This is not an isolated incident when it comes to vocal supporters of Brexit. For example, Jacob Rees-Mogg's financial services company recently set up a fund in the Republic of Ireland to ensure continuing access to the European Market [1].
A simple look into Dyson's past (particularly with regards to the "Dyson Academy" in Bath) should tell you all you need to know about the man. His products are mostly garbage too - not a screw to be found.
I fail to see the proported hypocrisy with Rees-Mogg, of course Somerset Capital would establish an EEA entity, dont forget they have BVI, US and Asian based funds too.
have you seen the Dyson hair dryer? Phenomenal product. Who said you need a screw for anything (See the Mathematical Bridge in Cambridge).
It seems to me that a lot of those Brexiters were claiming to sell something a lot more concrete than hope, if only Britain could somehow free itself from the shackles of the EU.
The other thing I find interesting (ironic?) is how many Brexit leaders/campaigners have dual citizenship or residences in EU countries.
It seems more like, "hey, not even we believe this stuff, as evidenced by our actions." :)
They have multiple UK oriented funds already, who is to say they wont be shorting EU listed assets from the Dublin fund? Also its Somersets investors who decide to invest in Funds, the fund manager merely provide the oppurtunity for investment. Your analysis between opening a offshore fund and Rees-Moggs Brexit motivations are tenuous at best.
"Not a screw in sight" refers to the fact that Dyson products are mostly plastic glued together so as to be completely non-reparable. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there is simply _no_ comparison to German products.
I own at 5 Dyson products, most of them from manufacturer refurbished programs (otherwise it's way out of my expenditure range for appliances). They are at best overrated. Take an example of Cyclone Vacuum, the brand newer Hoover cyclone vacs sold at HomeDepot I got last Black Friday for $70 is working as good but it's at least 4x cheaper.
Their air circulation fan/heater isn't as great as 5x of the price tag than competitors. Same with their blowdryers.
In short, they are hugely overpriced. Oh and, they use cheap plastic too - the air vent stand got cracked on winter and again the replacement parts are a fortune to buy.
Product pricing isn't linear with features/abilities. If you want the best X per $ spent you'll almost always arrive at lower quality version. There are premiums to be paid for even minor improvements.
Truth of the matter is, Dyson doesn't have any major feature ability their competitor cannot copy. Sure their patented electric motor design might be more advanced 10 years ago, but not any more! IMO, Tesla makes most advanced electric motors in the planet, since Tesla open their patent portfolio, many Taiwanese ODMs are making them cheaply available. I am not even not talking about knockoffs. Dyson lost their edges.
It's not a completely valid comparison because it's a racing motor, but it will be the basis of the motor used in BMW's future production cars. We'll have to wait to see how good the production version is. And by the time it comes out Tesla may also have improved their motor.
After you bought your first Dyson product, and realized all this, why did you buy 4 others? It appears like their branding and marketing worked as designed, if you bought 4 more of their products, despite the pricing.
BTW - everything you said about Dyson applies to Apple. There's more to branding, pricing & sales than the bill-of-materials and quality
Maybe now they are, but at the time Dyson started getting popular, most vacuum cleaners (Hoovers included) were bag based. The Dyson performance felt revolutionary in comparison. I wouldn't be surprised if the Hoover design was based somewhat off Dyson's. I do know that Shark and Dyson had a IP fight a few years back
I don't see the hypocrisy. Does the Singapore-EU trade agreement give EU citizens the right to vote on laws that will be binding upon Singaporeans? Or give EU citizens the right to reside and work in Singapore? If not, there is no hypocrisy in supporting Brexit while relocating to Singapore.
It is disingenuous to portray the EU as merely a trade organization. It may have started out that way, but today it is a supra-national government, capable of binding the citizens of member states to laws those citizens oppose (just as, e.g., the United States federal government can bind citizens of Alabama to laws those citizens oppose). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)
That seems the wrong question. The better question is: why did he stay in britain while it was in the EU, and why is he leaving now that the UK is leaving the EU? Especially as he advocated that leaving would improve trade and industry.
The answer might be as simple as: "Signapore was the right place and we were planning this move before Brexit was on the horizon"
But it certainly gives the appearance that Brexit is bad for business and he doesn't want to operate with the consequences of the policy he advocated.
In the short run, Brexit will be bad for business, especially if it happens as uncoordinated as it looks now. In the long run, nobody knows, but at least there's potential to negotiate favorable deals without dealing with the EU.
Out of curiosity, what kind of "undiscovered territory" were you thinking about?
As posted by me before:
a) USA. Very little taxes in trade with the EU already. Little to gain with FTA.
b) Canada? Okay, but the UK has this Free trade agreement (FTA) already via the EU.
c) Mersocur? FTA to be signed with the EU soon.
d) Japan und Korea? Have FTAs with EU
e) India? Very demanding. Also want easier immigration to the UK in a FTA. Prediction: Will fail.
f) Australia? Ok, easy to get. Point for the UK
g) China? Possible. But only goods, since China loves to export goods. Financial services? Forget about it. Also, trust me, the Chinese have not forgotten the Opium war. Also the recent Ship of the Royal Navy in disputed waters did not help.
h) Africa. Many (economically) small countries. Not all countries have ties to the UK.
i) Russia/CIS. This the UK could get but this they don't want.
e) is particularly egregious, as it is given as an example of how the EU is hobbling the UK. In fact the EU-India FTA negotiations failed because of British intransigence on the Indian demand for streamlined (non-immigrant) visas, vetoed by the then UK Home Secretary,... Theresa May.
Sorry if I'm misreading, but do you mean "how the EU is being hobbled by the UK"? In the sentence above it sounds like the EU wanted the agreement but the UK (and May's veto) prevented the EU from doing it.
For employees, collective bargaining is often much better than individual negotiation. I upped my salary for example by joining a unionized company, before I was at a non-unionized company and felt that I was better at negotiations than my peers.
Maybe there is a point for states to collectively bargain in trade agreements.
I wish I could locate it now, but Dyson has penned a number of op-eds in the Guardian about the "skills gap" and how it's hard to hire in the UK because there aren't enough programmers, engineers etc.
In the comments, people were asking, "Have you considered increasing employee compensation?" I think we all know the answer to that.
In that case I'd argue that he's saying Britain's economy did not get to benefit much from the EU as they did not adopt the currency, and as such he's moving his manufacturing to Singapore.
