A Closer Look at the $13B Premium Eyewear Market | Hacker News Reader

A Closer Look at the $13B Premium Eyewear Market

businessoffashion.com

124 pointswalterbell135 comments

The reason glasses cost so much is because one company owns: (1) nearly all brand name frames including Ray-Ban, Oakley, Prada eyewear, Armani eyewear and so on, (2) nearly all retail stores such as LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical and (3) EyeMed, one of the largest vision insurance companies.

Luxottica retail brands: http://www.luxottica.com/en/retail-brands

Luxottica eyewear brands: http://www.luxottica.com/en/eyewear-brands

Luxottica vision insurance: http://www.luxottica.com/en/node/6336

See 60 Minutes story on Luxottica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDdq2rIqAlM

They were expensive before. 1-2000% markup on frames, etc. was pretty common in the 90s.

Edit: Ok, here we go downvoter. From memory: I could get a Perry Ellis frame out of the Frames catalog for about $10. Sola would sell me bifocal CR-39 lenses for ~$3.50/pair. A bottle of dye to tint lenses was about $4.00 and would last a week. A bottle of UV solution was $12 and it too would last a week. We'd sell the Frames for $150, the lenses for $125 and $10 a pop for tint and UV. This was early 90's before Luxottica bought everyone. I know I was in the business and, well, stayed in the business even after they bought the company I worked for. I'm not defending Luxottica. I don't like them, but it paid for my education and I have a pension coming in 10 years or so. Anyway, it was expensive _before_ them. My point stands. The one hour shops all had more to do with the prices going up than Luxottica did at that time.

Standard economic theory would say that if there are egregious margins, new players would enter the market and competition would bring down the price. That appears to happen now and then and then Luxottica buys up the players, keeping the prices steady? Alternative explanation that keeps with the facts.

In Jan 2017, Luxottica announced a merger with the largest lens maker, Essilor. EU antitrust is reviewing, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-luxottica-essilor-merger/...

In turn, Essilor has ownership in Shamir, Eyebuydirect, FramesDirect, Coastal, Coolwinks, Costa Del Mar, Elens, Eotica and Foster Grant, https://www.essilor.com/en/the-group/activities-and-distribu...

If EU regulators allow the merger to go through, one $50B company will own the most online channels for eyeglasses and contacts, in addition to lens manufacturing & retail storefronts & vision insurance.

Yes, Dems also specifically mention Luxottica in their 2018 platform. Not that I expect them to work on it, but maybe we can see the end of high priced glasses soon.

I shopped coastal to avoid them, not anymore

They also own lots of optical machine building companies as well as factories all over the world. It’s pretty much impossible to be in the optical business and not buy from Essilor.

I thought it was shady as hell when I got an explanation of benefits letter from my vision insurance (branded Aetna) with a return address of 4000 Luxottica Place.

I see an independent ophthalmologist. He stocks both Luxottica and non-Luxottica frames. Every time, they and I blindly select frames with a bias against Luxottica. Every time, I choose the Luxottica frame. Somehow, that company has cornered the market for decently-built frames for non-hipsters.

The lack of good designs for non-Luxottica brand frames is appalling. I use a third party eye glass company to order frames + lenses for < $100 and get good quality stuff (but not the best styles). Why are they not able to compete on style and fashion?

> Why are they not able to compete on style and fashion?

I am honestly curious if this is primarily a materials, vendor, distribution, design personnel or intellectual property bottleneck.

I've purchased ~6-8 pairs of glasses from zenni, primary because I'm really happy that they don't gouge the heck out of me for lenses with high refraction indexes or various coatings.

That said, the frames are totally hit or miss, with some of them feeling like they aren't worth the $10-20 or whatever they cost. I find though, its no so much materials as attention to detail. The materials themselves withstand a beating. One of my favorite pairs _rattled_ when I got it because the little plastic nose pieces, and the little plastic piece that fit over the end of the arms was lose. Drop of glue in the ear pieces, and a softer nose piece and they are now my favorite glasses.

