Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Hi all,

Following is a link to a news article regarding the up and down sides for Electrolux during this year's first quarter.

http://www.centredaily.com/business/technology/story/553091.html

Best,

Venson

Isn't it funny the first restructuring a company does is to let people go (usually lower Mgt and workers). So there are more people out of work and less people to have money to buy product.

Hi Lucky1,

You're right.  But that's the awful truth about large-scale business .  While the rank and file allow our minds to rest on small sums, money that might only allow for a few years of existence -- maybe several hundred grand at most for a house, maybe a couple hundred grand more to spend on a kid's education. -- in the real picture the big kids in corporations and companies have their mind on real money . . . millions maybe billions.  So-called "cutting the fat" may or may not be a comfortable issue with those seated at board tables but corporations are essentially formed and built to survive and . . . to keep stockholders happy.  That leaves little room for "kindness".  These companies know the streets are full and that they'll have no problem in taking on help when they feel they reached a point where they can afford to be generous again.

What I hate is unfairness of it all.  It feels as though the question, "Who the heck are you?" is put to us almost daily even though, whatever our income bracket, we feed these business behemoths daily with our money?  BUT -- if you or I go broke there'll be no goverment bail-outs.  No one will come to guarantee payment of our debts or supply a line of credit to see us over the hump on the road toward better times.  While there will more than likely some or all sorts of aid for major corporations when pickings get thin, there's little relief for many left without work.  There will be no adustments made on their behalf and many will see their homes be foreclosed even though the banks involved will probably find no one to buy them.

My favorite quote is a statement made by a business woman I used to work for.  "Ven," she said, "Never pay anybody anymore than you just have to."  And she never did.

Best,

Venson

Thanks Venson:

Interesting read.  The E-lux CEO is optimistic to believe that full year 2008 operating results will be in-line with 2007.  I don't believe any of the large appliance makers/sellers, like GE, Whirlpool, E-Lux, will come close to matching their 2007 results.  Instead much worse. 

Carmine D.

While the rank and file are getting riffed, Ms. Kelly Rippa [the better half of the dynamic Regis and Kelly Duet] is the poster "hottie" for the new BEST BUY E-Lux  appliance line.  The new TV ads are airing.

Her husband is one lucky man.

Carmine D.

Hi,

Came across another article regarding the Electrolux dilemma. The following quote is debatable I'm sure . . .

Per Hans Straberg -- "The US economy has been on a downward slope for the last seven quarters. The headline at the moment is uncertainty.  A vacuum cleaner is a purchase you can live without when you have money constraints."

Thinking on the high prices for any Electrolux product sold in the U.S., wouldn't you think the brand might be passed by?  Is it funny that wall ovens, fridges, washers and cooking ranges selling for anything from one grand to way over might not also be not be on the minds of those -- which is just about everybody -- living under under "money constraints"? I think vacuums and washers, refrigerators and all the usual household appliances will continue to sell.  However, I think the general public will begin to figure that maybe they can live life just as well without expensive niche brands and get to liking names like Hotpoint instead of Miele, et al, again.  Link follows --

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/05/04/ccelec104.xml

Best,

Venson

Venson wrote:

A vacuum is not on display in the home like the appliances that you mention.  Those items are also considered as a status symbol by many.  In addition they are usually expected to last many years without replacement, wheras a cheap vacuum will hold the consumer until finances are in better order.  The fact that so many cheap vacs like Hoover and a few others is proof that most consumers could care less about the vacuums looks or performance.  Besides so many hire a maid to run the vacuum and do not know if it is performing at max.

HARDSELL wrote:

Hi Hardsell,

I agree that there are those who do buy not just for service but to impress the neighbors as well.  However, I think the larger part of everyday consumers are getting ready to pull their belts in a notch or two.  I'm not much inclined to concern myself  over what the neighbors think unless they want to contribute to the rent.  No volunteers so far.

In my own case, I've been trying to figure out how to redo my very small cooking facility to make the best use of limited space.  As an instance, there are lots of great ideas I've seen like drawer refrigerators which cost nearly twice as much as a full-size refrigerator/freezer.  I could buy one but can't quite see the point in buying something half the size for twice the money.  Is there any real advantage in regard to quality in this case?  I don't think so.  While researching prices I actually got a salesman on the phone from Summitt, a manufacturer specializing in many kinds of configurations for refrigerators, freezers and cooking ranges, and put the question to him.  Regarding the issue of the high price of drawer refrigerators he made it known that there is nothing all that special about the making of them but that the speciality of the design pushed up pricing.  The desire to have something different therefore costs money. Looks like I'll be keeping the refrigerator I've got  and I'll try to work around it.