Him being against Brexit doesn't mean he thinks that pulling out of the EU will fix things in the UK overnight, especially when he was already critical of the economy and industries.
The UK has also still not pulled out of the EU and seems hell bent on ignoring the referendum. He probably needed a change sooner rather than later.
He might be selling luxury vacuums but a lot of that price is probably building them domestically. If he wants to move supply chains, what is he supposed to do? Wait until the UK leaves the EU and wait even longer for the economy to stabilize?
Even if he is a hypocrite, what does that matter? He can do whatever the hell he wants.
FTAs aren’t magically more democratic. The loss of control of our own law was a major issue for New Zealand signing the Trans Pacific Partnership.
FTAs also bind countries to laws the citizens may oppose and even if changing a law is OK, it might still result in an expensive investor state dispute at a court of arbitration.
I don't know how FTA's work in New Zealand, but in the U.S., any treaty must be "implemented" by domestic legislation (except for in narrow cases where the subject matter falls within executive discretion to begin with). In the EU, by contrast, a regulation can be imposed on the citizens of a particular member nation even if those citizens' representatives oppose it.
To give an example, if the U.S. entered into an FTA requiring a $15 minimum wage, that provision would be ineffective until Congress passed a law making that the minimum wage. But Congress could impose a $15 minimum wage effective in Alabama, even if every Alabama Senator and Congressman opposed it. EU regulations are like the latter.
That's just false. CETA, the recent EU-Canada FTA had to be ratified by all national parliaments, and in the case of Belgium, by provincial parliaments as well.
The EU has multiple forms of laws, some of which require ratification by the national parliaments and some of which don't. EU Regulations are the equivalent of Acts of the United States Congress--they have automatic effect in all member states and override any conflicting national law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union).
Treaties have their own intricacies, but they do not necessarily require ratification either. The EC initially asserted that CETA did not require ratification by the national governments, but backed down citing the "political situation": http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7... (page 13).
I think many EU supporters really don't understand the sweeping powers of the EU. All the legal underpinnings are in place to turn the EU member countries into demi-sovereigns inferior to an EU government, just as happened to the U.S. states. They may be used sparingly now, but Brussels is getting bolder all the time.
Sure, I'll keep it tech related since it's HNews but:
"...raises serious concerns about other countries’ sovereignty and the ability of national governments to set laws and policies to meet their domestic priorities."
From what I know, even most of the Brexit supporters are supportive of the economic benefits of the EU and would like to keep those, they are wary of the "ever closer integration" with things like the ideas for European Military, which, surprise surprise, popped up today [1]. So favouring Brexit is not the same as wanting to discontinue all relationships or economic incentives; they just don't want to be pulled closer into what the EU could become in the near future.
Where exactly is the hypocrisy? Singapore has been touted as a model on how to organize trade after Brexit.
Of course you want a trade deal with the EU after Brexit. One major problem with being in the EU is that it forces the UK to uphold tariffs and tariff-like restrictions on imports from non-EU countries. Singapore itself has little to no tariffs.
With a hard Brexit, those deals simply won't exist yet, so it's wise to move to place where they do exist.
The hypocrisy is based on the fact he loudly supported Brexit saying that we would be better off outside the EU because of how awesome the UK could do by itself, before moving everything to Singapore.
He clearly cares not in the least about the UK. I will never buy any of his products ever again.
If he didn't care about the UK then why would he vocally support a Brexit? That's a clear contradiction.
To put it another way, I can argue for a better business environment in my home country while simultaneously having all my business in a country that actually has such an environment.
So if he's basically based in Singapore, why get involved in the Brexit argument at all? Or at least if he did, why wasn't his argument, "I had to move all my manufacturing out of the UK because it's not like Singapore". Don't remember him saying that during the campaign.
presumably you have little problem with the majority of the UK business establishment expressing their view that leaving will disadvantage their businesses
Mr Dyson's business has been systematically disadvantaged for years by corruption that seems to be endemic to the political institution that's membership is currently under debate
so why is it acceptable for the UK business establishment to campaign for what their believe to be in their best interests, but not for Mr Dyson to campaign for his?
It's fine for him to campaign for his own company, as long as he's clear it's all about his self-interest in the world of vacuum cleaner regulation.
It's not ok to say that Brexit will be great for all the other companies in the UK, whilst clearly demonstrating he couldn't care less. It's immoral. That's what I'm complaining about.
> Mr Dyson's business has been systematically disadvantaged for years by corruption that seems to be endemic to the political institution that's membership is currently under debate
You're going to have provide substantial evidence of that "corruption" vs Mr Dyson not get his own way and getting all upset.
> It's not ok to say that Brexit will be great for all the other companies in the UK, whilst clearly demonstrating he couldn't care less. It's immoral. That's what I'm complaining about.
Oh come on this is getting ridiculous. On that page he said,
"Taxes or delays at the customs, it is not important compared to the manufacturing costs. Car manufacturers complain all the time. But there is no problem without [a] solution."
So he reckons it's all going to be unicorns and roses despite all warnings to the contrary. And you still haven't provided evidence of the much stronger allegation of EU corruption.
It seems like he first ensured chaos for his competitors, and then executed well on that chaos by having a backup plan. Seems like a great capitalist. Lacking in ethics, as a human, but a great capitalist.
I don't see this as hypocrisy any more than someone accepting a tax cut via policy from a politician they voted against.
In fact, if anything, what Brexit has shown me is that there is one side that only sees things in black and white. You can be against something as a whole but in favor of some parts of it. The EU is a great example where many who champion Brexit may be in favor of shared economic benefits and against not-strictly-economic political costs.
There are a couple of YouTube videos from AvE (he takes a bit of getting used to, but he knows a fair bit about electronics) about a Dyson vacuum cleaner [1] and hair dryer [2]. Lots of moulded plastic and glue, little substance. On the other hand, Miele recently repaired an old vacuum cleaner [3] that worked for 30 years before breaking.
We have a Henry, which is far cheaper than a Miele and almost as indestructible.
Dyson is overpriced brightly coloured plastic pretending to be "design." The one we bought had a stupid moulded plug that would fall out of the power socket with the gentlest tug.
It also regularly overheated and shut down for random periods. And it was a nightmare of mess to empty, sending dust everywhere.
A strange company, suggestive of the worst of British opportunism. Apparently there's an old British fighter jet hanging above the canteen in the HQ, but it seems that's just for show when there's more profit to be made by moving to a different country.
