Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Story here:  http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/40463852.html

Clearly, dyson is given more latitude among its sales venues in the UK than here in the USA.  Perhaps, due to the ORECK 1 settlement?  Maybe.

I'm not sure what test can be used to document and prove NEVER clogging. 

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

No, I don't.  I'm speaking strictly about dyson as you know.  Based on the total mass of industry data in the public arena, it is safe to say that dyson vacuums are not known for their besting others [even $50 Dirt Devil uprights] in rug cleaning and grooming let alone doing so in written advertised claims.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Has not Oreck made themselves out to be an enemy to Dyson?  Oreck has made a second career out of attacking the Dyson vacuum (in their infomercials, etc), attacking Dyson’s marketing and suing Dyson.  If Oreck spent more time on themselves, paying their bills on time, keeping up a good credit history, not having to sell their financial souls to outside investors, inventing, creating new and needed markets, being first to market, etc.,- they would not need to sue (so badly) and write creative claims of their vacuum's wonders and their leading edge engineering that cannot be proven as true.


DIB

I offer no comment on your opinions of ORECK, other than to say I am pleased with mine and it performs exactly as I want and expect.  I do seem to recall that ORECK and HOOVER too [if memory serves me correctly] joined with the 30 plus others, who characterized themselves as disgruntled dyson owners and users, who filed against dyson with the ASA in the UK.  I doubt these customers and buyers of dysons had any motives for bringing dyson up against the ASA other than fairness and truth in dyson's product claims.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

It shouldn't be difficult to find 30 consumers who disliked any product ever sold.

Exactly when does Dyson lose suction?

CarmineD wrote:
My opinions? - No.  Recorded history? - Yes.  I merely organized this history into a few sentences.

Glad you enjoy your Oreck.  Your Oreck and today's current line of Oreck’s prove out that for most manufacturers, [major] innovation is impossible.

DIB

Some, maybe more, like the classics and buy them for that reason.

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

Not just 30 plus consumers who dislike their products after they purchased but went a step further.  They took issue with dyson's product claims and took dyson before the ASA for them.  I can't recall another vacuum brand in recent years that had that happen either here with the FTC or in the UK with ASA save your fave brand. 

Dyson vacuums, like all bagless vacuum products, lose suction when their filters clog.   That was the crux of the disgruntled dyson customers' filing with the ASA in the UK.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

You apparently have never heard of a class action law suit.  No reason for other vacuum makers to be sued.  They have no technology to infringe on.  Who wants to sue for advertising such as:  "SAME ANTIQUATED TECHNOLOGY AS ALL OUR PREVIOUS ONES" or  "STILL CHOKES AND LOSES SUCTION AFTER A FEW MINUTES USE" or  "WE ONLY CHANGED THE SKU NUMBER SO YOU DUMMIES WOULD BUY IT".  My favorites:  "SOLD ONLY BY INDEPENDENTS SO YOU CAN ALSO GET SCREWED ON REPAIRS" or "OUR VACUUMS DON'T PERFORM, HOWEVER WE GIVE YOU A GIFT TO OFFSET ITS POOR PERFORMANCE".

Dyson should add:  IDIOTS DO NOT TRY THIS VACUUM AT HOME.  Would you drive a car forever and never change filters?

 "Never clogs, never loses suction" is addressed by the wisdom stated in never say never.  Never means never.  It "doesn't" mean: If you clean the filters every 2 months.  And if it did, dyson should have said so, as it does now.

Carmine D.