Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

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

.

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.

Vacuum cleaner tycoon Sir James Dyson, whose bagless machine has conquered the world, today saw off a rival Korean product after a battle in the High Court...

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/4069219.Wiltshire_inventor_Dyson_sees_off_Korean_rival_in_court_battle/

I'd be very interested to know exactly which Samsung model the dispute was over, if anyone knows?

Model2,
Samsung has many many many multi-cyclonic's that have not been challenged by Dyson (demonstrating Dyson does not enjoy taking people to court as some say here). Samsung has a patent/s on sequential separation. Dyson Core + Root combination pre-date Samsung’s. If you look in the European patent office you'll see Samsung's sequential separators or large separators then downstream are smaller separators.- I'm 95% sure this is the infringing patent.

On second thought, maybe the infringement is over the dual cyclone.  Who knows.

Moose,
Thanks for the article.  It is good to see Sir James find another superior innovation that’s insured and fortified by a strong patent.  Sequential separators should out perform I'll previous separators. Not to mention what a great use of space the Core + Root were made to fit.

DIB

P.S.  It is nice to see the little guy take on another monster sized corporation.  It's equally nice to see Sir James again (as he always does) praise his people vice taking credit all to himself.

The director of Dyson IP discusses those who have infringed, etc., and mentions Samsung too.  Some good stuff.

http://www.cambridgeconsultants.com/downloads/Library_presentations/Innovation_Day_2008/Standing_your_ground.pdf

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Great find, thanks!

Dyson dumb.  Bit off his nose to spite his face [read: ego].  After the US, Japan is probably dyson's most lucrative market.  Spin this story anyway you want, but the bottom line is this:  No other consumer market is more loyal to its heritage than the Japanese.  Dyson just lost the Japanese market.  Mark my words.

Carmine D.