I find it perplexing that the new Dyson urinals are not present as an example of what good design is...
Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption
11–20 of 118 posts
Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption
#12[flagged]
I don't hate Dyson because it's trendy, I hate Dyson because my $700 vacuum wont pick up cheerios; a common spill with toddlers.
Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption
#13This piece doesn't mention the fluffy cones next gen replacement to the dyson stick vac: https://youtu.be/ve6JuJV17FQ?si=aCq_qwtpAhRyS0by&t=159 It was announced a month ago and seems to handle the design criticism in this blog entry. If it works as well as demonstrated will put it in a new class of vac.
I have to say, I don't see what makes it handle the criticism from the OP. It looks exactly the same as every other Dyson product I've ever seen.
Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption
#14Dyson is like the IKEA for household appliances. They are pretty and fancy and somewhat featureful but they never seem to hold up to the truly high end stuff like Sebos/Miele. Those brands will cost you an arm and a leg but they will do exactly what it says on the tin, and nothing more. No gimmicks, just suction.
The best cordless vacuum are made by Dyson though.
Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption
#15[flagged]
> I suspect that 90% of the people on HN who complain about Dyson (and most other consumer products) have never owned one, and are just aping things they've read online just to have something at all to say.
Same suspicion for me. I've owned two Dyson vacuums, and the only reason I had to buy the second was because someone stole the first one when they broke into my apartment over a decade ago. My current vacuum is more than 8 years old and has been repaired a few times doing it myself, and is still fully functional and comparable or better than most new vacuums.
Dyson makes very good products that are also beautiful. Yes, they're plastic, yes they're expensive, no they're not necessarily on paper the /best/ at their thing, but they're good, they're repairable, and they pass the wife acceptance factor.
Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption
#16Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption
#17Dyson is like the IKEA for household appliances. They are pretty and fancy and somewhat featureful but they never seem to hold up to the truly high end stuff like Sebos/Miele. Those brands will cost you an arm and a leg but they will do exactly what it says on the tin, and nothing more. No gimmicks, just suction.
Dyson is expensive as fuck, not really a comparison with IKEA which is truly about insane mass market scale and saving costs everywhere you can.
Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption
#18Dyson is like the IKEA for household appliances. They are pretty and fancy and somewhat featureful but they never seem to hold up to the truly high end stuff like Sebos/Miele. Those brands will cost you an arm and a leg but they will do exactly what it says on the tin, and nothing more. No gimmicks, just suction.
The best cordless vacuum are made by Dyson though.
Disagree. We have had to replace the battery twice in our Dyson cordless. Dyson charges $130 for the OEM replacement battery (yes there are cheaper aftermarket batteries available).
The last time the battery failed we decided to buy an entire Shark cordless vacuum + accessories kit for less than an OEM Dyson battery. That shark vacuum is still going today 5 years later on the original battery.
Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption
#19[flagged]
I have a bunch of Dyson things because the wife loves the design but I find them to be consistently disappointing. Incredibly expensive for mediocre results and usually bad battery life. It's a step above junk but you're really just paying for style.
Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption
#20[flagged]
Additionally the comparison of the hand dryers is pretty unfair imo. Those V-shape Dyson dryers are so much better than any others I've tried ever. All the other seem downright anemic (or rather asthmatic in this case) and take much longer than those advertised 20s.