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

261–270 of 317 posts

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

#261

Post by riahi »

leguminous wrote: post #167
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…

Disclosure: I'm a software dev, but my fiancée is an optometrist. There are already machines (called autorefractors) that can try to calculate your prescription. They operate on more complex principles than flipping lenses back and forth. They can provide a good starting point, but sometimes they aren't accurate. A good optometrist can do a lot more than just give you your prescription, though. They should be checkin…

Agreed. They do a lot more than just churn out refractions.

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

#262

Post by frosted-flakes »

mindslight wrote: post #54
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/…

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…

Chromatic aberration drives me nuts, especially when driving at night or using a computer. LED headlights are particularly irritating; if I don't look through the centre of the lenses, the way they separate into distinct blue and white lights creates a visually chaotic scene.

The last time I got new glasses (from Costco), I specifically requested lenses that would minimise chromatic aberration. But they didn't have anything better than the high index lenses I already had. I have very bad eyes (rx of -8.25 and -8.00), which makes my lenses quite thick.

Are there other lens materials that do a better job of minimising chromatic aberration? I've tried researching this, but wasn't able to find anything.

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

#263

Post by chillacy »

seem_2211 wrote: post #193
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 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…

I like this way of looking at it. The $15k Rolex is expensive because you’re paying them to tell other people how cool you are through branding. So when you wear the watch other people already recognize the brand and you get to flex on them.

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

#264

Post by megy »

dajohnson89 wrote: post #123
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.

But a 30-story apartment building will block my view of the river!

You can mock, but if someone bought a house, and paid a lot for it so they can view the river, then this is a reasonable concern.

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

#265

Post by mindslight »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #262
mindslight wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Chromatic aberration drives me nuts, especially when driving at night or using a computer. LED headlights are particularly irritating; if I don't look through the centre of the lenses, the way they separate into distinct blue and white lights creates a visually chaotic scene. The last time I got new glasses (from Costco), I specifically requested lenses that would minimise chromatic aberration. But they didn't have a…

The measure you're looking for is the Abbe number. Many opticians won't know what you're talking about, but if you push and/or research materials yourself this number is readily available. I remember comparing materials with (IoR-1)/Abbe as my "badness" score, but don't cite me on that.

A while ago I surveyed the materials that were available. The usual 1.6 proprietary materials (Sola/Hoya/Shamir/Signet) have Abbe of 42. The 1.67's are 31 or 32. I did see a reference to a single Zeiss material with an IoR of 1.67 and Abbe of 42, which you would be interested in. I'm sure it's going to be expensive though.

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

#266

Post by atombender »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #114
eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #74

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.

I've been wondering as well! The suburbs are filled with 4-5 bedroom McMansions— smaller 2-3 bedroom homes are hardly being built at all (except in the form of a townhouse, maybe). So one can't even just "move to the 'burbs" to save money instead of living right in town. It's all the same price.

I'm so confused about why America is so reactionary when it comes to architecture, and to design in general.

I've been browsing Zillow and Redfin lately, trying to plan a few years into the future, and the architectural landscape is just horrific. My ideal is a modern, minimalist, fairly flat-roofed 1- or 2-story (think Rummer [1], Gropius, Eichler, the Eames case study house, Mies van der Rohe's Farnsworth house, etc.). I wouldn't mind oodles of raw concrete and exposed steel. Nothing ostentatious or expensive, mind you; just good design and modern materials.

I'm not that hopeful that anything close to this style appears in the areas I'm looking or in the price range. Instead, what you get are column-infested McMansions or hideously old-fashioned shingle monstrosities. The average home in the US seems to look like this [2]. The kitchen is always dark and brown. Random hideous reactionary baubles from Colonial Revival architecture abound. Beveled wood paneling is everywhere.

Now and then a rare (very rare) mid-century modern house come up that might be within my price range, but of course it doesn't have modern insulation, electrics, heating, moisture barriers, air flow, etc., so what you've got is a beautiful but cold, damp, technologically outdated and energy-inefficient box.

Ultimately, it seems good, modern design in the US is for rich people, which makes me sad.

[1] https://www.curbed.com/2018/8/27/17773540/midcentury-home-to...

[2] https://www.redfin.com/NY/Orchard-Park/30-Knoche-Way-14127/h...

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

#267

Post by Gibbon1 »

atombender wrote: post #266
52-6F-62 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been wondering as well! The suburbs are filled with 4-5 bedroom McMansions— smaller 2-3 bedroom homes are hardly being built at all (except in the form of a townhouse, maybe). So one can't even just "move to the 'burbs" to save money instead of living right in town. It's all the same price.

I'm so confused about why America is so reactionary when it comes to architecture, and to design in general. I've been browsing Zillow and Redfin lately, trying to plan a few years into the future, and the architectural landscape is just horrific. My ideal is a modern, minimalist, fairly flat-roofed 1- or 2-story (think Rummer [1], Gropius, Eichler, the Eames case study house, Mies van der Rohe's Farnsworth house, et…

> column-infested McMansions

Thing I realized is these things are basically lowest common denominator residential construction meets Mr Potato Head.

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

#268

Post by DanieI »

jopsen wrote: post #127
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?

Isn't this just as much another fashion trap? Many things from underwear, glasses, clothes to paper tissues are branded fashion items. None of these items are expensive to make, we just don't buy the cheapest.. probably you can find cheap glasses somewhere online, if not there's probably a business opportunity in that :) Question: do people want to buy cheap glasses, clothes, underwear? Or do they want to buy branded…

> Question: do people want to buy cheap glasses?

Yes, I grew up with my Mom taking me to an expensive glasses store and the salesman's sales pitch was, "My stuff is the best because it's expensive". I didn't know anything because I was age 7 or 8. I was sort of indoctrinated into shopping there, but a few years ago an online store called Googles4u had a $10.00 for glasses and frames deal. It was likely as a loss-leader, but I realized that I didn't see any better out of the expensive Elissor / Hoya glasses with all of the top-of-the-line coatings than I did the no-name cheap glasses. They also made me feel a lot more relaxed. Before I was so worried about dropping them or losing them in the water but now I had a carefree attitude.

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

#269

Post by 1996 »

wtallis wrote: post #245
1996 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also got my first pair of glasses a few week ago when visiting home! I love them, everything is so clear, it's almost like switching to 4k! But something is off when I read my computer screen. Also they cause eye strain after a while if I am reading. Several people mentioned having separate pair of glasses. I have started reading about lenses and all that, very interesting. I'm considering getting extra pairs for che…

I recently purchased glasses online for the first time, from EyeBuyDirect. I got a pair specifically for computer use, with a weaker prescription, smaller pupil distance, and lower index of refraction to cut down on chromatic aberration. For $45 I'm fairly satisfied, even though I haven't quite got the frames adjusted for a perfect fit yet. The chromatic aberration is still noticeable when I look for it, but definite…

How did you adjust the correction to get focus at say 3 ft / 1 m for computer use?

Why a smaller PD?? I thought it was fixed by your skull anatomy?

Post reply on HN