James Dyson's vacuum cleaner required 5,127 prototypes: In Praise of Failure

I know the point is accepting the process of failure, but it reminds me of Edison vs Tesla. Tesla supposedly said "If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor."

> it took 5,127 prototypes and 15 years to get it right

This works out to 341 prototypes a year. I understand this is based on a true story and it's probably a good vacuum cleaner, but - c'mon, give me a little break here.

(edit)

Worth adding - I was buying a vacuum for myself not long ago and looked at Dyson. Their marketing materials are full of exaggerations, inaccuracies and half-truths. One of their central claims is that their vacuums "do not loose suction". A reasonable question here is what happens when a dust canister fills up? Does it keep sucking dust and ejecting it back into the air? They also claim it is the only cyclonic vacuum (followed by some fine print), and this is simply not true.

All in all, it is really well marketed, but otherwise severly overpriced vacuum of an average manufacturing quality (can't lift certain portable models by their carrying handle, because some seal opens up and, ironically, they loose suction) and it was designed by an interesting person. That's about it.

Every time someone pulls out that tired Edison quote I'm reminded of a response Nikola Tesla gave when he heard it:

“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”

While not giving up after the first time your idea doesn't work is vital, it's equally important to avoid work when a little theory and math will save you the trouble.

I suspect the "5,127 prototypes" figure covers the entire development cycle to date, including 35 models and a highly successful business -- not 5,127 prototypes in his garden shed before the DC01 went on sale! (That'd be some shed ...)

Lest we forget, these days Dyson has a research, design and development centre with 350 engineers working for him:

http://www.dyson.co.uk/insidedyson/article.asp?aID=dysonhq

For those who enjoyed the author's story, there's plenty more in his well-written autobiography: http://www.amazon.com/Against-Odds-Autobiography-James-Dyson....

I have a house with 36 stairs and landings, most of them carpeted. Much of the rest is wood floor, so I needed a canister vacuum which was light yet high quality, and could handle a variety of attachments with aplomb. Being HEPA would be a benefit.

I came to the realization that Dyson's canisters vacuums are terrible machines. They are (except the microscopic capacity DC26) amazingly heavy -- 20 pounds, have poorly constructed plasticy parts, are poorly maneuverable, are very leaky (this is what passes for HEPA?) and are noisy. Did I mention that the usable ones are unbelievably heavy? Does Dyson not understand what canister vacuums are used for?

I thought: this took 5,127 prototypes to produce?

I eventually bought what I think is generally regarded as the best vacuum in this category: a Miele. (In my case, a Neptune with additional Parquet attachment). Exceptionally quiet, only 11 pounds, entirely sealed with high quality filtration, durable, very powerful, and maneuverable. A very well thought out, obviously German machine. The difference between the two is very much like a BMW versus a Pontiac Sunbird. The BMW is obviously a more refined machine, but the Sunbird is the flashiest thing you'll find at Best Buy.

I have a Dyson - and after some years I think it's only a hype product. I couldn't realize for a long time I've fallen for a 90% marketing, 10% product thing. My next vacuum will not be a Dyson.

My mom's Royal has been working for 20+ years without losing suction, although it's heavy as shit because it's all metal. She bought it when she worked at a sewing and vacuum place.

My friend got a used kirby for $350 that kicks any dyson's ass all over the place.

If you're not failing, you're not trying hard enough to push yourself to the boundary-of-ability where you learn.

There is actual basis for this in learning theory.

I've always thought Dyson make terrible _products_. The innards of a Dyson vacuum cleaner are no doubt ingenious, but the early models all weighed a ton and were incredibly difficult to lug around the house and actually clean stuff.

Same with the AirBlade. Clever idea, but it doesn't dry your hands, and the blast of air knocks your hands into the sides, negating all the claims of better hygiene.

I'm sure the Dyson process involves tons of prototypes, but I don't for a second believe they actually spend much time looking at people _using_ the damn things.

I loved this one. Maybe the best example yet of a great idea being necessary but totally insufficient for a great outcome.

I have to imagine in this day and age they did it 5000 times because they didn't know how to use flow-modeling software?