Dyson launched its new CameraJet toothbrush in September 2026 after around six years of development and the involvement of hundreds of engineers.
It is an ambitious product. As well as brushing teeth, it uses a camera to identify gaps and directs a jet of liquid between them to clean away plaque.
But shortly after launch, reports started appearing of products failing, and the CameraJet temporarily disappeared from sale in several markets.
Dyson subsequently confirmed that one production batch of jet tubes had experienced a process issue; this could have been the cause of water seepage.
This is interesting because it shows how developing a technically sophisticated product and manufacturing it reliably at scale are two different challenges.
A design may work well during development and validation, but manufacturing variation, immature production processes, inadequate testing, or problems during the ramp-up to mass production can still create failures.
In this episode, Adrian and Renaud use the Dyson CameraJet story as a starting point to discuss waterproofing, manufacturing process control, NPI, production validation, field failures, launch strategy, and traceability, and what other hardware companies can learn from the case.
Listen to the audio here or on Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Amazon Podcasts · Deezer · iHeartRADIO · TuneIn.
What do we discuss?
- 01:00 – What happened with Dyson’s new CameraJet toothbrush?
Dyson spent years developing an innovative $500 product, but reports of failures appeared very soon after its global launch. We look at why this makes the CameraJet an interesting manufacturing case study rather than simply another story about a faulty consumer product. - 02:47 – Why can an unsuccessful launch be so commercially painful?
A large product launch can generate substantial publicity and momentum. If failures dominate the reviews immediately afterwards, much of that positive attention can quickly turn into negative publicity. - 06:31 – Why does manufacturing traceability matter when one batch has a problem?
Dyson referred specifically to one production batch of jet tubes. Being able to identify which components went into which finished products can potentially allow a company to contain a problem rather than treating every product as suspect. - 09:25 – Why is waterproofing much harder than it might appear?
An electric toothbrush already operates in a wet environment, but the CameraJet also carries and pumps liquid internally. Waterproofing therefore depends on enclosure design, seals, materials, tolerances, interfaces, assembly methods, and how all of those elements behave over time. - 13:11 – Waterproofing has to be designed as a complete system
A little leakage can ultimately result in complete product failure. Renaud explains why experience, material behaviour, mechanical interfaces, dimensional tolerances, and reliability testing all need to be considered together when developing waterproof electronics. - 15:51 – Designing the product is not enough. You also need to design the manufacturing process
A validated product design may still fail if manufacturing cannot reproduce it consistently. Alignment, adhesive application, torque, cleanliness, seals, and other apparently small process details can all affect the final product. - 18:41 – How can a good design be undermined during mass production?
Pilot units may perform very well while engineers are closely supervising production. Problems can emerge later if the final manufacturing process has not been sufficiently developed, validated, and controlled. - …and more! Please listen to the episode to hear the full story.
The key Takeaway
A technically impressive product is not automatically a production-ready product.
Product validation needs to be followed by manufacturing-process development, production validation, effective testing, process control, and a controlled ramp-up.
This is especially important for difficult products such as waterproof electronics, where very small variations in seals, adhesives, tolerances, assembly, or materials can eventually cause serious failures.
And once products are in customers’ hands, the learning process needs to continue.
Early field failures should be treated as valuable engineering information: recover failed units, identify patterns, determine root causes, implement corrective actions, and use good traceability to understand exactly which products may be affected.
The CameraJet case is a useful reminder that the aim of NPI is not simply to reach mass production. It is to reach predictable, controlled, and repeatable mass production.
Further Reading
- Sofeast – The New Product Introduction Process Guide
- Agilian – How Reliability Testing Is Critical To Obtaining Great Mass-Produced Products
- QualityInspection.org – Manufacturing Traceability: Improve Quality, Compliance, and More!
- QualityInspection.org – What QC Processes Should Be Set Up Before Mass Production?
- QualityInspection.org – Catching Failures Before They Escalate: The Role of Early Field Failure Analysis (EFFA)
- Agilian Technology – What To Do If You Have A High Product Return Rate? [6-Step Process]
