Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

I received this "teaser email today: http://links.mkt2388.com/ctt?kn=1&m=2735925&r=MTgwOTM1MTgzMTcS1&b=0&j=NzgxMTAyODMS1&mt=1&rt=0
Anyone know what's up with this??

-=Art=-

Purveyors of drugs, booze, sex, real estate and all sorts of other baloney make lots of money every day too. Shall we top-rate them as well?

For consumers, it's never always about how many sold but product that does well at providing the results it's expected to.

The question of what's good will probably never be answered as, the same as with cars, consumers are prone to get caught up in hype as opposed to real understanding of basic function. By all means, do the "I couldn't believe the dirt it got up" test with the brand and model vacuum of your choice. Go back and keep doing it again with the same until you're astonished by how little it picks up. The "answer" as to what's the better buy lies in how few times are needed to repeat the process and reach an obvious state of clean.

Venson

Trebor wrote:

Hey Trebor,

You should get the Dyson story straight by reading his autobiography vice listening to his competitors and/or their reps and/or forum mud-slingers.  Sir James names companies, names suits, names dates, names numbers and not one has taken him to court over it.  It’s based in fact.  After reading it, then compare it to what is being said of him in bagged-vac shops and in forums.  And for kicks go through the Patent offices and count up the earth-shattering patents filed by Dyson competitors and compare it to Dyson and see who’s revolutionized the tired industry and pumped up/brought excitement to the tired vacuum.

 

From memory…  Mr. Dyson licensed his patents to Amway and they paid him an advance (typically against future royalties).  Amway then wanted out of the agreement and wanted their advance money back.  Dejected (after being turned down all over Europe and America) and broke/nearly broke he went to Canada, to a little nothing of a company called Iona.  Struck a deal and all looked good, only Iona saw an Amway dual cyclone (called ClearTrak) in a Sears.  Iona being the wonderful suits they are, wanted to renegotiate Dyson’s royalties to a lower amount and Mr. Dyson conceded (he had to, he was broke and needed money).  Iona made Dyson sue or had him pay for the Dyson v. Amway lawsuit out of his Iona royalties.  Amway settled and a licensing deal was struck and oddly Amway had Dyson patent rights and territories to sell in and Iona had Dyson patent rights and territories to sell in.  When Venson and Cameron lie and say Sir James has a propensity to sue…  it is not based in fact or fairness.

Check out the two differing Amway ClearTrak’s in the Amway cheats inventor page.  One has a screen (shroud) and one does not.  I believe the screenless vac is the infringing model.  FYI – the first HEPA U.S. vac-related patent is seen in this Amway ClearTrak.  Interestingly and typically, Amway wanted to freely rip off Mr. Dyson and simultaneously apply for design and utility patents…  Deep pocketed scumbags!

 

Glad to hear your words of Fantom’s.  I own the Fantom Fury and loved it/love it.  My hose tore and the spines upright locking mechanism broke and I can care less!  It has never clogged, ever!  Coincidentally my mom as a teen used to babysit a girl who became a Walton Character and the actress/spokesperson in the Fantom Fury infomercials/how to use your Fantom Fury video  (Mary McDonough).  I bought my first Fury from the husband and wife vac dealer who were profiled in the infomercial.

 

Here’s one of the wildly exciting pre-Dyson Iona vacuums. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqBqfTiXLHY

 

Dyson Invents Big

CarmineD wrote:

dyson DiB:

You're not playing with a full deck.  You're comparing apples to oranges.  Dyson is a privately held and owned company, by Sir James and family.  All his competition in the big box stores are publicly held corporations.   Sir James keeps all the leftovers, after paying expenses.  Corporations pay out dividends to the stockholders and stakeholders and the rest goes back into the Corporations' net worths.

Now if you dare, compare the net worth of any of these vacuum corporations, dyson's competitor brands in the big box stores, with the net worth of Sir James.  Then tell us who/which is the largest of all.  Hint: It's not your idol. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote: CarmineD wrote:
I covered my bases and you still managed to twist... so what else is new?  Then tell me ‘O most dishonest one’, name a vac-suit that comes close to paying himself anything close to what Sir James makes.  And if you choose to dodge the who's paid more than Mr. Dyson question, then tell me ‘I've got 55 years of mind-numbing vac knowledge’...  who is the smartest and/or mightiest and/or greatest visionary of all the tired vacuum-suits?