I'm as skeptical about kitchen ranges.  I've been looking over 24" gas ranges from as low as $300 to as high as $2,500.  Thinking extravagantly, why a small gas range could rise beyond $500 or $600 dollars at best I cannot fathom -- but they do.  Again, I might bite and go for an expensive item if it appeared that there might be some real edge benefit-wise for the spending other than good looks. Will an egg scramble any better on a plain-jane range from Sears or one by Fisher & Paykel?  That remains more an issue regarding the cook than the stove.  I rather spend substantially less money on a good pot or skillet that might enhance my possibilities for a good result and deal with a lesser range.

Best,

Venson

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

This sounds an awful lot like you think price determines the sales of the vacuum products.  When MOLE posted this a little while back you disagreed and rebutted with the fact that so many dysons are sold.  Are you now having a change of heart/mine?

Carmine D.

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

I agree that people are cutting back on many expenditures which ultimately affect the home decor and lifestyle.  Just to pay gas and food coats.  This impacts and affects manufacturers of high price, high end products like autos, appliances, clothes etc.  We've seen some companies close, stores shuttered, and bankruptcy filings.  Sure, there's more to come.  I think AB Electrolux's intro in the USA is an uphill battle.  The timing is bad.  If the economy were hitting on all/most cylinders, the success would be more likely.  But with the current economic environment, about the only thing the new appliances at BEST BUY will do is look good and need dusting every week.

Now, if Kelly Rippa wants to accompany the BEST BUY delivery truck and installers to my house for my purchases, I might reconsider. 

Carmine D.

Just so the truth be known about the ELECTROLUX vacuums,it's just a rebadged eureka oxygen,with very marginal attachments,Lets see now take a 200.00 eureka oxygen put the electrolux name on it and ask 500 plus for it .Boy what marketing genius that is................

MOLE

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

I think this answers your question about my thinking.  If the economy is good the consumer will pay more for a vac. 

HS:

I knew you would respond in that manner using my post.  Thank you.

I think Mole hit the nail on the head about vacuums and price.  Most vacuum buyers go to big box stores to buy a vacuum that lasts a few years, then dispose and buy new again.  Regardless of the state of the economy.  Those who buy quality vacuums from independent vacuum stores will do so in good times/bad.  Why?  Because in bad times, they'll have the quality vacuum repaired and continue to use it.  In good times, they'll buy another new quality vacuum by trading up/gifting away the old to a family member.

Now for high priced vacuums in big box stores:  In bad times: you got it.  They ain't gonna sell.  Dyson, electrolux, and whatever other brand you put into a big box store with a high price.  Read halo!

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

I know several Dyson owners who live in homes costing 1 - 2 Million $.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

I know several HOOVER and DIRT DEVIL vacuum owners too who live in expensive homes costing a million and more.  And some persons who live in Section 8 housing who use and like dysons.  It's irrelevant to "most buyers" who shop at the big box retailers who are cutting back now on high price purchases so they can buy food and gas and make their mortgage payments [read survive].

Big box retailers want to sell new vacuums every year.  These are commonly called the disposable vacuums not the repairable ones.  If vacuums sit on the shelf unsold, they take up space.  Retailers NOW  [read hard economic times and people not spending for high cost items] prefer less expensive vacuums that sell quickly. [Look at the big box retailers' advertised sales in the weeklies].  Not $500 plus vacuums that don't sell in the bad economic times at the big box stores. 

I said that a few posts up.  Mole said it awhile back.  You agreed with us.  Hard not to.  Common sense and real life. 

Carmine D.

I see my man Rege and his lovely cohost Kelly are gifting away Electrolux appliances to their audience members and TV viewers. 

Carmine D.

Electrolux launches a "Green" vacuum.  Story here.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
OH MY.  There's going to be a lawsuit very soon, James is not going to let this one go.  For anyone who doesn't remember the ReCyclone (a remanufactured DC02 that was around circa-1998), let me tell you about it.  It was in fact the world's FIRST recycled vacuum cleaner; the ONLY new components were the cord, switch, and motor.  The manual was printed on 100% recycled paper, the box was 100% recycled cardboard, and the machine was placed in a burlap bag within the box (no polystyrene packaging).  Ironic that James could actually make his "green" vacuum, well, green, and Electrolux can only make it black. 

