Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

I'm not very impressed with the design, but there's a guy who offers a way to convert Kirbys from bag to dirt canister.  Unfortunately, it doesn't offer dual cyclone or better technology.  It looks like you clean the pleated filter after every use.  I think I'd rather pay for bags than this gimmick.

http://www.kirbybagsneveragain.com/

CarmineD wrote:

One can only wonder how things would have been different had Hoover, Electrolux, Kirby, or Oreck purchased the rights to produce vacuums with Dyson technology.    I wonder how much Oreck would have charged for a "Dyson/Oreck" vacuum. 

Severus wrote:
I believe that Hoover was offered the technology and was advised against it.  I wonder who gave that advice? 

DysonInventsBig wrote: CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

You mention Winners Never Cheat and Bill Gates in the same breath?  What are you smoking? - This is delusional. It’s public record...  Gates screwed anyone and everyone (including the public) when it served him.  His monopoly and predatory practices put big numbers in his corner and not because his crap is all that-inventive, all that-innovative, easy to use or fun to use.  My Symantec buddy has just recently told me MS cannot even stop hackers in China from stealing their own MS apps.  MS is crap, but people are slaved and chained to his crap do to proven predatory and proven monopolistic [so-called] business practices and certainly not because it’s OS and/or other software is fun, problem solving-innovative, problem solving-inventive, easy to use or safe.

Sir James Dyson and his team are proven inventors and innovators.  It is laughable to think of how hard the sack-selling and lying thru their teeth, dying on the vine vacuum independent works to make a sale.  Saying Sir James steals intellectual property via a team of lawyers is just one such lie.  The lying independent is pure comedy, you’re pure comedy and so is your post above.


Dyson Invents Big

P.S.  I love target practice, so thanks.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib:

Your envy is showing.  Not very becoming.  BTW, I never use boomerangs for target practice like you. 

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

SEVERUS:

Interesting what if.  For one, dyson vacuums would not be as expensive as they are now, which will probably be the end dyson result of competing with the less expensive copies.  IMHO ORECK could not use the bagless technology for its lightweight and be competitive with its own bagged upright.  The disparity in dirt capacities would be too different to sell the bagless.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

DIB,

If someone has an OS that can replace Windows what is stopping them from putting it on the market.  Free enterprise still exists in USA for sure. The reason for the MS monopoly is due to non competition.  If your buddy is so sharp why doesn't he market an anti virus tool for Windows?

You $#%* about theft from Dyson yet you think some has a right to use MS technology without penalty. 

Oh, now I get it.  James should have a monopoly on bagless and MS should pass priority info to all.

DysonInventsBig wrote: HARDSELL wrote:
Hardsell,

You’re ticked I defended and called you out for repeatedly calling James Dyson Hoover-like or saying he has a big ego (you’ve done this on differing posts, and I’ve said nothing until recently).  Sorry, you’ve gone Carmine on me.

How's your Red-Hoover Dyson knock-off working out for ya?  You still man enough (I hope) to know Red ain’t sh!# without first copying real-men who’ve got the bal!$, creativity and fortitude to make invention and innovation happen.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

But at least I never went Japanese Lexus..........

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Or bagless Kirby.......

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Defense is different from stupidity.  I have defended Dyson for years.  Not because of James Dyson or from thinking that Dyson is the best vacuum of all times.  I found the DC07 to be a vacuum that met my requirements to clean my home.  In my experience each succeeding model has been inferior to the original DC07.  Apparently Dyson thought the same as he has followed Hoover in introducing new model #'s very frequently that are no better than the previous.  This only works for a while and finally the consumer realizes that new model does not always lead to improved performance.  Look back at Hoover in this scenario.  Therefore I refer to Dyson as following Hoover.

JD with his ego is unwilling to admit that all his ideas are not always the best.  I respect what he has done for the vacuum industry.  Thanks to Dyson many vacuum manufacturers have gotten off their duffs and improved what they had.  As for his hand helds, tiny canisters, hand dryers, fans, etc he has failed to exceed any technology that previously existed.

Feel free to worship JD as you please.  I will continue to worship my savior and no other. I do have the highest respect for those who actually save lives (doctors, nurses and others) as well as our US military who defend the USA and those countries too weak to defend themselves.  All those Dyson inventions are nothing in comparison.

I do not have a Dyson knock off unless Dyson has a bagged vacuum hiding somewhere that he has not introduced. 

I would prefer to own all USA made product.  Malaysia is no more meaningful to me as a US citizen than China.  Why would you accept Dyson being manufactured in another country?

Regarding innovation.  Notice that British industry is questionable.  The vacuum existed before Dyson so I wonder if it is true innovation.  In fact I believe it was invented in the good ol US of A and now it is copied by many others.  Perhaps we should sue.

S: (adj) advanced, forward-looking, innovative, modern (ahead of the times) "the advanced teaching methods"; "had advanced views on the subject"; "a forward-looking corporation"; "is British industry innovative enough?"

S: (adj) innovative, innovational, groundbreaking (being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before) "stylistically innovative works"; "innovative members of the artistic community"; "a mind so innovational, so original"