I've never understood the cult mentality in consumer products like Dyson and Apple. There are many very good products that are as good and many times better than these cult products.
As for the move, I'm sure it's profit based for the purpose of cheaper labor or being closer to the target consumer, but only an insider would really know the real reason.
There are many copycats out there. Bagless vacuum cleaners were anemic when the Dyson was new. Thin business quality laptops simply didn't exist (Apple adapted aluminum welding technology from airplane ribs to build the unibody mac book)
Those product are the best products out there. They could be overpriced, yes. But other products "many times better", no way!!
Other products could be cheaper, but better, no they are not.
You can't compare an aluminum laptop with a plastic one, filled with spyware(from vendors and Windows today is spyware too), a screen that is sh*t and a battery that last nothing because the manufacturer has not optimized it like Apple has. Not to talk about the chipset electronics, Apple has a volume that gives them the Upper hand choosing the best components.
I fucking hate those hand dryers. I have large hands with long fingers. I have to contort my fingers, hands and wrists while trying to not touch the edges or dip my finger tips into that disgusting collection of water at the bottom of the dryer.
Utter garbage. Just use the old dryers or paper towels ffs.
I find if they are mounted at the right height they can be fine. But some are mounted to optimally spray your face with the water from both your own and previous users' hands... disgusting. At least the taps with the built-in Dyson dryers have not taken off - if used with a shallow sink, the dryer just sprays up water from the bowl into your front.
I agree. When our cleaner started with us, we had the latest Dyson vacuum. We asked what she would prefer and she asked for a Miele. The Miele is still going strong ten years later, whereas the Dyson broke sometime after its second repair (lots and lots of brittle plastic).
I don't even understand the premise of bagless being better than bagged. I had a Dyson for a long time and cleaning out that container was always a huge mess. And it had to be done constantly. I've got a Miele now and it's quiet, cleans better, built like a tank, and swapping out the bag takes 20 seconds once every couple months.
It's the convenience of not having to swap bags, not performance, which is actually worse, not to mention emptying the canister in the trash releases lots of allergens and dust in the air.
He's probably a hypocrite though his reason for supporting the Brexit seems to be around additional EU regulation that squashes innovation. The belief that we are in a time of oppressive regulation is rampant so he's hardly a epicenter for such thinking.
As far as his vacuum design, the Dyson engineering team is superb. Their motors, electronics, programming and bagless designs are miles ahead of anyone else in the industry.
The dyson ball and canisters are lack luster in their class and use cheap engineering gimmicks and too much metallic painted plastic to win over big spending shoppers. The true success story for Dyson is the "motorhead" cordless vacuums. They are skookum.
My girlfriend's Dyson is miserable to empty - all the girls in the house have long hair, and that makes emptying it a 'shove your hand in and pull the mass of hair and dust out' job, nothing like the way it looks in the advert.
I had a DC-01 back in the day, didn't like it at all as the main part of it that runs on the floor was too tall to get under any of the furniture - unlike the vorwerk that it replaced, and the £30 cheapo standard vacuum cleaner that replaced it (and lasted 3 times as long).
The Dyson cordless vacuum is the only Dyson product I have any real respect for. It’s quite good, although I think its main claim to fame is a lack of credible competition so far.
Certainly the Dyson electric hand dryers in retail bathrooms seem to suck even more than the average dryer.
My Dyson "stick vacuum" was the only Dyson I've ever owned, and it was total crap. I actually called them on the phone and asked why it turned off on me constantly (not overheating), and they said it was a design flaw with the battery in the handle. And therefore too bad.
It was a pain in the ass the whole time we used it, and I will never buy a Dyson again. It was over $200, and its replacement was $30 and lasted almost as long (which was still super short).
I have a cordless dc-44 and really love it. It helps that my house is small enough to clean on a single charge, but its' like the combination of a dustbuster and real vacuum; easy enough to grab for any mess, which means you're more likely to use it regularly. shrug
This seems to be a typical combination in a lot of countries nowadays. A donor class that advocate for populist policies with well funded advertisement campaigns that speak to the grievances of poor or less educated voters, ("hundreds of millions for the NHS!"), who then promptly pack their bag and leave as reality sets in, because as we all know capital is very flexible.
The misled voters however are not and cannot suddenly pick up a new career in Singapore or in the PR department of a big company, so they will have to foot the bill.
Wait, he'd rather support another country's economy with his faster growing business than the economy of his own country and earn more money there/elsewhere, while supporting the opposite? Err? No, his statement doesn't make any sense which basically means it's a lie. His decision comes conveniently right after the house vote and May's failure to convince the MPs to take the EU deal. I suppose he is not such a Brexiteer after all.
He is a Brexiteer who has seen the writing on the wall. That Brexit is being thwarted and the probability of escaping the EU reducing every week. He is a realist and a businessman and a Brexiteer. He would have loved to have seen Brexit realised, I'm sure, but it wasn't to be. As such he now needs to turn his attentions to a Plan B - to secure his businesses in better free trading less bureaucratic locations - in this case Singapore.
I am always amazed at corporate communications that are so inartfully constructed. The two statements "Dyson’s company said the move ... was not driven by Britain’s looming departure from the European Union or tax implications" and "the move was aimed at 'future proofing' Dyson."
As I read it the second statement says "Stuff keeps changing in Britain and we can't be sure its going to be good for our company so we're pulling up stakes." And what has changed recently in Britain, oh I don't know, all the Brexit stuff maybe?
I wish companies would own their decisions but they never do when they can't spin them well.
I used to do a lot of housecleaning for family and friends and recommended Dyson vacuums for their strength and robustness. Since then I have got into professional housecleaning and have found Dyson vacuums to be a terrible curse. They are aggressively priced which makes people emotionally invested in them beyond reason. They are typically too strong such that even skilled users get overwhelmed and damage fringes and drapes and anything that isn't super strong that gets too close. Although they may have been built to a high standard when introduced current models have many parts made with vulnerable plastic connectors. As such used Dysons tend to be coming apart in various places and tend to be difficult to use because their unusual mass and strength puts extra stress on the small plastic connectors they are built with. If you want to clean up for a reasonable price without a lot of unnecessary complications then staying away from Dyson products is a good first step. If they are going to be charging that much and putting that much design work into them then they should be advancing robustness and ease of repair. For the fraction of a single Dyson I keep a fleet of Sanitaire vacuums working over a period of many years because all of their components are reasonably designed and can be simply swapped out upon failure.