Get ready, folks, it's coming.  There's gonna be a dustup in the old town tonight...

-MH

And did you notice the "healthy, hygienic, and environmentally friendly dust and dirt disposal" is none other than a *non-micro* bag made out of 100% cellulose?  How is that environmentally friendly to make a vacuum bag by cutting down trees, and not a good one either that only holds 3 cups of dust?  Talk about vacuuming for 10 minutes.  That washable HEPA filter was a must because all the dirt is going to leak out, it will have to be washed at least after every bag change.  I hope they were smart enough to put it in front of the motor and not behind it, though considering what the machine is so far, I somehow doubt it. 

All they did was take one of those awful, crappy old Eureka Oxygens and make it out of SOME recycled plastic (keyword 55%), it's not even 100% recycled like the ReCyclone.  I bet James is having a good laugh over this one.

Motorhead wrote:

Hello MH:

Do you recall a similar pronouncement made in June 2004 when HOOVER intro'ed the FUSION at Wal*mart after the fall out over the DC07 All Carpets?  I believe the exact words of the poster were:  "A big legal action by dyson all wrapped up in a big red bow."  Then the alleged infringements were for dyson's bagless bin components and cyclone technology, if I recall.  Nothing ever happened over the matter despite repeated mention by the poster.  And the HOOVER FUSION went on to have a long run at WM and Sam's Club and still today as the Mach.

Is this the same?  Another wolf cry with no wolf anywhere around to be seen. 

BTW, from what University/College did you get your law degree?

Carmine D.

Carmine,

Dyson v. Maytag, did it happen?  Yes.

 

• Lawsuit filed on 6/5/05
• Jury trial demanded.
• Dyson claims 4 of its patents were infringed by Hoover (Walmart/Fusion)
• Patent’s:  4643748, 4826515, 4853008, 5858038

DIB

CarmineD wrote:

The Fusion lasted less than 3 years and you call that a long run, yet you have contended for years that Dyson would falter,  Does anyone else find this amusing?  LOL>

Here it is...  The ReCyclone.

  Enlarged pic

This is the Fantom canister from back in the day with a new color.

Venson

Hi Venson,

Actually it was the other way around--the Fantom Lightning was essentially a reworked DC02 with a power nozzle.  Incidentally, both the Lightning and the ReCyclone were around at the same time.

-MH

Thanks MH.

Venson

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

Thanks.  That was about one year after the FUSION was launched at Wal*Mart.  But filing a lawsuit is very common in the USA which is the most litigious society in the world.  Why?  Because we have the most number of lawyers per person.  What was the outcome of the suit?  Would you share here with us?

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

This was in an appliance trade magazine:

Terms of the settlement were confidential

HARDSELL wrote:

Hello Hardsell:

Trade magazine?  Gag order on settlement?  No, I don't think so.  You must be confused.  Very public and widely known and talked about on other Forums.  It amounted to a big zip for dyson and HOOVER all around.  BTW, the FUSION is a sourced vacuum.  Made for HOOVER, not by HOOVER. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

What do you mean (above)?        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

It means that he does not know the results of the settlement.

CarmineD wrote:
DysonInventsBig wrote:
Interesting contrast between these two posts.  From Carmine's post it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine who the implied poster was.  See, as always, "that poster" was right!

DysonInventsBig wrote:

DIB:

The case was dismissed and no jury heard it.  Why?  A change in the patent and copy right laws making it more difficult for the aggrieved parties to prevail and win on copy right and patent infringements in the USA courts.  Nothing happened.  Zip.  Thrown out.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

Hoover’s old business model was, it seems…  If we can’t engineer it (i.e. think outside of the box), then we’ll steal it.  Patents (hard earned inventions) were the issue, not copyrights.        DIB

 

Links:

http://www.appliancemagazine.com/zones/consumer/06_housewares/news.php?article=1073414&zone=6&first=151

 

http://www.manatt.com/Attorneys.aspx?id=1831

Hello DIB:

Thanks for the links and commentary.  Here's my take on the results of the suit based on the information provided and I'm familiar with.

No jury trial, as demanded. 

Settled out of court before arguments given and heard. 

Terms of settlement not disclosed [confidential]. 