Dyson Invents Big
Patent fact and a matter of public record:  Dyson carries the tired vacuum industry.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DIB:  WRT dyson's litigousness, the facts speak for themselves:  Kenneth J and the ASA.  Sir James is 1 and 1.  He won against the poor engineering student who represented himself against the dyson's high powered, high paid NYC lawyers with 3 names and 3 piece suits.  Kenneth James lost on a technicality.  Dyson lost against Eureka-Lux with the ASA over the claim that an Intensity with a full dirty bag outcleaned by 50 percent a DC14 with an empty bin.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

You forget that Sir James sets his own yearly compensation for himself and his family members who are employees.  This pay compensation would never fly with publicly held corporations where a board of independent business directors with a majority vote of the stockholders have to approve the pay of CEO's.

Dare to compare net worth of dyson company to other company brands?   

Carmine D.

Carmine and DIB,

Forget about Mole, you two need to be in time out.

As to the lawsuit against Amway, I knew about that, perfectly justified.  I was unaware that it related to IONA.  Against Hoover UK, I would say the same.  When you get into peeing contests over advertising claims, it is always shaky ground, and the wind can blow either way, as James found out in the litigation over the "ballbarrow" name.  Those sorts of things aside, there is the matter of the engineering student, who lost on a 'technicality'.  I'd like to know about that one before passing judgment.
If he really was wronged on a mere technicality, then it was one of Sir James less-than-stellar moments.  But the law has to have lines of demarcation, and sometimes the spirit of the law is trampled by the letter, hopefully not too often.  As to the matter of using patents which have expired, IT IS NOT STEALING!  What theft are you referring to, DIB?  The law is the law, and since patents are unlike copyrights which are renewable, they have time limits, and once the time is up, they are public domain.  Think what you will, but it is what it is.  But please stop accusing manufacturers of theft.  If they were stealing, Sir James has proven he has what it takes to sue and to win. If you meant something else, please explain, DIB. But you really hurt your case for being considered rational when you insist on repeating accusation which are not true.  If you guys are intent on taking moral potshots at each other, you shouldn't cry 'foul' when the other makes a hit.

DIB, I was referring to the original Fantom, the one later called the Thunder. It was the best.  A motor with a little more suck, a larger diameter hose and wand, a little easier to push, and the multi-cyclone, bottom empty dustbin, and viola, an vacuum ahead of its time even today.  DIB, what do you have to say about the wiring harness in the dirt tube on the DC25? And the problematic clutch in the DC07 and 14? 

Let's not forget 8,000 Dyson vacuums find their way into American homes each and every day, and it shows no sign of abating. Dyson has to continue winning an increasing share of the market to sustain that figure, however. The vacuum buying market has yet to decide what the least acceptable life-cycle is for a 300.00 to 500.00 vacuum. That is everything. If is say, 5 years, and people are repeat Dyson buyers, then Dyson's future is secure. If not, something has to change, reliability/longevity must go up, or prices must come down, or both. The market rules.

Trebor

Hi Trebor:

I took a time out.  After 55 plus years of being self-employed in the vacuum cleaner sales and service business and an independent  consultant to the vacuum industry, I retired.  Can't take more of a time out than permanent retirement.

BTW, I've read your posting of 8,000 dyson units sold several times now and I must say it sounds too good to be true.  You know what "they" say when something sounds too good to be true.  It usually is.  With 55 years plus of experience, I get that trust but verify feeling with that number.  What can you offer to assuage my feelings of doubt?

Carmine D.

Venson wrote:

Hello Venson:

I support your standard for success in business.  Is your product better than the competition?  With vacuuming products, as you cogently say, does one/two passes do the job where others take 4 and/or 5 and more but still don't get it all like the one did with one pass/two.  That's the test for vacuums.  

The argument from the other side [dyson DiB-ster] is always "bagless is better" because it's invented by a billionaire with 500 engineers.  Really?  Who cares, except the dyson employees and relatives? 

What can your vacuum, hand drier, fan, do in comparison to the competitors?  When the competitors are one half and less in price than the "d" brand.  Sir James' net worth is declining as consumers gets fooled once and do not continue to buy into the hype.  Success is a marathon not a sprint. 

Carmine D.