OTOH, I also owned a half dozen pairs of ray-bans before I switched to zenni, and probably 3/4 of them had finish problems within the first couple years. The coating on the plastic pieces started to disintegrate leaving a sticky residue on one pair, and three pairs with metal frames had the clear varnish like substance start to crack and peel from the metallic finish. Another started to discolor after a couple years. I guess at least rayban has perfected planned obsolescence...

Prodesign (Denmark) and Modo (US+Japan) have stylish good-quality frames that retail for half the price of premium brands like mykita, ic berlin, lindberg. Unclear why they don't have many competitors.

Mykita founder split from ic berlin (screwless frames). If you look at their designs, there does seem to be IP/patent avoidance. Both are comparably priced. There are supposedly cheap clones available, maybe they can be found on Alibaba.

Edit: see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15431180

Edit2: ic berlin patent (expired?): https://www.google.com/patents/US5418581

I love Prodesign, but yeah they're not exactly competing on price.

Also a big fan of Etnia Barcelona -- they're in a similar price bracket (as far as I know they're independent, but I'll admit to not having researched it)

Same question for men's ties (though it's been a while since I've been in the market for one). Expensive ties have attractive patterns, and cheap ones have horrifying ones. But the pattern is effectively software. Is a nice tie pattern truly that hard to create?

My hypothesis was always that all the simple, nice tie patterns are "taken" as symbols for various old boys' clubs (Universities et al), leaving only ugly designs "meaningless" enough for general use.

The same thing is true, IIRC, of Scottish tartans. All the nice plaid represents some clan or another.

My theory is that ugly ties are there to sell the nice (simple) ties.

I've had similar experiences with dress shirts as well. Plain nice shirts end up costing more than elaborate designs because that's the one people actually want

I've noticed this a lot in men's fashion. If you want a well made garment not covered in a giant logo/design, it's going to be more expensive.

I always assumed that, when it comes to logo covered clothing, you were getting a subsidized price in return for "repping" e.g. Nike.

Perhaps some brands do it that way, but usually in the luxury goods industry (and quite often in fast fashion like Nike) manufacturers will create "accessible" pieces designed specifically with brand poseurs who can't afford the premium products in the portfolio in mind, with a larger logo/unique design to emphasise the acquisition of a brand's product.

I can't find the source online, but I remember reading in "The Luxury Strategy" [0] that the cars at the lower end of the Mercedes line-up had badges 2" larger than those on the premium cars (e.g. A vs S Class), and the LV on the lower end Vuitton bags was larger than the higher end ones - specifically so they could be seen more easily to heighten the ego of the owner.

[0] Kapferer: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Luxury-Strategy-Break-Marketing-Bra...

Prices aren't determined solely on the supply side.

Patterns that people are willing to pay more for are more expensive because there is more money chasing them, not because they are more expensive to create.

That's probably a component of the right answer, but you'd think that the suppliers of the less valuable patterns would adjust quickly and emulate the more valuable ones.

Quite often they are the same suppliers, even if the branding is different; the reason they produce both is that the “better” patterns aren't universally preferred, they are just what is preferred by people with more money to spend, and the other patterns are preferred to people with less money to spend. And there is considerable money spent making sure that those differences exist and evolve over time; because it drives spending and market segmentation.

Luxottica offered to buy Oakley, and Oakley refused.. said it was never going to happen.

So Luxottica stopped distributing Oakley's products in Sunglass Hut, etc.. which deprived Oakley of the majority of it's revenue, causing their stock to crash.

Oakley then accepted a buyout offer from Luxottica.

So to answer your question, why are there not better Luxottica competitors.. because when someone produces a good product, they'll become large enough to attract Luxottica's attention...

If Luxottica controls the distribution channel.. what options do you have if they want to play hardball? No good ones.

