Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

2)  March 17, 2009:  While many independent vacuum dealers bad-mouth, lie of and/or dismiss James Dyson and his teams contributions, many others champion the man.  Watch James Dyson in his element - in his Malmesbury Headquarters.  NBC’s “Today Show”  http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=71fa9222-10d2-413c-bf31-0007895697ac

2)  Older video news:  I could not resist...  A Hottie car-news chick mentions the rumor of Dyson working with car makers, and Oreck gets a mention too (funny).

www.blinkx.com/video/hamann-stallion-audi-a7-fast-lane-daily-24jun08/JQ18e2m7y5hiULCgEQWSvw

Hello HARDSELL:

No hypocrisy here.  Good business and common sense.  Hand held and stick vacuums have considerably smaller dirt bin capacities and scope of uses than full sized vacuums.  These are also more conducive to in-home dumping than the large full sized bagless vacuums.  Therefore the dirt/health risks posed with these vacuums are minimized [not eliminated] compared to their full sized counterparts.  Also, with the smaller dirt capacity, replacing bags is more expensive relative to the costs of these specialty vacuums vice their full size counterparts.

With the less expensive store brand vacuum makes, buyers who pay $50-$75-$100 for a vacuum won't pay $15-$20 for a year's supply of bags.  It makes business sense to offer these in bagless mode.

Carmine D.  

Hello M00seUK:

Having been a part of the vacuum industry since the 50's, the bagless fad is regressing to the time when dirt containment was primarily in cloth bags that required dumping and cleaning.  Probably the single most significant improvement to the vacuum industry in the 50's was the advent of replacement paper bags which, save Kirby and commercial model vacuums, made cloth bags obsolete by the 60's.  Dirt bins are nothing more than a plastic version of cloth bags with the added user expense of high priced pre-and post motor filters.

Like HOOVER UK, I would have argued vehemently to shelf the use of dirt bins for full sized vacuums based solely on my knowledge and experience in the vacuum industry.  Money from the sales of bags is irrelevant to the decision.  There is just as much revenue if not more generated in bagless vacuum filters as paper bags.  It's a moot point for the decision by HOOVER to want to shelve dirt bins.

Two of the first full size canister brands that were bagless, Lewyt and Filter Queen, made the switch to paper in the late 40's and 50's and FQ still today.  For the very reasons I previously stated. 

Carmine D.

I for one draw comfort knowing, that at times, good ideas, ideas that are good for people and economies, are not controlled nor suppressed by *liars and thieves.        DIB

.

*Hoover UK was dertermined in court of stealing James' Dual Technologies and lying about it.

Hello DIB:

I sure wish you would tell us where you took the courses in reading peoples' minds and hearts.  You speak with such authoritative proof on the motives of dyson's competitors.  I'm impressed.

My sense is that you would say based on your ability to read minds/hearts that the consistent fall off in dyson vacuum market share in the UK since 2004 is most likely the result of a huge secret conspiracy on the part of the liars and thieves in the vacuum industry.  It certainly cannot be due to the pure and pristine business motives of dyson and its vacuum products. 

I recall when the vacuum makers in mass made the conversion to paper bags an industry standard.  Noone nowhere argued it was due to the profit motive arising from the potential sale of paper bags.  Never heard.  Why? Was it a huge conspiracy on the part of vacuum makers to force this technology on the unsuspecting vacuum buying public?  If so, why did cloth and paper coexist for many many years by vacuum makers on their models before the final cloth good bye?  Profit was not the motive for moving to paper bags then just as it isn't for the aversion to bagless now.  It's all made up in your minds.  Bagged and bagless coexist, at least for now.  Just as cloth and paper did back then.

What drives the vacuum industry and its major companies, like all industry, is providing what works the best for the best price to the buying public.  Using that as the industry standard and guide, then the profits will naturally follow. 

In over 100 years of vacuum industry history, the only liars and thieves that I am aware were the CEO and CFO of Regina in the 80's.  They were both caught, admitted their guilt, and punished.  To my knowledge they have never held a financial/management position/job since due in large part to their sullied reputation.  High price to pay for a few extra bucks.

Carmine D.

Carmine,

My money is on the findings of the court with regards to Dyson v. Hoover UK.  Good luck with the business of defending thieves and re-writing their history.        DIB

Hello DIB:

Keep your money in your pocket.  But if you would, please post the excerpt from the court's decision that uses the verbage "liars and thieves" with respect to HOOVER UK in the suit brought by dyson.  I'm sure all would be interested to read/know exactly how and why you authoritatively arrived at your conclusion.   

Carmine D.

Hoover UK were just some good oi’ boy's out havin a little fun (at Dyson’s expense), is that about right Carmine?

CarmineD wrote: I'm sure all would be interested to read/know exactly how and why you authoritatively arrived at your conclusion. 

http://www.dyson.co.uk/about/ads/

DC18

Hello DIB:

Just as "should" means "must" to you when applying to BISSELL, it means "maybe/maybe not" to you when applying to dyson.  Where one stands ofentimes depends on where one sits.

I didn't condone HOOVER UK's actions.  The court decision was correct and it levied a hefty fine and penalty on HOOVER UK, as it should.  But the decision did not use the words you did to describe HOOVER UK's actions.  

Carmine D.