Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

I'm relying on my recollection which may be rusty, but I thought James tried in vain to get permission to expand his factory in Britain, but government imposed obstacles made it nearly impossible.  In the US, there are cities/states that would give huge tax breaks to get them to build a factory. There are places that would bend over backwards to take care of any zoning or other issues.  Hardsell commented that Oreck chose Cookeville, TN partly due to generous tax incentives.   If would be fitting for Dyson to build a plant in Missouri and name it the Tom Gasko plant in honor of all that Tom has done to promote Dyson over the years. 

You may be confusing the Sir James Dyson Engineer HS proposed in 2006 with the dyson production move to Malaysia in 2001.  UK authorities were against the former [school] and for the latter [expanding production in the UK].  Sir James moved vacuum plant production to Malaysia in 2001 due to the labor cost savings.  30 percent labor savings by dyson estimates versus expanding/building new plant in the UK.  Since he was going worldwide with his vacuums, the cost savings was the clincher for Sir James.  Some in the UK will say boldly that British authorities deliberately nixed the dyson proposed site for the Engineering HS in part because Sir James outsourced dysons to Malaysia in 2001.  I think the argument has merit. 

I once said in a post that Tom Gasko is like a dog in heat.  He goes after the latest around.  First, it was him and Rainbow.  Then, it was him and Air Way, which did name a model for him.  Then, it was him, Sir James and dyson.  Now, Tom has a business relationship with RICCAR, after it dumped him when he became a james dyson cult follower.  With the exception of his last business choice, which is his smartest he made, all the others were futile.  He was wrong when he said dyson would force out all other brands in the USA like it did in the UK.  Neither is true.  In contrast all vacuum makers have flourished since the entrance of dyson to the market, capitalizing on the bagless fad.  Most profitable of these brands from a big box store sales venue, which is dyson's sales venue of choice, are those vacuum makers that offer bag and bagless models in concert.  Dyson missed the boat.  It shut out all bagged models thinking, like Tom, that bagged vacuums would go the way of the horse and carriage after dyson launched in the USA.  Again, he and Sir James were wrong.

Carmine D.

Like you, many of the US first time dyson buyers, don't buy another new dyson after the first experience.  It's estimated that less than 10 percent of dyson buyers are repeat new dyson buyers.  Hence, the reason its market share is down in the UK which is Sir James country of origin.  From a high of 43 percent of the vacuum market in 2005 to a low of the 20's now.  If the other new vacuum sales markets are the same as the UK, as we are always told by dyson fans here, the same is true: Market vacuum share is declining for new dyson sales across the board.  Niche seller.  Not main street USA.

Carmine D.

Carmine D. 

Dyson has consistantly increased SOM over Oreck and Hoover since the intro of the DC07.  This may well be the banner year for big D.

My only prediction was that you were FOS about Hoover and that they would fall before Dyson.  You predicted about a half dozen Hoovers to be the demise of Dyson.  I knocked you on your rump just like Dyson did a few years back.

As usual you are wrong again and I am right.  The latest HOOVER T1 series bagless upright for $129 not only ties with dyson's TOL DC28 selling for $600 in the latest Consumer Reports ratings but also wins the latest HSN buyers' survey as its number one rated bagless [over your favorite dyson].  I might add too that the HOOVER T1 series has a cordwinder, [dyson DC28 does not], a headlight [dyson DC28 does not] and receives better grades from CR for handling and lighter weight than dyson's DC28.  What dyson did in the past is irrelevant.  What it does in the future is speculation.  What it is and does now, or doesn't, is based on facts and is all that matters.  Except of course to you and Dib-stir who still are living in dyson's glory days of DC07.  BTW, the DC07 model, for all the good you claim it was, is discontinued.  For good cause.  It is and was a mediocre vacuum product at best.  No doubt the reason, in large part, you do not still own it.

Carmine D. 

You may be confusing the Sir James Dyson Engineer HS proposed in 2006 with the dyson production move to Malaysia in 2001.  UK authorities were against the former [school] and for the latter [expanding production in the UK].  Sir James moved vacuum plant production to Malaysia in 2001 due to the labor cost savings.  30 percent labor savings by dyson estimates versus expanding/building new plant in the UK.  Since he was going worldwide with his vacuums, the cost savings was the clincher for Sir James.  Some in the UK will say boldly that British authorities deliberately nixed the dyson proposed site for the Engineering HS in part because Sir James outsourced dysons to Malaysia in 2001.  I think the argument has merit. 

I once said in a post that Tom Gasko is like a dog in heat.  He goes after the latest around.  First, it was him and Rainbow.  Then, it was him and Air Way, which did name a model for him.  Then, it was him, Sir James and dyson.  Now, Tom has a business relationship with RICCAR, after it dumped him when he became a james dyson cult follower.  With the exception of his last business choice, which is his smartest he made, all the others were futile.  He was wrong when he said dyson would force out all other brands in the USA like it did in the UK.  Neither is true.  In contrast all vacuum makers have flourished since the entrance of dyson to the market, capitalizing on the bagless fad.  Most profitable of these brands from a big box store sales venue, which is dyson's sales venue of choice, are those vacuum makers that offer bag and bagless models in concert.  Dyson missed the boat.  It shut out all bagged models thinking, like Tom, that bagged vacuums would go the way of the horse and carriage after dyson launched in the USA.  Again, he and Sir James were wrong.

Carmine D.

The relevant thing is that Dyson put a whooping on Hoover and HS put a whooping on carmine. 

We are all familiar with your statistics.  Er, I mean speculation.

You must have blisters on your rump from sliding across the canvas.

Why do dyson fans and advocates praise themselves and Sir James when other brands add model[s] to their line up by using cyclonic bagless technology.  Dyson doesn't get a cut of these sales and profits.  When customers forego dyson for a competitor then dyson loses out.  Imputing credit to dyson strokes Sir James' ego but takes money away from dyson.  It makes no difference to buyers/sellers whose product copies who and what.  It's about sales.  It's hard to get big box retail customers to plunk down $400, $500, $600 for a bagless vacuum.  Especially with the abundance of good/excellent $129 to $200 bagged/bagless models on the retailers' shelves.  Many of these others with more desirable features that dyson models. In a few years, the industry's vacuum brands came up to speed with cyclonic technology at alot lower prices than dyson.  While dyson, during this same time wasted its time and effort on all sorts of non-vacuum endeavors.  Dyson remains a one vacuum product brand: High priced bagless vacuums.  Period.  Ball wheeled vacuums is just a variation on the same old theme.  It will probably go the same way as dyson's ball barrow.  Oblivion.

Maybe Dib-stir knows and will tell us what happened to the 2007 dish washer patent dyson filed.  It's been almost 3 years now and 500 engineers later.  Anything yet?

Carmine D.