Oh, I read it. Have you read some of the hilarious comments?
Snide is easy. We've got a whole forum of people right here who do it without any effort at all. Fun, and often meaningless.
At most there could be some physics to narrowing the outlet thus increasing the pressure of the exiting air. I'm not impressed that a clever marketer made the up name of "air multiplier" to sell this fan as some new kind of physics discovery.
Me either. Of course that's what marketers are paid to do. Happens in toothpaste commercials too.
Show me where Dyson personally claims it is "some new kind of physics discovery."
Had it been marketed as a fun design (safe to put your face in, neat paper airplane launcher, something to mystify your friends), then the marketing would not be deceptive. But if you make the fake claim it is a "bladeless" fan, (which BTW is not true, the fan in the base has blades of some kind - it's a fan!), and convey the image of some new physics application to air movement, it's a fraud, plain and simple.
Playing nitpick games with semantics. There has been no effort to pretend that the base contains no fan. It's quite obvious to anyone who isn't looking to pick a fight (or perhaps brain-dead)
which fan blades are being referred to. If you personally are unsure of the difference try sticking a cat's tail through the delivery system of a conventional fan.
Someone mentioned the Ionic Breeze in this thread. That product is a total fraud and collects about as much dust from the air as the static cling on a TV screen. (See the consumer reports review of the Ionic Breeze if skepticism and common sense are not sufficient for your confidence in my claim.)
They did, but it isn't clear why, except for effect. The "Ionic Breeze" clearly did not do what it claimed to do. By comparison this gizmo claims to move air without large fan blades buffeting that air to push it at you. It does that.
It may not be a great leap forward, but then neither are Gucci handbags.
As for Dyson's inventions, a "bagless vacuum" is not an improvement. Vacuums collect the finest of dust particles and the bag is important to contain those particles when you go to dump it. You cannot empty a bagless vacuum cleaner indoors unless you want to vacuum the mess after your done.
Funny about that. It was the "bagless" feature which made his vacuum cleaner one of the most popular in the UK.
Do you remember when vacuum cleaner bags weren't disposable. I do. They were no fun to empty, either. Less, if truth be told.
His second marketing ploy is to claim the bagless version "doesn't lose suction". Modern vacuums don't lose suction until the bag is full. Dyson's vacuum is no different because it has no bag. Regardless, at least one of his models, if he has more than one, has really poor suction.
Too bad Hoover didn't have the benefit of your engineering and marketing wisdom. They wouldn't have had to lose that $5 million in court for stealing his design.
The flexible handle (his ball jointed vacuum) has a small benefit. It's amazing no one invented that one before him.
What Dyson is good at, just like Ron Popeel, is TV marketing. He's very good at it, but he's not any kind of genius inventor. I fear, my friend, you've been sucked in.
You've been sucked in by (or are sucking in) something if you think I have made him out to be "any kind of genius inventor". All I did was question your apparently unsupported description of him as a "fraud". He's had some good 'out of the box' ideas. He has employed basic science in innovative ways. Without resorting to the sort of petty semantic literalism that you have used concerning "fan blades" I think you will find it difficult to demonstrate that his products do not perform fundamentally as he claims they do.
Comparing him to Ron Popeil is a bit of a cheap shot . Popeil got an Ig Noble Prize (which isn't even all that ignoble). Dyson got elected to the Royal Academy of Engineers.
And knighted.
The fan is a neat idea. It's cute, and there seems to have been a decision made to offer it in a certain market. Initially. As is usually the case with these sorts of products I expect it will gradually (soon?) find its way into less pricey niches.
Ho hum.
There's been as much "spin" expended in trying to find ways to denigrate this toy as there has been to sell it. Maybe more.
I suspect that they are profoundly grateful for all of the assistance with their publicity campaign.
I thought they had the hot season and the hotter season. 
)