Well, it's the only place where I've had to randomly hand over my passport to guards holding machine guns. Cambodia and Vietnam were much friendlier (although not necessarily safer).
The salaries are low by western standards. I tripled my income coming back to the UK.
The work culture is shitty. Long hours are routine. Developers are cogs in the machine. The boss is always right. You need to do things by the book.
There's a hard class distinction between "worker bees" (includes developers) and "managers". Those managers were typically clueless about tech, also, which made interviewing a crapshoot.
> The salaries are low by western standards. I tripled my income coming back to the UK.
This is true. Maybe not three times lower, but salaries are lower comparing to UK/US.
> The work culture is shitty. Long hours are routine. Developers are cogs in the machine. The boss is always right. You need to do things by the book.
True. The last sentence applies mostly to local companies.
> There's a hard class distinction between "worker bees" (includes developers) and "managers".
As everywhere else.
> Those managers were typically clueless about tech, also, which made interviewing a crapshoot.
Disagree. Share of incompetent managers is close to share of incompetent developers. Hiring a skilled, knowledgeable, self-organised developer is very hard. Source: I am a manager :)
This matches what the people I know said. It will of course depend on the company. Facebook has a significant presence there now, I've only met one person there but they were a local and said it's very atypical of the Singapore experience (the office was nearly empty at 5pm).
The Remainers are desperate to portray this as hypocrisy by Sir James Dyson. It is actually the opposite. He has been moving more and more of his business out of the EU and UK to Singapore over the last 10-15 years and moving the headquarters is the final step. It is a ringing endorsement to what global free trade can do instead of protectionism, over-regulation and misplaced political projects such as the single currency. And Singapore was consistently held up as an example of what Brexit Britain could be like. Sir James Dyson has given up on Britain because, all things considered, he realises it will be many more years yet until a Clean Brexit is realised in the UK. And even then, it could be decades - judging by the displayed ineptitude of our political class - for the UK to catch up on the head start that Singapore has for high-tech.
He already was a hypocrite. His previous excuses for moving manufacturing to Singapore include Britain not joining the Euro (the European single currency). So the timeline
1) "I need to move to Singapore because Britain is not close enough to the EU"
2) "I want Britain to leave the EU"
3) "I am moving to Singapore anyway, so long suckers"
That was said by him in 2000 - the Lisbon treaty was 2009. In 2000 the only path possible for the UK and EU was "further integration". There was no ability to exit i.e. there was no Article 50.
One can imagine if exiting the EU was possible in 2000 he would have worked that into his comments at the time. As far as he was concerned he had a problem exporting products from the UK because of the strong sterling, most particularly in comparison to the Euro. He needed a solution. Joining the Euro was a possible solution at the time.
The EU also had no trade agreements with countries like Singapore or Japan in 2000 either - or even 2009 for that matter - further reducing his strategic options.
I think it is unfair to expect a PR strategy to be intellectually consistent. And that is what Dyson is founded on.
Dyson is a ringing endorsement of Britain as a marketing and PR powerhouse. They made people across the world believe a story that sold millions of mediocre vacuums. It is a huge success that we should be proud of. But it has little to do with the virtues that Dyson likes to project.
In that sense it is a good parallel to brexit. A PR blitz designed to push bullshit.
Dyson, a big Brexit supporter, plans also to build an electric car, in Singapore: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/23/dyson-to-...
By the way, Singapore has an EU free trade agreement.
I respect engineering and entrepreneurship. But he sounds like a hypocrite. I don't consider buying any of his products.
This is not an isolated incident when it comes to vocal supporters of Brexit. For example, Jacob Rees-Mogg's financial services company recently set up a fund in the Republic of Ireland to ensure continuing access to the European Market [1].
A simple look into Dyson's past (particularly with regards to the "Dyson Academy" in Bath) should tell you all you need to know about the man. His products are mostly garbage too - not a screw to be found.
[1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-jacob-...
JRM is gunning for Tory leadership, so saying he's pro-Brexit is necessary to pre-empt another Farage-style provocateur from crying "open borders".
Of course they behave differently when it's their own money on the line.
I fail to see the proported hypocrisy with Rees-Mogg, of course Somerset Capital would establish an EEA entity, dont forget they have BVI, US and Asian based funds too. have you seen the Dyson hair dryer? Phenomenal product. Who said you need a screw for anything (See the Mathematical Bridge in Cambridge).
If Brexit was great for Britain, he would clearly be investing more in Britain. But he isn't. Hence the hypocrisy.
I guess that means "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is or is close to hypocritical advice.
It seems to me that a lot of those Brexiters were claiming to sell something a lot more concrete than hope, if only Britain could somehow free itself from the shackles of the EU.
The other thing I find interesting (ironic?) is how many Brexit leaders/campaigners have dual citizenship or residences in EU countries.
It seems more like, "hey, not even we believe this stuff, as evidenced by our actions." :)
They have multiple UK oriented funds already, who is to say they wont be shorting EU listed assets from the Dublin fund? Also its Somersets investors who decide to invest in Funds, the fund manager merely provide the oppurtunity for investment. Your analysis between opening a offshore fund and Rees-Moggs Brexit motivations are tenuous at best.
The man reeks of self interest. That should tell you most of what you need to know.
Pretty sure the bridge has bolts. Before the rebuild it hidden spikes hense the myth.
Still spikes not screws :)
"Not a screw in sight" refers to the fact that Dyson products are mostly plastic glued together so as to be completely non-reparable. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there is simply _no_ comparison to German products.
I own at 5 Dyson products, most of them from manufacturer refurbished programs (otherwise it's way out of my expenditure range for appliances). They are at best overrated. Take an example of Cyclone Vacuum, the brand newer Hoover cyclone vacs sold at HomeDepot I got last Black Friday for $70 is working as good but it's at least 4x cheaper.
Their air circulation fan/heater isn't as great as 5x of the price tag than competitors. Same with their blowdryers.
In short, they are hugely overpriced. Oh and, they use cheap plastic too - the air vent stand got cracked on winter and again the replacement parts are a fortune to buy.
Product pricing isn't linear with features/abilities. If you want the best X per $ spent you'll almost always arrive at lower quality version. There are premiums to be paid for even minor improvements.