> If Luxottica controls the distribution channel

One could have argued similarly for Gillette. Then Dollar Shave Club went direct to consumers.

Likewise, I referenced an independent distributor who stocked non-Luxottica frames. Margins in this business are wide enough that economies of scale, alone, are an insufficient explanation.

Gillette doesn't own Walgreens. That's the big difference here.

Does luxottica own Walgreens?

Do you buy brand name sunglasses at Walgreens or walmart?

No, but they do own LensCrafters, Sunglass Hut, Apex by Sunglass Hut, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Target Optical, and Glasses.com...

Unilever has owned DSC for over a year.

Competitors have mostly focused on alternative or direct-to-consumer distribution. So instead of picking out frames at your optician's office (where everything is Luxottica), you just get your prescription and then either go online or go to a store that direct-sells non-Luxottica.

Interesting. I never heard that. I have been a big Oakley fan for a long time because I felt they did make nice lenses and sold them when I worked at a running store in college.

Did Oakley have their retail outlets at that time? Or did that come after the Luxottica purchase?

When I bought my Oakleys last year, most of my research was by browsing in the two Oakley retail stores in my city. Some was from browsing at surfwear stores (as far as I know, Luxottica don't own Rip Curl or City Beach).

A small portion of my shopping research was on my (Luxottica-owned) optometrist's website, but I ended up buying from the Oakley Factory Outlet store.

This article from 2007 (after the merger) says they had 250 stores out of 11,000 retail outlets that carried their products

https://seekingalpha.com/article/40333-oakley-luxottica-grou...

We need Bezos to enter the market.

They don't own Warby Parker. I bought two pairs of progressive lens glasses from them. Great experience.

That kind of behaviour really should bring the anti-trust regulators knocking on your door sharpish. Anyone know why it didn't happen?

Because the US has not believed in anti-trust regulations in some time, especially for snakes who don't hesitate to pay (I don't remember if it was Last Week Tonight or Adam Ruins Everything which played clips of the Luxotica CEO, that bloke talks and behaves exactly as if he'd order a pallet of cement blocks and ask for a discount).

i mean... maybe they got so good at marketing that they have succeeded in incepting the concept of "decently built frames for non hipsters" in your mind to be the stuff they produce?

thats kinda sorta the whole point of marketing a branded commodity product...

Even if so, the point of blinding is that it's not the brand per se, but the actual design. And unless they have intellectual property defending the design, there should be nothing keeping a competitor from copying it.

The problem may be the copying. If what the cheap brands do is copying the expensive brands while trying to subtly change it to avoid getting sued (trade dress/copyright/design patent), the changes are likely to make the design worse in some way.

Why do you see an ophthalmologist and not an optometrist?

Another monopoly that needs to be broken up...

Can you imagine Comcast owning most of the media production companies, all of college/professional sports broadcast rights, internet access for home/business, AND forcing you to rent all personal computers you can use at home?

This is exactly what's happening with the eyewear industry.

Why isn't anyone launching a competitor in this space. There should be lot of room for innovation with current tech to create a entire organization competing in everything Luxottica does and may be more.

Clearly because of this monopoly there is no innovation from within industry except for designs. There is no substantial feature development around glasses, lenses or frames, again Silicon Valley has to step in and do innovation by combining two different industries.

Seems like this problem will never get solved.

Governments seem to be just surrendering to Corporate all over the world. Clearly Corporate have more buying power and they take care of themselves and not the general public. So there is no entity to take care of general public's interest.

Yes this is all true, but the real reason glasses cost so much is because people buy vision, not glasses. And people value vision extremely high. I started a glasses company and when I'd tell people their $900 glasses cost the eye doctor less than $100, they would give me this blank stare like "so what? I can see."

I'm not sure about that. I value hydration more than vision (I could live blind, but not without water). But I wouldn't pay $900 for a bottle of water and say "so what?"

Yes you bring up a good point. A pair of glasses is quite different than a bottle of water.