In my view, the above is another way of saying both sides got absolutely nothing!  Zip.  And the case for patent infringement by dyson against HOOVER was thrown out. 

If dyson had a case against HOOVER, especially on patent infringement, it would have gone to trial for a jury hearing and a very public award of damages.  IMHO. Why?  That was dyson's previous courses of action in 2 cases involving patent/copyright infringements.  Dyson was awarded pretty hefty sums in those cases and used the money to start and expand its operations.  The cases and awards are very public and widely known in those cases.  Why?  As a deterent for others. 

Not so in the case in question.  It resulted in a no win for dyson.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

DIB:

Thank you for pointing out the distinction for patent and copy right.  I edited my post to include both.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Now you are admitting that the above is incorrect.     As I said :   Terms of the settlement were confidential

Your earlier view was that I was confused and that everyone knew the answer.  Your view as to both sides getting nothing is worthless..

HS:

Even a blind groundhog finds a acorn now and then.  Congrats on your acorn.

Still a big zip for dyson.  Didn't get a penny.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

They still broke the hoover thieves.

HARDSELL wrote:

Sorry, I disagree with you and others  Nothing lost, nothing gained.  HOOVER called dyson's bluff on the lawsuit and dyson caved.  No jury trial.   Dyson could have demanded the jury trial and asked for monetary damages instead of settling.  Dyson had the best legal team money could buy.  Dyson settled because it knew [its lawyers knew] the suit was a frivolous and dyson would lose.

Carmine

CarmineD wrote:

Terms of the settlement were confidential

Read  above.  You have no idea what the settlement was.  Prior to today you did not know that the settlement was confidential.  Another example of why no one takes your advice.

HARDSELL wrote:

Hello HS:

Tom Gasko alias and/or infamous dualcyclone and motohead brags about the HOOVER/dyson Fusion litigation and now the supposed Electrolux lawsuit.  At the time dualcyclone drew an anology with the the Lionel lawsuit.  Lionel was ordered to pay $40 Million for patent infringement.  Tom Gasko said the same would happen for HOOVER.  Obviously, the HOOVER/dyson lawsuit never happened.   

The Lionel jury award of $40 Million was overturned in the courts.  A new trial was ordered.  I already told you the reason.  The patent and copy right laws were changed making it more difficult for alleged aggrieved parties to prevail.  Why?  That's for another discussion.  The Lionel retrial never happened.  The plaintiff settled with Lionel.  Terms undisclosed.  Sound familiar? 

Shortly after the settlement was announced, Lionel emerged from bankruptcy, stronger than ever.  No $40 million liability on its records for the suit.  The same as Whirlpool when it bought Maytag/HOOVER.  There was no liability on the financials for the settlement of the dyson lawsuit.  You have to disclose the long term liability on the financials every year until paid regardless of the terms of the legal agreement. 

Carmine D.

Carmine, are you saying history didn't happen?  Dyson did take Hoover to court.  Even if there was no monetary settlement, the lawsuit still happened.  The reason for the lack of settlement is that it *is* China after all, who does not honor international patent.  The main point here is that Dyson did bring a lawsuit. 

No one stated *anything* in regards to a possible settlement, in fact it was quite the contrary.  I am not speculating on any type of settlement, I just know that Dyson will take this to the advertising authority and sue Electrolux over their claim of their machine being the "world's first".  This claim will undoubtedly be removed after the lawsuit occurs.

That's what this upcoming lawsuit will be about.  No more, no less.

-MH

Motorhead wrote:

Hello Tom:

Now the truth according to Tom Gasko.  Seems the settlement terms are more well known than people said and thought.

I followed the developments on Lionel for several years [because you used the $40 million jury award to brag about what HOOVER would have to pay to dyson].  And I followed the dyson/Maytag litigation for obvious reasons.  I knew if there were a monetary settlement against HOOVER by dyson you would be the first to post on all the vacuum Forums and here.  And if there weren't you would not.  BTW, both Lionel and MTH are USA companies not Chinese. 

I also knew that any monetary settlement for a lawsuit, MUST be disclosed in the financial statements of the companies.   I make a habit of reading financial statements.  

I had to wait for the best time to post here.  And bring all the different pieces together after more than 4 years.  Obviously, I needed your willing but unknowing cooperation.  On the night of a full moon no less.  Thank you.

How's that for a biting sense of humor.

Carmine D.

