So going to stick to your guns and say Dyson should cut thier Research and Development budget.  Incredibly shortsighted, I just don't understand your view in business at all.  The company makes a commitement to putting a large portion of profits to R and D and you say they should cut that budget and do what with the profits?  I just don't think I have ever heard a company criticized for spending profits on research and development.

Quote from JimB on 06/03/07 at 10:52pm:

Carmine explained his perspective on another thread. He is a former cost accountant, and his perspective is typical of cost accountants.  To cost accountants engineering is simply another cost to be measured and budgeted. Many companies do very well with that kind of thinking, and it is quite appropriate in stagnant, non-innovative industries. At the other extreme, some companies think of engineers not as costs to be compared to past or current sales, but as investments in the future. The modern hitech sector would be examples of that thinking. For example, Hewlett-Packard has a mission statement for their engineers that they mission is to make every product in their line obsolete within 18 months. In these sectors, staying a step ahead of the competition, and reaping the profit from early sales before prices fall is the key.  
 
Vacuums have for a long time been a reletively stagnant, non-innovative industry, so Carmine's approach may be appropriate. It remains to be seen if a large investment in engineering can pay off over the long term.

Carmine, I don't disagree that with any product you reach the point of diminishing returns, and it becomes, as you describe it, "a toaster". Once it is "a toaster", cost control becomes critical.  Computers were once innovative, but have become commodities, so the ability of engineering to add value becomes limited, and cost control gains in importance. Vacuums have been "toasters" for a long time, with very little difference between vacuums of 50 years ago and vacuums of today (especially at Air-way). Still, some companies are always trying to break out of that cost-control-only mode with innovative engineering. Dyson has their cyclones, and their ball. Miele has their lightweight, stylish cases and Vortex motor. Tacony has their "Hydra" with two suction motors. Hoover had their "Z".
 
One problem with measuring engineering is that in order to know if you made a good investment you have to compare current engineering costs to future sales. If the current engineering investment pays off, it will pay off in terms of future sales, not current ones. Thus we may not know for several years if the current engineering staff is worthwhile, or a waste of money.
 
I do agree that at some point the Dyson line will no longer seem "innovative", and they will over time become "toasters". As that happens, engineering on vacuums will diminish, prices will fall, and cost control will become the key. Note, though, that if the engineers are productive, they could simply move to other areas, whether it is washers, hand dryers, wheelbarrows, or whatever. Thus, at Hewlett-Packard, they continue to develop innovative products, even as older ones such as computers and ink-jet printers become toasters.

Maybe iRobot will have a good quality product in time, but it's current products are little more than robotic floor sweepers, somewhat removed from anything approaching a 'proper vacuum'. If Dyson ever enters this market, they have promised that they won't launching until it's seen as a proper replacement.
 
In other news, I notice that DC21 motorhead is now listed on the Dyson UK web site.
 
http://www.dyson.co.uk/

The Roomba has certainly established a market; a robotic floor sweeper for folks that are after a fun way to surface clean their carpets. Home robotics have long been popular, I used to have a big interest myself when I was younger. I begged my parents to get me one of the Tomy robots in the late 80s for an x-mas present. Alas, it was too expensive at 100 GBP! So to say, many people are buying them as a toy, with a slight practical function, so that they can reprogram them for other functions. If I recall correctly, iRobot are releasing a model exactly for this purpose.
 
But how many people are using the Roomba in place of their regular vacuuming? If they are, they're a little deluded in my opinion.
 
How about for a quick maintenance clean, say before visitors arrive at your home?
 
Check this comparison video :-
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtC0kI4_dKg
 
Personally, I'd rather use an upright for a couple of mins, that wait on the bash and crash method of a robot cleaner.
 
There's a huge market in a robot cleaner that work well, that is, as the sole vacuum in a household. However ineffective the Roomba might be, it has captured people's imagination and has no doubt returned a tidy profit to iRobot, which they can invest in to  R&D. Dyson's patents make promising reading, it appears that like everyone else at this time, they're finding it tricky to provide an effective yet practical power source be it mains or battery. Dyson also have the luxury of a steady revenue stream from their existing cleaners with which to invest in to development. While that remains the case, they don't have to launch into the robotics market until they either reach their goal or a credible competitor launches a product.