I'm pretty sure that if you look long/hard enough, you'll find creative Glass designers in your area.

Here is one in some remote place in a small third-world country: https://www.facebook.com/vakay.eyewear/

Their eyewear is not cheap but it works out the same as Luxottica after you add import tariffs.

Edit: It is important to mention that it is handmade.

A friend told me about this monopoly while I was admiring his Hawkers sunglasses, a spanish startup. Prices are 15-40€.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkers_(company)

"In 2014 the company's revenue exceeded 15 million euros,increasing to 40 millions the following year, and in 2016 Hawkers projected 70 million euros in sales."

As I write this, I am attending SILMO 2017 optical trade show in Paris. I've been attending for a few years and what you see when talking to industry participants is that there is real aversion to business models that can disrupt the industry to lower costs. Frame suppliers that sell to brick-and-mortar shops will very often refuse to sell to e-commerce players, for fear of alienating their brick and mortar accounts for example. Opticians will often refuse to disclose pupillary distance, as a way to prevent their customer from purchasing elsewhere. Many states/provinces/countries have pre-Internet laws on the books that effectively disallow selling online, and efforts to amend those laws to keep pace with technology are aggressively derailed by special interest groups.

As noted elsewhere in this discussion, it was expensive before. Independent opticians feel attacked on one side by e-commerce, and on the other side by Essilor/Luxottica, chains in general, and big-box stores The real issue may be that they can't see the value in changing how they have always worked or that even if individual opticians are open to change, they are stuck in a supply chain that may hold exactly the opposite view.

The opticians are safe and sound for now but if I were in the business I'd be weary.

1. augmented reality could get real and good very fast. Lots of people will be comfortable testing glasses at home instead of checking the optician. Visiting the optician is the most awkward shop I go to.

2. How long before we have advanced cameras and the eye test could be done online? Well, I think a bit longer than I'd think but that's in the realm of possibilities.

I feel that we need to see an uptick in automation/computer vision in the machines at the opticians before we're likely to see any sort of capability of the same at home. I would feel safer if the machines made diagnoses and there was an onsite optometrist/ophthalmologist for verification.

Also some conditions such as glaucoma can be difficult to test (http://www.glaucoma.org/glaucoma/diagnostic-tests.php). I remember one of the tests is to use a tonometer to check pressure by firing a puff of air at the eye, so for any of the tests today that give output values, these could feasibly be administered at home but wouldn't form a complete picture of our eye's health.

Interesting to think what an "opticians" could be in 20 years from now.

State of the art in eye imaging sensors is the equipment used in Lasik surgery. Already being used to supplement smaller opticians with remote optometrists, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15374489

> Opticians will often refuse to disclose pupillary distance, as a way to prevent their customer from purchasing elsewhere

As I understand their logic is that the PD is part of the fitting process for the glasses and not the optical prescription.

Except that’s not true. PD varies by focal distance (far, near) and is unchanged by any frame.

Perhaps they obtain frame measurements at the same time as they measure PD. But the machine is capable of measuring PD alone.

Try another store/human.

Over the years I've been to several opticians and they all measure the PD with a special looking ruler as part of the frame fitting measurements.

I don't doubt that it could be measured as part of the optical prescription process but it isn't as far as I've seen. I'm in the UK.

This is what Lenscrafters (US) uses: http://www.uiwoptometryblog.org/2013/09/accufit/

I'm currently in Jena, Germany eating a steak and minutes away from entering the Carl Zeiss museum of optics.

If you're ever in Japan or Taiwan, have some glasses made there. JINS in Japan is ~$120 including lenses, lenses ready in 3 hours. Pick up same day. I heard there's a company in Taiwan with a similar business model as well.

They're set up to handle tourists, and will handle duty free as well.

South Korea as well, I got a paid of glasses made in 20 minutes as I walked around and ate street food

They have free shipping. Hi-index single vision lenses are included in frame prices, https://www.jins.com.

