LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIf they can capture a good percentage of the hair dresser market, they should be fine. Didn't realise how many there were in the UK alone, but then I guess most of us have hair.Originally Posted by virtuo
http://www.habia.org/industry/overview
If they can capture a good percentage of the hair dresser market, they should be fine. Didn't realise how many there were in the UK alone, but then I guess most of us have hair.
http://www.habia.org/industry/overview
I did say don't get me started on bagless didn't i.
Speaking personally i just find them horrible when it comes to emptying time, the big cloud of dust that kicks up when you empty them, the cleaning of the filter because its got blocked and reduced the sucking power, the cleaning of where the dirt is collected because moisture has entered the chamber and stuck gunk to the walls, obviously it's a personal thing and I'm not knocking those that swear by bagless, it's just for me i like to keep the dirt in one place, a bag, that i can replace when it's full just like my kitchen bin.
Other than their vacuum cleaners, I have no intention of coughing up for any other Dyson goods - I like their innovations and I like their product styling, but I'd never pay those prices.
As to the item in question - meh. If you can't dry your hair with a towel, get it cut, you yeti.
Last edited by Spreadie; 28-04-2016 at 11:45 AM.
Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!
Point taken, but I have a Dyson portable (bagless) and come emptying time I just put an old supermarket bag over the 'chamber', ping the release catch, empty it and close the latch again. The Mum in law has just replaced an old Dyson (DC07 I think) with a much lighter, easier (for her) to use DC50, and I've done the same with both of those. It's not hard but is just a matter of a bit of practice.
My "main" vac isn't a Dyson, but I absolutely adore the esse of use of that portable. Not cheap, though.
As for hairdryers, no way would I pay £300 for one, nor (I suspect) would many hairdressers. Our current hairdryer, which I use about 3 or 4 times a year, was supplied by a hairdresser friend, and is the same one she uses, and was bought "trade". It's a bit big but VERY good, and we paid £20. I suspect she made a few quid, and if so, good.
Hmm, I wonder if we could utilise the motor on CPU and GPU coolers, if it is supersonic and (supposedly ) quiet they could be on to a winner !
Cave canem!
"100 engineers who spent £38m"
I hate to sound like some old grandparent who is complaining about all the useless things they make those days (like smartphones, computers, the internet and so on) just because he does not understand how those things work, but...
Really now? 38 millions and kept 100 engineers busy for 50 months for a god damn hair dryer?
Is this thing gonna save so much time from the women that they are gonna have more free time to save the world or whatever?
I mean really there are like billions of real problems out there that could use 100 engineers and this budget to make real impact in the life of millions of people, but no lets make a god damn hitech expensive hair dryer!
Viva the end of a first world problem!
Agreed. I don't know how anyone could justify such a waste of manpower and money for something that's essentially a mini hairdryer that controls the temperature of the air a little better than most other hairdryers (which cost peanuts and didn't bore 100 engineers to death designing it). Well done Dyson wahey
Companies exist to fix the problem of not enough money in the pockets of the owners, if they can turn a profit making better hairdryers then good for them - there's shedloads of engineers coming through british unis anyway, 100 is a drop in the ocean. £38mil over 50 months and 100 engineers averages to about £90k per engineer per annum, which is a great wage which I suspect went to a british-based employee. A lot of that went on tooling for making prototypes, of course, but I bet more than a few million ended up in HMRC's back pocket.
I bet they paid for a few hectares of trees to be planted somewhere to offset the emissions from production
Not knocking it or Dyson but it's not a one way street as we (the tax payers) invested £16m into Dyson's new research center in Malmesbury, obviously that's drop in the ocean compared to what Dyson (the company) has invested, I'd even go as far as to say we need more investments like that as it helps stimulate the economy, employ people, etc, etc.
I'd give a 100 quid for this 30 years ago, but now... it's pretty much useless for me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote