMPO for $70.  With a panel of BEST BUY store staff as judges.  The TEMPO won hands down based on the judges conclusions, and I bought.  

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS you pat yourself on the back too quickly.  TTI Floorcare, Glenwillow OHIO, HOOVER's parent, is number one in vacuum sales.  

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

And I am sure it is full of still employed hoover execs that failed.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

Sounds like some HOOVER execs creamed you on the golf course recently!  It's not the $2000 golf clubs that makes the difference.  It's the skill of the golfer.  Just like vacuums.  It's the not the price that makes it perform better.  It's the ability of the vacuum operator.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Sounds like you are still doing the pay toilet dance and avoiding the subject matter.  How many hoover execs and engineers stayed after the sell out?  If they had skill they would not have had to sell.  Maybe Dyson knows that it takes engineers and not idiots renaming the same old thing hoping the buying public will think something has improved. 

Of course no need for engineers when you simply let Dyson do the work and steal their innovations.

HARDSELL wrote:

Hello HS:

Sadly your facts are askew.  MAYTAG, owner of HOOVER, sold out to TTI.  HOOVER was bought up by TTI.  There is a difference.  MAYTAG management not HOOVER is culpable.  The $2.1 BILLION price tag paid for HOOVER plus assumption of all its outstanding liabilities [including health and pension costs of the employees] speaks highly of the HOOVER brand name and its products.  Not many companies in the industry, save TTI, could come up with this dollar amount, either in cash/financing and both.

Dyson on the other hand over-engineers and over-prices its products.  Remember it wasn't business acumen that catapulted dyson to success.  It was winning 2 lawsuits and using the proceeds thereof to expand and export.  The current economic conditions make dyson vulnerable to competitors like HOOVER UK, TTI Floorcare of Glenwillow Ohio, and BISSELL.  Dyson can't compete in hard times.  It doesn't have the right product mix and prices.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Hi Carmine,

In the “Big Picture” innovation is king and not cheaply priced knock-off goods (TTI).  Classrooms are taught and history books are filled with many heros who go by names of inventor, scientist, doctors, teachers, visionaries, leaders, etc.  Knock-off artists are not portrayed here in the U.S. as heros, maybe as a necessary evil like creatures who feed off of dead things, but certainly not heros, although in China I am sure they are.

DIB

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

When a man builds himself a potential revenue making enterprise and it is stolen and proven so by way of a past history, patents and then a settlement.  This money was earned and not gifted or begot by dumb luck.  What is your motivation to state or suggest otherwise?

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

Innovation, if affordably priced, rules the market place.  Dyson over-engineers and over-prices dyson vacuums.  Knock-offs make the technology available to all who want it.  Same economic principle applies:  Who does it best for less is the market winner.  Especially in the current hard times.

Truth is the motivation and never goes out of style regardless whether all or noone believes it.  Dyson was floundering for years with his bagless vacuum until he won his first lawsuit against his US partner/licensee.  He plowed all the proceeds from the suit into the Malmesbury, UK plant in 1990 and dyson flourished in the UK.  It wasn't profits from the sale of his vacuums that were used to build the UK plant.

Similarly, dyson was strictly a UK vacuum due to the constraints of the Malmesbury plant.  When dyson won his second lawsuit against HOOVER UK, he used the proceeds to relocate production in Malaysia in 2000 and went global.  Globalization catapulted dyson into the Forbes BILLIONAIRE club which you always like to call attention to.  But it won't necessarily keep dyson there.  Now it will be profit from sales.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

DIB,  when you read carmine's reply do you think he may have gotten in the pay toilet too late.  Something sure stinks.

Dyson wins a legal suit and investes the money.  Others steel his ideas and spend the money on themselves.

BTW, hoover had to drastically reduce its over priced products and still sunk.  One day you may get it right carmine, but not yet.