JINS PC (blue-light blocking) glasses were an industry marketing breakthrough, selling almost 1 million units in the first year, https://corp.jins.com/jp/en/company/history. Their success prompted eyeglass lens makers to launch blue-blocking coatings, now widely available.

Can anyone shed some light on whether blue-blocking coatings are actually useful/good for you?

> Can anyone shed some light on whether blue-blocking coatings are actually useful/good for you?

A HN comment set me looking for some blue-blockers for night driving: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14170975

My locally-owned sunglass shop stocks yellow blue blocker safety goggles that fit over my glasses. They turn obnoxious blue headlights green. I give them a 'blue headlight obnoxiousness reduction factor' of 85%.

The orange safety goggles ("uvex") I ordered from Amazon first were better (95%), but they block out too much green to be safe for night driving.

http://cocoonseyewear.com/find_a_dealer/ - overx.com (imprinted on my yellow glasses) redirects to this site, but what I have isn't shown on their site...

Long article on this topic, arguing “no”, https://amp.businessinsider.com/blue-blocking-glasses-scienc...

For computers, Flux (http://justgetflux.com) offers more control of blue light, and it does make a difference. Also, increase your blinking, periodically focus on distant objects (use a timer if needed) and don’t look at a bright screen in a dark room without ambient light.

These are incredible. I was recommended at Warby Parker (since they didn’t do same-day) to visit them when I was visiting San Francisco, and was in the need of a new pair of glasses.

I had an eye test onsite, picked frames, and picked up glasses all within 75 minutes. Awesome experience! I think they are off Powell and O’Farrell, and I’m wearing them right now.

I got some glasses made up for me on my last trip to Malaysia. Cost less than $50 all up.

Me too - the whole family actually, cost around $50 for great lenses service and frame.

I second this recommendation. The JINS experience (at least in Japan) is amazingly convenient, pleasant, and affordable. I sometimes drop in to pick up an extra copy or two of a pair that I like, and get my current pair tuned up. They'll keep your lenses in their system so you can drop into any store. Thirty or so minutes in and out, and exemplary customer service. What more can anyone ask for?

To add to this, I have a strong prescription requiring kinda special lenses to not be crazy thick, and even with that I got a really expensive frame with the special treatment for ~$150.

In France, the "not 2-inch thick" lenses alone end up costing that, with me ending up paying over $300 + the habitual 2 month waiting period just to go to the optometrist...

So even if you have some special needs, they'll often be able to accommodate (though sometimes you need to wait a day so it won't be same day)

You’ll get premium eyewear in India for $150. Though, it will take around 3-5 days to get it after your order. Good quality ones that last would be $60-80.

If you are in LA, there are some JINS stores too.

Any idea how long has this been possible in Japan and Taiwan?

I remember around 15 years ago in Bangkok my friend broke his glasses so went to the first opticians he found in a mall. He didn't have his prescription so they took some eye tests, he then picked out his frames and lenses and then was asked to return later that day for pickup. Absolutely blew our minds that this was possible

I came into the comments to mention JINS, and ask why a competitor with their business model can't start up in US?

JINS actually starts at $50 (price includes eye exam+frames+lenses, and you can drop by whenever afterwards to have them cleaned/adjusted), and when I had mine made it only took one hour. I saw the machines they have in the back that prepare the lenses on-the-spot. In effect lens 3D printers. Neat stuff.

$32USD complete pair. 100+ frames to choose from, done within a few hours or shipped to your door for $3.

I bought many over the last 5 years.

Sofia, BG.

if you’re in to avoiding paying hyper-inflated costs to support entrenched and anticompetitive markets, like what eyeglsses have been for years, I higly recommend Zenni Optical. They have highly customizable options and are great glasses, especially for the price.

http://www.zennioptical.com

Edit: spelling

My best experience to date for avoiding price-gouging has actually been at Costco's in-house optical.

My experience with Zenni was of the "you get what you pay for" variety.

