Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

221–230 of 317 posts

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

#221
I noted that if you wear designer glasses, there’s a very good chance you’re wearing Luxottica frames.

This may be true for the big name brands, but there are also a number of smaller independent companies that innovate with new designs and/or materials. For instance, the German designers "Meyer Eyewear" (www.meyer-eyewear.com) started about 10 years ago with a collection made of buffalo and reindeer horn. Now they moved on to ultra-light titanium frames. And that's just one example.

Like in many fields, there is a mass market and then there are niche areas where more exotic (and perhaps more exciting) developments are dwelling.

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

#222
post #189
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard people dump on Warby Parker for being cheaply made, but honestly their stuff doesn't seem any worse then what my insurance covered at my optometrist. Also as a side note, my first pair from Warby Parker had the lenses go bad (they looked like they had dried water blotches on them, but it would never wash out. I assume some coating went bad) and they sent me a new pair for free. That was maybe 2 years ago a…

Warby Parkers are cheaply designed: nose pads are not affixed with screws, and thus are prone to being lost. Most (all?) hinges are rigid, without spring suspension. It’s kind of ridiculous for these prices (compare with Zenni and Costco).

I have been very happy with my 1 year old pair of WP glasses. There aren't any nose pads or spring hinges but I haven't noticed any negative effects from those design choices. For $110 with anti-glare coating I have no complaints.

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

#223
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/…

Zenni requires you to do a bit of your own research, like every other new-economy self-service approach. But it's worth it. Switching to Zenni has allowed me to move to cheap CR-39 lenses rather than expensive high index material. CR-39 is soft, and if I'm paying a lot for frames then the lenses getting scratched is a Big Deal. Then pile on further costs for coatings etc. But if the frames and lenses are both inexpen…

Zenni really needs a "very large lenses" section for sunglasses, most of them are just not large enough to block peripheral sunlight. I had one pair that I bought from them and loved, but after getting a new prescription I went to reorder them to find they had been discontinued.

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

#224
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't even seem like anyone has interest in building $200,000 houses anymore, but they will sell you a poorly made condo for $400,000 and $600/mo HOA fees. I am a single person trying to find a house that is not four or five bedrooms (I only need one or two) and doesn't cost 1/2 mil minimum and it's difficult. This used to be called "the starter house" but it doesn't seem to exist anymore with new construction.

Regulatory burden - building code, permitting, etc make it relatively better and less risky to build bigger, nice homes. It gives you padding if it takes a while to sell, has extra change order, or gets stuck in permit/planning and zoning limbo for a year. If the margins are paper thin, the risk is too large, so the only way to mitigate that risk is to make more expensive homes so that even if things go terribly wron…

Offhand thought. Building costs in urban area's are stuck in a high cost 'peak'. Everything is expensive which makes construction expensive.

My experience renting some warehouse space in SF. One building three units. Used to be occupied by three roofing companies. And some meth heads living in the old offices. One of the roofing companies bought it, kicked out one of the other roofing companies and the methheads and rented to us.

Change of ownership and new owner kicked out another roofing company. And rented out to a pot grow. Fast forward 5 years we got kicked out along with the remaining roofers and all three units are now growing pot.

So went from three roofing companies circa 1998 to three pot grows circa 2012. My feeling is stuff like this is happening in every urban area in the US. Which means your roofer is either paying very high rents or commuting in from 2-3 hours away.

Really easy for me to see that driving costs up by 100%. That's born out by what my insurance agent says. Rebuilding costs in SF are $600-1000 sqft. Get out to Vallejo drops to $300-500 sqft.

Other thought as well is that typically you get better margin on luxury goods than basic ones. because it's easier to slip more profit into high cost goods, like granite countertops vs laminate. Prices double, your margin doubles but your expenses only go up 50%. So as long as the luxo market isn't tapped out that will be serviced at the expense of basic goods.

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

#225
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't even seem like anyone has interest in building $200,000 houses anymore, but they will sell you a poorly made condo for $400,000 and $600/mo HOA fees. I am a single person trying to find a house that is not four or five bedrooms (I only need one or two) and doesn't cost 1/2 mil minimum and it's difficult. This used to be called "the starter house" but it doesn't seem to exist anymore with new construction.

In my country (Poland), the majority of people who are interested in buying a house just buy the lot and contract a company to build the house for them. This way, you get to live in a house that's exactly right for you. Of course, the flip side is that the whole process takes a year or longer - but here most people live in flats, and those who decide (and can afford) to own a house, treat it as a part of settling in…

In the USA, unless you're in a rural area with minimal zoning, there are often minimum square footage requirements on any new construction, either imposed by local zoning or neighborhood convenants. So I could buy a lot in a new development, but I likely do not have complete freedom of choice in what I build on it.

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

#226
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of these apps exist, but none are as accurate as a ruler and two post-it notes with a pinhole. If Apple opens up the depth sensor on the iPhone camera, such apps will be more accurate.

The trouble with do it yourself measurement of the distance between eyes is that it's done with eyes that need glasses, without wearing them. You need a second person or hardware.

I do it while wearing my contacts :)

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

#227
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 think there are a few interesting wrinkles with regards to rent seeking in the current economy and how that works out for the middle class. • As a few people have pointed out, people often buy sunglasses for fashion and social signaling rather than on price. Wearing Tom Ford glasses means you're getting very good quality glasses, but mostly you are paying to wear Tom Ford glasses, in the same way that a Rolls Royce…

Curious - Where do you have the information fro that TAG have a smaller advertising budget than Rolex? I would've assumed the opposite.

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

#228
Hmm. Five months ago I spent about 230€ prescription glasses -- as a 40-hour "screen starer", I went for a reasonably good quality French vendor ("Studio FB", and the glasses themselves from Ziess).

I shelled out that much as I wear glasses every waking hour and didn't wanted some crap quality glasses / frame. I really like them so far. They better last really long.

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

#229

Eyebuydirect is notable because: - US based - Small premium over Hong Kong (Zenni) - Essilor lenses (similar to LensCrafters) - Wide frame selection, some are clones of designer frames which cost 20x - 2 week refund/replace for any reason - No prescription needed Their human customer service seems to be in Malaysia, so CS interactions via voice or email can take a few iterations, but are usually resolved within a few…

They are a subsidiary of Essilor.

Will be interesting to see what the effects of the merger with Luxxottica will be.

I feel like the frames were more of the cost than the lenses.

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

#230

I dipped my toe into the "online glasses" market -- and let me say it's a game-changer. The eyeglass store wanted about $300 per frame, meaning that I'd grudgingly get one pair. The online purchase was only $75 for high-end frames and coatings, plus $27 for three pairs of prescription "computer monitor" glasses (one for the office, one for the home office, one for the other home office!). And by having more pairs, I…

Where did you buy the high end frames online?
Post reply on HN