In article 4316f50b.7205267@localhost, Stephen X. Carter wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:11:42 GMT, "Rick F." wrote:

Do you think that all of those other manufacturers would be trying to
copy Dyson if it wasn't genuinely effective?

Hmm.. I've really not looked at any vacuums since we got our Miele a while
back..

Do you think that his market share in the UK would be so huge if it
didn't work.

I've got no idea.. I'm across the pond..

Next to no crap gets spewed out by Dysons.

Well they do from just about every other vacuum cleaner sold in the US
that costs $200+US IMHO..

Dyson prides himself on build quality - rightly so. In his
autobiography he tells the tale of how his sales were skyrocketing in
the UK (sort of) except from one big store in Bristol. So he went along
incognito to see if he could spot the reason. And the reason seemed to
be that the salesfolk were telling people that Dysons were made of cheap
and nasty plastic and would break easily. So he then (personally)
arranged a presentation to the staff in the store, got up on the
platform, got a big sledgehammer and invited the sales people to try to
smash the plastic. Of course they failed. This story in in his
autobiography - go check it out.

That's fine.. Perhaps they're made as good as my Miele.. I'm not going to
try one though.. I see a fair amount of them being sold as re-furbs on
various websites here and there, and that alone tells me something..

I'm just tired of the crappy stuff that most of the Eureka, Hoovers and
(to a slightly lesser degree) Red Devil produce made of flimsy plastic,
and parts that just aren't up to multi years of use (or abuse?).. They
are no better than the $40 printers you buy down at your local Staples..
They're designed for perhaps 1-2 years of service before they end up in
the land fill.. That is just poor environmental responsibility -- much
like w/ many other products which shouldn't be considered consumables, but
are..

Just my $0.0000002 worth..