Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 317 posts

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#151

Post by mbell »

perfmode wrote: post #138
mbell wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at a sunglass hut part time during college. The _vast_ majority of sunglasses I sold were for fashion, not function. People weren't paying $250 for the lens, they are paying $240 for the style and 'real' D&G logo and $10 for the lens. In my time there I would say the only brands you should buy for performance are Maui-Jim (great lens / polarization) or Oakley (impact safety), everything else is junk lens put…

are prescription lenses not priced along the lines of the fashion lines?

I don't know as much about that side of things but as I recall Luxottica didn't make the prescription lens, they were ordered to spec from a third party. They sold and manufactured the frames and did the fitting work (which does some times require significant work on the lens like reshaping or drilling holes). This was ~10 years ago though so that may have changed.

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#152

Post by rbavocadotree »

Animats wrote: post #41
abruzzi wrote: post #22

I've always followed the normal route--I have employer provided vision insurance, I would get myself tested every two years by a optometrist that my insurance covered, and I would buy glass using the prescription from the optometrist or a glasses store supported by my insurance. I don't have anything special in my glasses--single focal, no tinting or light sensitivity, and my glasses weren't remotely stylish, and I'd…

Here's a useful program someone in the HN/YC universe could write - something that uses your computer or phone camera to measure your interpupillary distance. This is a bit tricky to do yourself with a ruler and a mirror. Just have the user take a selfie while holding some object of known dimensions on their forehead. Like a dollar bill. Find the eyes and pupils (OpenCV can do that), find the reference object, calcul…

The Warby Parker App already does a much better version of this. Open the front facing camera and any frame you want is super imposed in real time on your face. It works very well, on a newer iphone at least. You do have to enter your prescription details by hand though.

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#153

Post by p1necone »

xenonite wrote: post #124
sampo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The land, on the other hand, costs more than that alone in major cities. You can build apartment buildings 5, 10, 20 or even 80 floors high. The cost of land per apartment can be made quite small by building higher.

Well the shadow of a tall building covers sunshine in a large area. This limits its applicability.

I'd rather have an apartment building than be homeless in the sunshine.

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#154

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

mbell wrote: post #133
jerf wrote: post #27

It's articles like this that make me wonder how much of our middle class burden comes from hidden rent seeking parasites like this. I honestly don't know. I'm not trying to imply any particular thing. I honestly wonder. These sorts of things can stack up through the layers of companies that make things. And where does this money go? What does it end up doing?

I worked at a sunglass hut part time during college. The _vast_ majority of sunglasses I sold were for fashion, not function. People weren't paying $250 for the lens, they are paying $240 for the style and 'real' D&G logo and $10 for the lens. In my time there I would say the only brands you should buy for performance are Maui-Jim (great lens / polarization) or Oakley (impact safety), everything else is junk lens put…

At the same time if I walk into a sunglass hut thinking that it is a neutral marketplace where many brands compete for my purchase across the dimensions of fashion AND price I am being deceived. sunglass hut and most of the brands inside of a sunglass hut are owned by the same company which is not competing with itself but instead acting as a dominant firm using it's price-setting power to increase how much I'm going to be shelling out when looking for a pair of sunglasses.

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#156

Post by [deleted] »

jasode wrote: post #8

I was able to slash my eyeglasses expenditures in both the exams and the frames: eye exams: I used to pay the optometrist $153 ($117 refraction + $36 dilation). I later found out that Costco often has an optometrist on site in a tiny office and will charge just $59 (and add +$20 for dilation). That's less than half the cost of most other optometrists. frames: switched to Zenni online to avoid the LensCrafters/Pearle/…

[deleted]

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#157

Post by acct1771 »

perfmode wrote: post #138
mbell wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at a sunglass hut part time during college. The _vast_ majority of sunglasses I sold were for fashion, not function. People weren't paying $250 for the lens, they are paying $240 for the style and 'real' D&G logo and $10 for the lens. In my time there I would say the only brands you should buy for performance are Maui-Jim (great lens / polarization) or Oakley (impact safety), everything else is junk lens put…

are prescription lenses not priced along the lines of the fashion lines?

If you're not ignorant, no.

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#158

Post by greedo »

umvi wrote: post #88

Seems like the majority of optometrists could be replaced by photo booth-esque optometry machines. Simply sit in a booth, look through some eye ports, and the machine will automatically start cycling through lenses and making you choose between 1, 2, or equal. At the end it spits out your prescription for a nominal fee. For an extra fee you could have additional eye imagery taken by the machine sent off to a remote o…

My optometrist has a machine that automatically generates your prescription. They do some cross-checking with the old fashioned "which looks clearer, this one or this?" lens machine too, but just out of caution.

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#159

Post by mhb »

aj7 wrote: post #95
mhb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're suggesting that all these jobs are good, for their own sake, then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Only if there’s no learning. The Apollo 1 fire, countless air disasters etc. led to much greater safety.

Of course. But you can say "Only if there's no x" about many x's. The point is that jobs are only good as a means, not an end.

Re: How badly are we being ripped off on eyewear? Former industry execs tell all

#160

Post by smileysteve »

city41 wrote: post #134
umvi wrote: post #88

Seems like the majority of optometrists could be replaced by photo booth-esque optometry machines. Simply sit in a booth, look through some eye ports, and the machine will automatically start cycling through lenses and making you choose between 1, 2, or equal. At the end it spits out your prescription for a nominal fee. For an extra fee you could have additional eye imagery taken by the machine sent off to a remote o…

I consider my vision important enough to get a human opinion on it. Even if a machine can do it correctly 99% of the time, having someone experienced there to confirm the choices is worth it.

Even if the human has been encouraged to lie, cheat, and steal from you?
Post reply on HN