Motorhead wrote:

MH,

I believe James has a number of options, he could…

• Do an email media blast and demonstrate (linking back to his site, with video, pictures, information) and prove he was “there first, again” (establishing his leadership with innovation and/or environment) with a green and even a more green vacuum than Electrolux’s.  Let the media tell the Dyson story with free publicity, and let consumer’s deicide if Electrolux has credibility.  He can wait just long enough for Electrolux to get the word out on their vacuum to the consumer, and when the time is "right" send a mass media blast with a simple click of a mouse.  Could it not be any easier?  This is newsworthy stuff IMO.
• Advertise or dedicate a web page on his site to this and other accomplishments.  He should already be doing this regardless of Electrolux’s green vac.
• File a complaint with the Truth In Advertising powers in a given country.  This is much cheaper and quicker than a lawsuit, but can be defied until enforced by a greater authority.
• File a lawsuit.

DIB

Hello DIB:

Suppose that Mr. Dyson calls upon his legal counsel to file a lawsuit against Electrolux.  What exactly would be the basis [bases] for such a lawsuit? 

Explain to me [and others here] if you would please the argument that dyson's legal team would make to a judge/jury against Electrolux?  What right, claim, patent, idea, invention and/or intellectual property does only dyson own and only dyson can use?  To the complete exclusion of all others [and in this case Electrolux].  And use by anyone else, other than dyson, once they are officially put on notice of such usage if they refuse to cease/desist, warrants legal action and remedy.

Make believe I'm as stupid as Tom Gasko and some others here say.   Explain it so a 6 year old hearing you can understand. 

Thank you, very kindly.

Carmine D.

 

I'd have a lot more respect for these companies if they were not so lawsuit-happy, and learned how to respect the consumer....

And guess who pays for this crap ??     

Why are Dysons so expensive ?? ; IMO, they look like a cheap toy ! But then, most do not have a quality appearance or are over-priced...(Kirby for one)

And I do not care for HardSell's rap against Carmine...I for one do value his knowledge...       

Strangely, my ieSpell is a no go at this site...   

Carmine,

I think Dyson has lots of exciting and potentially money making options at his disposal outside of a lawsuit.  Electrolux gave Dyson a gift.  Dyson could exploit what may be an insincere Electrolux claim.  Dyson should let the public decied if Electrolux has a creditability problem, via free press.  Making money off this (false?, who knows) claim is a better money making position than a (if possible) lawsuit IMO.  The ReCyclone simply proves and reminds us that James is ahead of the antiquated vacuum manufacturer curve (i.e. James and/or his team have the ability to think outside of the box).

.

It is not the answer you were looking for but a lawsuit was last on my list of options, not because it is impossible (which it may or may not be) but because I believe James can get a immediate and long lasting results by using the free press to tell his/the ReCyclone story.        DIB 

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Thanks for your response DIB.  Interesting that your first thoughts go to making money!

Let me give you another simple non-monetary option before proceeeding with yours.  Assume for talking purposes that dyson indeed has a real and defensible case against Electrolux.   [I'm not saying it does, I'm just making a hypothetical case for talking purposes].  

Mr. Dyson and/or his CEO [whoever Mr. D designates] calls his/her equal counterpart at Electrolux and talks to them about it and tells them so.  Electrolux is put on notice officially.  Then give Electrolux the first right to refuse/accept the official notice and take the appropriate action.  How about that option first before all the others?

Carmine D.  

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

 

I was basing my thoughts as if Electrolux willfully made these claims knowing Dyson was there first.  But if Electrolux made an honest mistake then YES pick up the phone.   If after that, Electrolux goes forward and runs big with advertising and profiting from their “first in the world, green machine”, then James needs to protect and preserve his and his employee’s interests, accomplishments and dutifully set the record straight using whatever means possible (free press, first).  The press loves this kind of stuff, especially in the UK.

 

It is reckless for Electrolux not to investigate vacuum cleaner history before making “Worlds First” type claims.  Would you not agree?        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hi DIB:

Whether I agree/disagree depends on your specificity for completing the "World's First"  claim.  What exactly is the full claim that Electrolux makes that contradicts history and/or has been made before [in this case supposedly by dyson in 1998]?

Carmine D.

earthworm wrote:

Hello earthworm:

Let me give you a big shout out of thanks and appreciation for your intellectual integrity and fortitude.

Carmine D.