Truth of the matter is, Dyson doesn't have any major feature ability their competitor cannot copy. Sure their patented electric motor design might be more advanced 10 years ago, but not any more! IMO, Tesla makes most advanced electric motors in the planet, since Tesla open their patent portfolio, many Taiwanese ODMs are making them cheaply available. I am not even not talking about knockoffs. Dyson lost their edges.
> IMO, Tesla makes most advanced electric motors in the planet
I'd say BMW's Formula E motor is better than Tesla's motors today:
https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T028842...
It's not a completely valid comparison because it's a racing motor, but it will be the basis of the motor used in BMW's future production cars. We'll have to wait to see how good the production version is. And by the time it comes out Tesla may also have improved their motor.
In this case its $ paid for marketing.
After you bought your first Dyson product, and realized all this, why did you buy 4 others? It appears like their branding and marketing worked as designed, if you bought 4 more of their products, despite the pricing.
BTW - everything you said about Dyson applies to Apple. There's more to branding, pricing & sales than the bill-of-materials and quality
> They are at best overrated.
Maybe now they are, but at the time Dyson started getting popular, most vacuum cleaners (Hoovers included) were bag based. The Dyson performance felt revolutionary in comparison. I wouldn't be surprised if the Hoover design was based somewhat off Dyson's. I do know that Shark and Dyson had a IP fight a few years back
I don't see the hypocrisy. Does the Singapore-EU trade agreement give EU citizens the right to vote on laws that will be binding upon Singaporeans? Or give EU citizens the right to reside and work in Singapore? If not, there is no hypocrisy in supporting Brexit while relocating to Singapore.
It is disingenuous to portray the EU as merely a trade organization. It may have started out that way, but today it is a supra-national government, capable of binding the citizens of member states to laws those citizens oppose (just as, e.g., the United States federal government can bind citizens of Alabama to laws those citizens oppose). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)
That seems the wrong question. The better question is: why did he stay in britain while it was in the EU, and why is he leaving now that the UK is leaving the EU? Especially as he advocated that leaving would improve trade and industry.
The answer might be as simple as: "Signapore was the right place and we were planning this move before Brexit was on the horizon"
But it certainly gives the appearance that Brexit is bad for business and he doesn't want to operate with the consequences of the policy he advocated.
Not to be a pedant, and it it doesn't invalidate your comment, and probably for the benefit of others, but the UK is still in the EU.
Thanks, fixed it. Had meant to write leaving and not in.
In the short run, Brexit will be bad for business, especially if it happens as uncoordinated as it looks now. In the long run, nobody knows, but at least there's potential to negotiate favorable deals without dealing with the EU.
Out of curiosity, what kind of "undiscovered territory" were you thinking about?
As posted by me before:
a) USA. Very little taxes in trade with the EU already. Little to gain with FTA.
b) Canada? Okay, but the UK has this Free trade agreement (FTA) already via the EU.
c) Mersocur? FTA to be signed with the EU soon.
d) Japan und Korea? Have FTAs with EU
e) India? Very demanding. Also want easier immigration to the UK in a FTA. Prediction: Will fail.
f) Australia? Ok, easy to get. Point for the UK
g) China? Possible. But only goods, since China loves to export goods. Financial services? Forget about it. Also, trust me, the Chinese have not forgotten the Opium war. Also the recent Ship of the Royal Navy in disputed waters did not help.
h) Africa. Many (economically) small countries. Not all countries have ties to the UK.
i) Russia/CIS. This the UK could get but this they don't want.
So?
e) is particularly egregious, as it is given as an example of how the EU is hobbling the UK. In fact the EU-India FTA negotiations failed because of British intransigence on the Indian demand for streamlined (non-immigrant) visas, vetoed by the then UK Home Secretary,... Theresa May.
> "how the EU is hobbling the UK"
Sorry if I'm misreading, but do you mean "how the EU is being hobbled by the UK"? In the sentence above it sounds like the EU wanted the agreement but the UK (and May's veto) prevented the EU from doing it.
They mean people in the uk say that the eu hobbled the uk's ability to trade with the eu.
But actually, the uk hobbled the eu. So the example is wrong.
For employees, collective bargaining is often much better than individual negotiation. I upped my salary for example by joining a unionized company, before I was at a non-unionized company and felt that I was better at negotiations than my peers.
Maybe there is a point for states to collectively bargain in trade agreements.
When businesses move to Singapore, the reason is usually "they offered us an enormous tax break and/or subsidies".
In Dyson's case they probably got a sweetheart deal due to their brand.
What if I added that the original reason Dyson cited for moving to Singapore was the failure of Britain to join the euro?
That sounds like hypocrisy to me
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/nov/05/theobserver...
I wish I could locate it now, but Dyson has penned a number of op-eds in the Guardian about the "skills gap" and how it's hard to hire in the UK because there aren't enough programmers, engineers etc.
In the comments, people were asking, "Have you considered increasing employee compensation?" I think we all know the answer to that.
In that case I'd argue that he's saying Britain's economy did not get to benefit much from the EU as they did not adopt the currency, and as such he's moving his manufacturing to Singapore.
Him being against Brexit doesn't mean he thinks that pulling out of the EU will fix things in the UK overnight, especially when he was already critical of the economy and industries.
The UK has also still not pulled out of the EU and seems hell bent on ignoring the referendum. He probably needed a change sooner rather than later.
He might be selling luxury vacuums but a lot of that price is probably building them domestically. If he wants to move supply chains, what is he supposed to do? Wait until the UK leaves the EU and wait even longer for the economy to stabilize?
Even if he is a hypocrite, what does that matter? He can do whatever the hell he wants.
FTAs aren’t magically more democratic. The loss of control of our own law was a major issue for New Zealand signing the Trans Pacific Partnership.
FTAs also bind countries to laws the citizens may oppose and even if changing a law is OK, it might still result in an expensive investor state dispute at a court of arbitration.
I don't know how FTA's work in New Zealand, but in the U.S., any treaty must be "implemented" by domestic legislation (except for in narrow cases where the subject matter falls within executive discretion to begin with). In the EU, by contrast, a regulation can be imposed on the citizens of a particular member nation even if those citizens' representatives oppose it.
To give an example, if the U.S. entered into an FTA requiring a $15 minimum wage, that provision would be ineffective until Congress passed a law making that the minimum wage. But Congress could impose a $15 minimum wage effective in Alabama, even if every Alabama Senator and Congressman opposed it. EU regulations are like the latter.
