Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption

2earth.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 118 posts

Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption

#91

Post by randycupertino »

pedalpete wrote: post #88

I feel this completely ignores the role of brand in the equation. Dyson's brand is to be technologically forward. It is supposed to look like the future, which is why the angular mix of colors works for the brand. Bosch, I have no idea what their brand aesthetic is, or what they are trying to say. This doesn't mean that the Dyson is better than Bosch, or any other competitors, just that brand does come into the equat…

For hairdryers particularly dyson is very trendy. People wait in line for limited edition hairdryer cases, it actually crashed sephora's website for one of the limited edition case colors, I think it was rose gold. And the hot pink dryers are very statement making pieces for salons. They are definitely great at marketing and partnering with influencers. Per my hairdresser they aren't the best products on the market but they have great branding.

Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption

#92

Post by aledalgrande »

eddythompson80 wrote: post #79
echelon wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The particulate aerosolization worries me. In the future we're going to regret breathing bad air. It's the accelerant for so many health problems.

> In the future we're going to regret breathing air. It's the accelerant for so many health problems. A non-oxygen dependent energy system for the human cell is the only option moving forward. We need to utilize a clean energy source like sunlight and dump that oxygen dependency once and for all. Cyanobacteria was a crutch dependency that helped bootstrap that whole life thing pretty quickly for the demo. We have a p…

This sounds like a big refactor. Is the multifecta aware of it?

Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption

#93

Post by doright »

svelle wrote: post #61

I have a v12 and I couldn't be happier. Best cordless vacuum I've owned. Had an aeg before that was about half the price. But it sucked. Still some of the criticism holds, such as the terrible wall charger.

I owned one and the build quality was pretty bad. The plastic tab holding the door to the dust holder snapped off with barely any force. The exact same thing happened to someone else I knew.

Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption

#94

Post by eddythompson80 »

echelon wrote: post #90
eddythompson80 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the future we're going to regret breathing air. It's the accelerant for so many health problems. A non-oxygen dependent energy system for the human cell is the only option moving forward. We need to utilize a clean energy source like sunlight and dump that oxygen dependency once and for all. Cyanobacteria was a crutch dependency that helped bootstrap that whole life thing pretty quickly for the demo. We have a p…

I love the satire. (Did I really write "regret breathing air" before editing or something?) Oxygen is an amazingly energy rich fuel and is super abundant for us. The oxygenation of earth was one of the key steps, and it might be a "hard step" for other civilizations. Of course oxidation causes a lot of damage and byproducts, and is one of the causes of our aging and death. But without it, well... I was primarily refe…

shit sorry that way my mistake. lol. I meant to add a strike through "bad" but realized HN doesn't have strike through, so I deleted it and thought I added a "FTFY" but forgot to add it. sorry about that.

Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption

#95

Post by llsf »

I have a Dyson DC15 (https://www.dyson.com/support/vacuum-cleaners/uprights/dc15) purchased in 2006. Using it once a week (with few exceptions here and there) for nearly 20 years now, and working perfectly fine.

Yes, it is heavy, and corded, but it is a beast, and still amazed at how much dust it gets every week.

I have to admit that I am not impressed at all by the latest Dyson cordless versions, including the new Dyson PencilVac (https://www.dyson.com/discover/innovation/new-machines/penci...).

Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption

#96

Post by theturtle »

All I see with Dyson is shitloads of overpriced plastic. I refuse to use any of the various expensive always-break plastic Dysons and prefer my heavy fifty-year-old Kirby Omega. Actual metal. You can still get almost all parts for it, they'll rebuild it, and it is incomparable at sucking up and mulching spilled hay and wabbit poop. I could probably vacuum my driveway with it. $35 used on eBay years ago.

It has a headlight.

Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption

#97

Post by ryandrake »

I've always wondered why central vacuum systems never took off. We recently moved into a house that was built in that sweet spot in the late 80s / early 90s when central vac was getting pretty popular, and we love it. Quiet, light (you're not hauling around a motor) and with lots of wall inlets, you can vacuum the whole house with a pretty short hose. In my view, this was peak vacuum design, and they perplexingly seemed to go out of style and are not built into newer homes.

Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption

#98

Post by leonroy »

You could say the same about Apple or any company over 20 years old which has had time to go through a few department leads and culture shifts.

I’ve had the Dyson DC02 (1995) - great machine, rubbish plastic in the handle which always cracked after 5 or more years. The filters were also a terrible, throwaway design.

Then bought the DC25 (2008). The DC02 still worked, but this was a dramatic upgrade, solid, strong, easy to clean the brush bar (a long haired dog and 2x daughters made this a god send feature) and easy to wash filters.

Then bought the DC16 - their first cordless. Appalling suction and batteries which died after 1-2 years of use.

Next decided to try a different brand and bought a Miele CX1 (2019) - their first bag less cleaner. Highly rated, very expensive. It had the worst brush head I’ve ever seen, required fiddly disassembly to empty the weird little dust compartment within the canister and had a very odd dust filter which was a pain to clean. Terrible vacuum and lousy design compared to our previous Dyson.

Now we have the V15 - phenomenal cordless vacuum. Can’t praise it enough. It’s just a vacuum mind but it’s very good.

As an aside we’ve also bought the Dyson fans for work. The circular one worked well the HP02 heater purifier which cost a fortune has a high pitched whine which is so irritating that everyone turns it off and this is despite Dyson reluctantly taking it back and ‘fixing’ it - whereupon a year later it’s back to whining.

Dyson himself seems a hypocrite and a little questionable - between Brexit and then incorporating in Singapore and also buying swathes of British farmland I’m not exactly enamored. Also backing out of the Dyson car seemed a low ambition move to me given he has total ownership of the company and is one of the few people in the world who can make that kind of impact.

But the article itself just seems a nothing burger.

Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption

#99

Post by rhinojosa »

But as an owner of the Dyson WashG1 mop, It is quite magnificently the greatest cleaning equipment I enjoy using often. It guides well, vacuums well, mops amazing and overall a marvel in design and function. It's a must for those with pets and little ones tracking everything everywhere. There is literally only two design complaints I have, the pull out tray to clean should have a cocking slide trigger to release all the residue and junction joint frame from the dual canisters is a little to cheap plastic for me, it's only a matter of time before the latches break.

Re: Dyson, techno-centric design and social consumption

#100

Post by echelon »

eddythompson80 wrote: post #94
echelon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the satire. (Did I really write "regret breathing air" before editing or something?) Oxygen is an amazingly energy rich fuel and is super abundant for us. The oxygenation of earth was one of the key steps, and it might be a "hard step" for other civilizations. Of course oxidation causes a lot of damage and byproducts, and is one of the causes of our aging and death. But without it, well... I was primarily refe…

shit sorry that way my mistake. lol. I meant to add a strike through "bad" but realized HN doesn't have strike through, so I deleted it and thought I added a "FTFY" but forgot to add it. sorry about that.

No worries at all! I frequently edit my comments on HN to better wordsmith my arguments, so I half thought I'd made the mistake and been caught in a slip up.
Post reply on HN