"Dyson engineers thought blowing on hands might be an idea that didn't suck"
 
Carmine, the Airblade won't be on the market until September. Perhaps a price hasn't been set yet. The delay, however, may give time to makers of competing dryers to try to develop and rush to market a competing model.

I was on hiatus at the time, but I have heard of the new device for treating lice.
 
Price is normally determined by assessing market demand. Once you know the price, you can then estimate cost and determine if an item will be profitable to make. The demand for head-lice treatment is pretty well established, and the competing alternatives are known, so determining what sort of price that market can afford may not be that difficult. The Airblade fits an entirely new niche, and since there really aren't any competing items in the market, it is quite possible that more market research is required before an appropriate price can be set.

Let me put it in another way for you.  Headlice is a problem that has existing treaments. The costs for these treatments are known, thus, someone coming in to the market knows how much the market will bear. The market for the Airblade does not currently exist, and there are no competing products, nor is there an established price range. Selection of a proper price is not related to cost, but rather to perceived value. Before establishing a price, Dyson needs to determine what potential buyers are willing to spend. If they price it too high, they could doom it. If they price it too low, they could give up a lot of potential profit - and remember they need to make money to pay for 500 engineers.

My main point is that all too many people have the opinion that price is somehow related to cost, as if all product were marked up by the same amount. In fact, cost is not the way things are priced. At the grocery store milk and bread are sold close to cost, but placed in corners of the store so that you have to walk by highly marked up things like potato chips. Razors are sold at cost, while the blades carry a big markup. Cost does play a role, though. If the market says that the price should be such that it would be below cost, then the product will have to be re-thought.

I believe that the best way to do things is to try to accurately determine what price you can charge, and how many you can sell at that price, then compute what it will cost to produce at that volume. Then, and only then, can you decide whether or not to initiate production.  You can accomplish more or less the same thing by computing cost first, then deciding if you can sell enough volume at a price that is higher than that. In both cases you estimate both the cost and the price before making a decision. There is little doubt that most people don't do it this way, and that the result is business failures. The problem with the cost-first approach is that it is more apt to lead to setting the selling price based on cost and forgoing potential profit.
 
As far as the "never loses suction" question, I don't know much about this new ruling. I know they have been sued based on that statement before, and won. I suspect that Dyson will revise the claims along the line of "so long as instructions are followed, it will never lose suction". It's a little messier as an advertising statement, but avoids the issue of the fact that if the user fails to follow instructions, and doesn't clean the pre-motor filter, it will eventually clog.