October 21st, 2010 by ellisjames21
I met James Dyson once. I was a product design student who had entered a product for a Dyson-sponsored award for which it was wholly irrelevant – the idea being to get as much attention as possible for your work by entering as many competitions as possible. Not got a lot to say about our exchange, it was brief, he was very tall, and I wondered how he managed to remain sane with so many people following along in his personal space.
But on the whole I greatly admire Dyson. He put his house on the line and a lot more to pursue something he believed in. And I like inventors, particularly British ones. And I like his products, generally.
The only Dyson I’ve ever owned is a recent purchase – one of the handheld ‘digitally controlled’ microenginged machines – and it’s bloody brilliant. Really love it. And I really like those hand dryers that are so powerful they ripple the skin on the back of your hands.
What I like about nearly all Dyson products is that their engineering reason d’etre is plainly evident. Or rather, their reason d’etre is to do something better by exploiting an engineering advantage. The handheld, like its numerous big brothers, wears its multi-cyclone technology on its sleeve. The handdryers are more powerful, you don’t have to touch them and most of all, they really work. I can even see the ‘engineering reason d’etre’ of his new bladeless desktop fans, although, as with most new Dysons, its price is difficult to swallow.
But recently, and with much TV advertising including the great man himself, Dyson launched the ball vacuum cleaner.
Just in case you didn’t know, Dyson’s history is intrinsically linked to balls: he designed a military vehicle with ball shaped wheels early in his career, and applied the same weight-spreading advantages of a ball shaped wheel to the wheelbarrow, spawning the ‘ball barrow’.
I understand the manufacturing process for the balls involved the use of an extraction system that used cyclones to create the suction, and the bagless vacuum cleaner was born.
The problem I have is that other than being grey and orange, and involving both a cyclone and a ball, I don’t see the ball vacuum as a Dyson product. It may have a Dyson logo on it, but it’s Dyson marketing rather than Dyson engineering.
Why? Because the only advantage I understand the ball vac to offer is in its handling. Its handling? As good as a Dyson’s suction may be, does anyone trust a vac to do a comprehensive cleaning job on just one pass? That’s where the old step-forward-step-back dance around the lounge came from. It would be a great idea if everyone’s house was racing circuit-shaped, but for all us boring conformists with generally rectangular floor spaces, a neat up and down action is what works.
This bothers me. I know we’ve all got to make our money, but Dyson has always marketed on the back of good sound engineering principles – that of analysing a common problem and finding an improved solution through engineering expertise. This is the first product of his that has broken that rule. This product follows a traditional marketing principle – identify an opportunity and exploit it by selling it as a solution to a problem that we create.
I wonder how they can include a ball in the desk top fan…?