That's just false. CETA, the recent EU-Canada FTA had to be ratified by all national parliaments, and in the case of Belgium, by provincial parliaments as well.
The EU has multiple forms of laws, some of which require ratification by the national parliaments and some of which don't. EU Regulations are the equivalent of Acts of the United States Congress--they have automatic effect in all member states and override any conflicting national law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union).
Treaties have their own intricacies, but they do not necessarily require ratification either. The EC initially asserted that CETA did not require ratification by the national governments, but backed down citing the "political situation": http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7... (page 13).
I think many EU supporters really don't understand the sweeping powers of the EU. All the legal underpinnings are in place to turn the EU member countries into demi-sovereigns inferior to an EU government, just as happened to the U.S. states. They may be used sparingly now, but Brussels is getting bolder all the time.
> The loss of control of our own law was a major issue for New Zealand signing the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Can I have a citation for this?
Sure, I'll keep it tech related since it's HNews but: "...raises serious concerns about other countries’ sovereignty and the ability of national governments to set laws and policies to meet their domestic priorities."
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
Thanks!
James Dyson in June 2016 during the referendum campaign:
“We will create more wealth and more jobs by being outside the EU.”
hypocrisy ^
> By the way, Singapore has an EU free trade agreement
this would seem to be irrelevant to today's decision as Dyson ceased EU manufacturing in 2003
today they're moving the legal HQ, with two jobs being relocated
Did you read about the car? Why not build it in China?
It's hard to own 100% of a company in china. Plus IP theft is huge.
It's very easy to advocate for something when you are not sticking around to suffer the consequences.
> I respect engineering and entrepreneurship. But he sounds like a hypocrite. I don't consider buying any of his products.
I've got one of his products, but I had no idea then that he was like this.
From what I know, even most of the Brexit supporters are supportive of the economic benefits of the EU and would like to keep those, they are wary of the "ever closer integration" with things like the ideas for European Military, which, surprise surprise, popped up today [1]. So favouring Brexit is not the same as wanting to discontinue all relationships or economic incentives; they just don't want to be pulled closer into what the EU could become in the near future.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46908205
Where exactly is the hypocrisy? Singapore has been touted as a model on how to organize trade after Brexit.
Of course you want a trade deal with the EU after Brexit. One major problem with being in the EU is that it forces the UK to uphold tariffs and tariff-like restrictions on imports from non-EU countries. Singapore itself has little to no tariffs.
With a hard Brexit, those deals simply won't exist yet, so it's wise to move to place where they do exist.
The hypocrisy is based on the fact he loudly supported Brexit saying that we would be better off outside the EU because of how awesome the UK could do by itself, before moving everything to Singapore.
He clearly cares not in the least about the UK. I will never buy any of his products ever again.
If he didn't care about the UK then why would he vocally support a Brexit? That's a clear contradiction.
To put it another way, I can argue for a better business environment in my home country while simultaneously having all my business in a country that actually has such an environment.
Your argument proves my point. He's doing it entirely for his own selfish reasons and not for the good of the country.
Virtually anybody who runs a successful business believes that a good business environment is also good for the country.
you've got your sequence of events wrong there:
- 2003: moves his manufacturing base of the UK/EU
- 2016: says we'd be better off outside (like his manufacturing base is currently)
- 2019: moves legal HQ (and two jobs) outside of the UK
So if he's basically based in Singapore, why get involved in the Brexit argument at all? Or at least if he did, why wasn't his argument, "I had to move all my manufacturing out of the UK because it's not like Singapore". Don't remember him saying that during the campaign.
he's been upset for a while at the EU's regulatory standards on vacuum cleaners, which he said were mostly written by his German competitors
he contested them in court and was ultimately victorious, but it took 5 years (and presumably millions of pounds) to win that victory
to me that seems like a valid reason to be upset
It's a reason to be upset, it's not a reason to back a brexit campaign.
presumably you have little problem with the majority of the UK business establishment expressing their view that leaving will disadvantage their businesses
Mr Dyson's business has been systematically disadvantaged for years by corruption that seems to be endemic to the political institution that's membership is currently under debate
so why is it acceptable for the UK business establishment to campaign for what their believe to be in their best interests, but not for Mr Dyson to campaign for his?
It's fine for him to campaign for his own company, as long as he's clear it's all about his self-interest in the world of vacuum cleaner regulation.
It's not ok to say that Brexit will be great for all the other companies in the UK, whilst clearly demonstrating he couldn't care less. It's immoral. That's what I'm complaining about.
> Mr Dyson's business has been systematically disadvantaged for years by corruption that seems to be endemic to the political institution that's membership is currently under debate
You're going to have provide substantial evidence of that "corruption" vs Mr Dyson not get his own way and getting all upset.
> It's not ok to say that Brexit will be great for all the other companies in the UK, whilst clearly demonstrating he couldn't care less. It's immoral. That's what I'm complaining about.
did he say that though?
Googled "brexit dyson quotes":
http://www.cityam.com/265756/james-dyson-car-makers-complain...
where did he specifically say exactly what you've accused him of saying?
because it's not on that page
Oh come on this is getting ridiculous. On that page he said,
"Taxes or delays at the customs, it is not important compared to the manufacturing costs. Car manufacturers complain all the time. But there is no problem without [a] solution."
So he reckons it's all going to be unicorns and roses despite all warnings to the contrary. And you still haven't provided evidence of the much stronger allegation of EU corruption.
that's not what you accused him of saying, and you've appeared to have gone back and edited your previous posts after I responded
I'm done here
It seems like he first ensured chaos for his competitors, and then executed well on that chaos by having a backup plan. Seems like a great capitalist. Lacking in ethics, as a human, but a great capitalist.
I don't see this as hypocrisy any more than someone accepting a tax cut via policy from a politician they voted against.
In fact, if anything, what Brexit has shown me is that there is one side that only sees things in black and white. You can be against something as a whole but in favor of some parts of it. The EU is a great example where many who champion Brexit may be in favor of shared economic benefits and against not-strictly-economic political costs.
I am not all that impressed with Dyson vacuum cleaners vs say Meile. A bit too much form, a bit to little function.
Dyson himself is not one of my favourite people. This move seems very hypocritical.
