Abby's Guide to Vacuum Cleaners
Username Password
Home Discussions Reviews More Guides
Abby’s Guide > Vacuum Cleaners > Discussions > Oreck sues Dyson TWICE over Dyson's advertised claim of - “No Loss of Suction”...

Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Search For:
DysonInventsBig


Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454


Original Message   Mar 1, 2009 5:50 pm
Story here:  http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/40463852.html

This message was modified Mar 1, 2009 by DysonInventsBig



Replies: 11 - 20 of 150Next page of topicsPreviousNextNext page of topicsAllView as Outline
CarmineD


Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894


Reply #11   Mar 3, 2009 6:51 am
HARDSELL wrote:
Do you mean like the ads that claim to clean 50% better than Dyson that were lies?


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.

DysonInventsBig


Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454


Reply #12   Mar 3, 2009 2:46 pm
CarmineD wrote:
Thanks for the thoughts.

It's clear that whatever the terms of the ORECK 1 settlement in Feb 2007 the result is that the once well defined slogan "Never clogs, never loses suction" has been replaced by a verbose ambiguous dissertation about tests and results.  Hard to hold any feet to the fire over words that have multiple meanings depending on who's interpreting. 

Carmine D.


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
This message was modified Mar 3, 2009 by DysonInventsBig



CarmineD


Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894


Reply #13   Mar 3, 2009 3:27 pm
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.

HARDSELL


Joined: Aug 22, 2007
Points: 1293


Reply #14   Mar 3, 2009 4:05 pm
CarmineD wrote:
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.



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

Exactly when does Dyson lose suction?

DysonInventsBig


Location: USA
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Points: 1454


Reply #15   Mar 3, 2009 5:03 pm
CarmineD wrote:
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.


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
This message was modified Mar 3, 2009 by DysonInventsBig



CarmineD


Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894


Reply #16   Mar 3, 2009 5:39 pm
Some, maybe more, like the classics and buy them for that reason.

Carmine D.

CarmineD


Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894


Reply #17   Mar 3, 2009 5:51 pm
HARDSELL wrote:
It shouldn't be difficult to find 30 consumers who disliked any product ever sold.

Exactly when does Dyson lose suction?



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.

HARDSELL


Joined: Aug 22, 2007
Points: 1293


Reply #18   Mar 3, 2009 7:25 pm
CarmineD 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.



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?

CarmineD


Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894


Reply #19   Mar 4, 2009 6:52 am
 "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. 

CarmineD


Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Points: 5894


Reply #20   Mar 4, 2009 7:01 am
HARDSELL wrote:
 Would you drive a car forever and never change filters?



Does the maker claim that to be lifetime? 

Carmine D.

Replies: 11 - 20 of 150Next page of topicsPreviousNextNext page of topicsAllView as Outline
Vacuum Cleaners Guide   •   Discussions  Reviews  
AbbysGuide.com   About Us   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Contact Us
Copyright 1998-2024 AbbysGuide.com. All rights reserved.
Site by Take 42