There are a couple of YouTube videos from AvE (he takes a bit of getting used to, but he knows a fair bit about electronics) about a Dyson vacuum cleaner [1] and hair dryer [2]. Lots of moulded plastic and glue, little substance. On the other hand, Miele recently repaired an old vacuum cleaner [3] that worked for 30 years before breaking.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPTzNJMd19A
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-vJxez9UF8
[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34290597
Had a wasching machine (like 300 Euros). It broke in a way that the replacement part was only available for 350Euros.
Got a Miele than.
Looking forward to not to have to think about it for the next 10-20 years.
Loved~~ his tear down of Juicero!
We have a Henry, which is far cheaper than a Miele and almost as indestructible.
Dyson is overpriced brightly coloured plastic pretending to be "design." The one we bought had a stupid moulded plug that would fall out of the power socket with the gentlest tug.
It also regularly overheated and shut down for random periods. And it was a nightmare of mess to empty, sending dust everywhere.
A strange company, suggestive of the worst of British opportunism. Apparently there's an old British fighter jet hanging above the canteen in the HQ, but it seems that's just for show when there's more profit to be made by moving to a different country.
I've never understood the cult mentality in consumer products like Dyson and Apple. There are many very good products that are as good and many times better than these cult products.
As for the move, I'm sure it's profit based for the purpose of cheaper labor or being closer to the target consumer, but only an insider would really know the real reason.
There are many copycats out there. Bagless vacuum cleaners were anemic when the Dyson was new. Thin business quality laptops simply didn't exist (Apple adapted aluminum welding technology from airplane ribs to build the unibody mac book)
You must be joking.
Those product are the best products out there. They could be overpriced, yes. But other products "many times better", no way!!
Other products could be cheaper, but better, no they are not.
You can't compare an aluminum laptop with a plastic one, filled with spyware(from vendors and Windows today is spyware too), a screen that is sh*t and a battery that last nothing because the manufacturer has not optimized it like Apple has. Not to talk about the chipset electronics, Apple has a volume that gives them the Upper hand choosing the best components.
The Dyson urinals I see in pub bathrooms are awful, they spray everything everywhere, a bit too much form, a bit too little function.
I fucking hate those hand dryers. I have large hands with long fingers. I have to contort my fingers, hands and wrists while trying to not touch the edges or dip my finger tips into that disgusting collection of water at the bottom of the dryer.
Utter garbage. Just use the old dryers or paper towels ffs.
Wait are we talking about urinals or hand dryers? I have yet to encounter a Dyson urinal, but my sense of humor really wants one to exist.
It was a joke that nobody seems to be getting, but I was implying that I pee unaware into the hand-dryers.
Also the hand dryers: You better have precision wrist control or your gonna touch the surface and catch the previous toileteer’s bugs.
Or worse, one just needs to be within 3 metres of the machine. [1]
[1] "Dyson Airblades 'spread germs 1,300 times more than paper towels'" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/dyson-airblades-...
The airblade is definitely a victory of design over function. It simply doesn't work well.
Yes, the Excel Dryer Excelerator is far more effective at drying (but probably even more effective at scattering germs all over).
I find if they are mounted at the right height they can be fine. But some are mounted to optimally spray your face with the water from both your own and previous users' hands... disgusting. At least the taps with the built-in Dyson dryers have not taken off - if used with a shallow sink, the dryer just sprays up water from the bowl into your front.
I agree. When our cleaner started with us, we had the latest Dyson vacuum. We asked what she would prefer and she asked for a Miele. The Miele is still going strong ten years later, whereas the Dyson broke sometime after its second repair (lots and lots of brittle plastic).
I don't even understand the premise of bagless being better than bagged. I had a Dyson for a long time and cleaning out that container was always a huge mess. And it had to be done constantly. I've got a Miele now and it's quiet, cleans better, built like a tank, and swapping out the bag takes 20 seconds once every couple months.
It's the convenience of not having to swap bags, not performance, which is actually worse, not to mention emptying the canister in the trash releases lots of allergens and dust in the air.
He's probably a hypocrite though his reason for supporting the Brexit seems to be around additional EU regulation that squashes innovation. The belief that we are in a time of oppressive regulation is rampant so he's hardly a epicenter for such thinking.
As far as his vacuum design, the Dyson engineering team is superb. Their motors, electronics, programming and bagless designs are miles ahead of anyone else in the industry.
The dyson ball and canisters are lack luster in their class and use cheap engineering gimmicks and too much metallic painted plastic to win over big spending shoppers. The true success story for Dyson is the "motorhead" cordless vacuums. They are skookum.
My girlfriend's Dyson is miserable to empty - all the girls in the house have long hair, and that makes emptying it a 'shove your hand in and pull the mass of hair and dust out' job, nothing like the way it looks in the advert.
I had a DC-01 back in the day, didn't like it at all as the main part of it that runs on the floor was too tall to get under any of the furniture - unlike the vorwerk that it replaced, and the £30 cheapo standard vacuum cleaner that replaced it (and lasted 3 times as long).
I felt the same with the Dyson stuff, lots of form and advertising.... but I didn't see the value there.
I ended up buying a Shark vacuum.
They always struck me as the Bose of suction.
I can't speak for Dyson as a person, but I have a Dyson handheld that is absolutely phenomenal.
Let's avoid unnecessary pile-ons.
The Dyson cordless vacuum is the only Dyson product I have any real respect for. It’s quite good, although I think its main claim to fame is a lack of credible competition so far.
Certainly the Dyson electric hand dryers in retail bathrooms seem to suck even more than the average dryer.
My Dyson "stick vacuum" was the only Dyson I've ever owned, and it was total crap. I actually called them on the phone and asked why it turned off on me constantly (not overheating), and they said it was a design flaw with the battery in the handle. And therefore too bad.
It was a pain in the ass the whole time we used it, and I will never buy a Dyson again. It was over $200, and its replacement was $30 and lasted almost as long (which was still super short).
I have a cordless dc-44 and really love it. It helps that my house is small enough to clean on a single charge, but its' like the combination of a dustbuster and real vacuum; easy enough to grab for any mess, which means you're more likely to use it regularly. shrug
I get the cheapest vacuum at Kmart and it works superbly. The “bagless” usp is long dead.
I can see how people will talk about Tesla in same words some 5 years later.
Brexit will only affect the ordinary working class and the poor. The rich who funds this debacle will always have options cope or profit from it.
This seems to be a typical combination in a lot of countries nowadays. A donor class that advocate for populist policies with well funded advertisement campaigns that speak to the grievances of poor or less educated voters, ("hundreds of millions for the NHS!"), who then promptly pack their bag and leave as reality sets in, because as we all know capital is very flexible.
The misled voters however are not and cannot suddenly pick up a new career in Singapore or in the PR department of a big company, so they will have to foot the bill.
Most changes to the status-quo will negatively affect the poor, because they are the most vulnerable.
Wait, he'd rather support another country's economy with his faster growing business than the economy of his own country and earn more money there/elsewhere, while supporting the opposite? Err? No, his statement doesn't make any sense which basically means it's a lie. His decision comes conveniently right after the house vote and May's failure to convince the MPs to take the EU deal. I suppose he is not such a Brexiteer after all.
He is a Brexiteer who has seen the writing on the wall. That Brexit is being thwarted and the probability of escaping the EU reducing every week. He is a realist and a businessman and a Brexiteer. He would have loved to have seen Brexit realised, I'm sure, but it wasn't to be. As such he now needs to turn his attentions to a Plan B - to secure his businesses in better free trading less bureaucratic locations - in this case Singapore.
He originally said he was moving to Singapore because Britain wouldn't join the Euro!
He seems rather confused..
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/nov/05/theobserver...
I am always amazed at corporate communications that are so inartfully constructed. The two statements "Dyson’s company said the move ... was not driven by Britain’s looming departure from the European Union or tax implications" and "the move was aimed at 'future proofing' Dyson."
As I read it the second statement says "Stuff keeps changing in Britain and we can't be sure its going to be good for our company so we're pulling up stakes." And what has changed recently in Britain, oh I don't know, all the Brexit stuff maybe?
I wish companies would own their decisions but they never do when they can't spin them well.
I used to do a lot of housecleaning for family and friends and recommended Dyson vacuums for their strength and robustness. Since then I have got into professional housecleaning and have found Dyson vacuums to be a terrible curse. They are aggressively priced which makes people emotionally invested in them beyond reason. They are typically too strong such that even skilled users get overwhelmed and damage fringes and drapes and anything that isn't super strong that gets too close. Although they may have been built to a high standard when introduced current models have many parts made with vulnerable plastic connectors. As such used Dysons tend to be coming apart in various places and tend to be difficult to use because their unusual mass and strength puts extra stress on the small plastic connectors they are built with. If you want to clean up for a reasonable price without a lot of unnecessary complications then staying away from Dyson products is a good first step. If they are going to be charging that much and putting that much design work into them then they should be advancing robustness and ease of repair. For the fraction of a single Dyson I keep a fleet of Sanitaire vacuums working over a period of many years because all of their components are reasonably designed and can be simply swapped out upon failure.
His products used to be good. These days they are over priced, poorly made and fall apart quickly.
Does anyone have any insight it is like to work in Singapore as a developer if you've previously worked in the West?
How are salaries? How is the work culture?
Is the industry growing such that moving there would be a good career play?
Well, it's the only place where I've had to randomly hand over my passport to guards holding machine guns. Cambodia and Vietnam were much friendlier (although not necessarily safer).
I have.
The salaries are low by western standards. I tripled my income coming back to the UK.
The work culture is shitty. Long hours are routine. Developers are cogs in the machine. The boss is always right. You need to do things by the book.
There's a hard class distinction between "worker bees" (includes developers) and "managers". Those managers were typically clueless about tech, also, which made interviewing a crapshoot.
> The salaries are low by western standards. I tripled my income coming back to the UK.
This is true. Maybe not three times lower, but salaries are lower comparing to UK/US.
> The work culture is shitty. Long hours are routine. Developers are cogs in the machine. The boss is always right. You need to do things by the book.
True. The last sentence applies mostly to local companies.
> There's a hard class distinction between "worker bees" (includes developers) and "managers".
As everywhere else.
> Those managers were typically clueless about tech, also, which made interviewing a crapshoot.
Disagree. Share of incompetent managers is close to share of incompetent developers. Hiring a skilled, knowledgeable, self-organised developer is very hard. Source: I am a manager :)
This matches what the people I know said. It will of course depend on the company. Facebook has a significant presence there now, I've only met one person there but they were a local and said it's very atypical of the Singapore experience (the office was nearly empty at 5pm).
Global companies like FB or Google bring global work culture in Singapore, so general assumptions about work might not apply to them.
They are notorious here for paying below average salaries though
This article should shed some light: http://elijames.org/the-two-tiers-of-singapores-tech-compani...
Thanks for sharing - I guess it's no surprise that Singapore tech salaries would be bimodal...
The Remainers are desperate to portray this as hypocrisy by Sir James Dyson. It is actually the opposite. He has been moving more and more of his business out of the EU and UK to Singapore over the last 10-15 years and moving the headquarters is the final step. It is a ringing endorsement to what global free trade can do instead of protectionism, over-regulation and misplaced political projects such as the single currency. And Singapore was consistently held up as an example of what Brexit Britain could be like. Sir James Dyson has given up on Britain because, all things considered, he realises it will be many more years yet until a Clean Brexit is realised in the UK. And even then, it could be decades - judging by the displayed ineptitude of our political class - for the UK to catch up on the head start that Singapore has for high-tech.
He already was a hypocrite. His previous excuses for moving manufacturing to Singapore include Britain not joining the Euro (the European single currency). So the timeline
1) "I need to move to Singapore because Britain is not close enough to the EU"
2) "I want Britain to leave the EU"
3) "I am moving to Singapore anyway, so long suckers"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/nov/05/theobserver...
That was said by him in 2000 - the Lisbon treaty was 2009. In 2000 the only path possible for the UK and EU was "further integration". There was no ability to exit i.e. there was no Article 50.
One can imagine if exiting the EU was possible in 2000 he would have worked that into his comments at the time. As far as he was concerned he had a problem exporting products from the UK because of the strong sterling, most particularly in comparison to the Euro. He needed a solution. Joining the Euro was a possible solution at the time.
The EU also had no trade agreements with countries like Singapore or Japan in 2000 either - or even 2009 for that matter - further reducing his strategic options.
I think it is unfair to expect a PR strategy to be intellectually consistent. And that is what Dyson is founded on.
Dyson is a ringing endorsement of Britain as a marketing and PR powerhouse. They made people across the world believe a story that sold millions of mediocre vacuums. It is a huge success that we should be proud of. But it has little to do with the virtues that Dyson likes to project.
In that sense it is a good parallel to brexit. A PR blitz designed to push bullshit.