Same here. Zenni frames are cheap, and the lenses are pretty good. But the frames are built from cheap plastic, and so are the linkages, they just plate them with metallic coating. I've had the linkages break on 10+ pairs from fairly innocent things like falling asleep with them on.

They work fine, but it's like buying anything else designed to be disposable. Make sure you have a few pairs on hand for backup

I've had lots of Zenni frames and I've had exactly the opposite experience.

I sleep on them, drop them, subject them to all kinds of mistreatment, and they don't break!

Ok, they eventually break, but it takes a few years of mistreatment. I get my $12.95 out of them!

So there is a market for a bit more expensive (say 70-100usd) glasses but with a better quality than Zenni.

Oh, wait that was Rayban and it was inhaled by the same company.

Some relevant discussion in this thread, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15373992

I've had a great experience with Zenni Optical over the years and it's a LOT less expensive than the alternatives. Regarding the comments "You get what you pay for" - I guess this is somewhat true but the only competitively priced retailer that I've used was Wal-Mart - and those frames were much lower quality. For the money, I thought that Zenni was pretty great.

YMMV.

Zenni is astonishingly good if you know what size frames fit you. If you’ve already got glasses that fit, the dimensions are often printed on the arms.

It takes a bunch of time to check sizes and narrow down the options but 100% worth it. I have 3 pairs that cost $80 total and paid for extra alike high index and anti-glare.

I have owned the same 4 pair of Zenni's prescription glasses (clear) for over 2 years, and I can say that it's the best $100 I've ever taken a chance on. There were a lot of bad reviews at the time, going in, but at $290 a pair locally, I couldn't resist trying and I'm glad I did. I'm a person who is prone to breaking fragile things, and I can say that with no screw tightening or anything above a rinse in the sink, these glasses still look great, years later.

I'm surprised Warby Parker isn't mentioned at all in this article. Isn't their whole business model built on tackling this market?

No, their business model is based on pretending like they are saving you money when they are just ripping off the customer for marginally less with fancy branding like dollar shave club. Look at Zenni Optical and tell me I'm wrong.

Not sure why this is getting tons of downvotes. Warby Parker's profitability per retail square foot is one of the highest in all of retail mostly because there's such a distance between what their frames cost to make and what they sell them for. Limited choice (Trader Joe's style) and a good sense for the products their target market wants seem to be their secret sauces to pulling off crazy margins on said products.

>profitability per retail square foot is one of the highest

are these numbers public? source?

https://www.fastcompany.com/3041334/warby-parker-sees-the-fu...

"...the company is still averaging about $3,000 per square foot of retail space, a figure that’s in the same breath as Tiffany’s estimated $3,043 ... stores are not profit centers as much as marketing collateral, giant advertisements for Warby Parker’s website. “They’re synergistic,” he says, noting that 85% of Warby retail buyers have already browsed online."

amazing.

Don't they make most of their money online?

If Google opened up a retail shop I'm sure their profit per square foot will be quite high....

Their episode of How I Built This was pretty interesting. They talk about how they initially tried even lower prices but found that below $99, people started to question the quality of the product. That could be marketing in and of itself, I suppose.

http://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=506455305:506610651

On a similar note, where I live the cheapest Ibuprofen you can buy is $10 for a 20 pack, and it's all name-brand stuff. The generic companies who sell stuff at $2 per pack in other countries tried entering the market and failed, because people didn't trust the quality.

Generics in UK supermarkets is <$0.5 a box...

A friend of mine used to work in operations for Luxottica. IIRC after digging for some numbers - at least half of their eyewear sales come from Rayban and cost price sits at arond $9.

I didn't do it to avoid the Luxottica monopoly, but I moved to Mykita frames (fitted with zeiss or hoya lenses, since I like my sunglasses to be corrected too - can't wear contacts) and I wholeheartedly recommend them.

The steel ones are exceptionally light and easy to clean. Design is subjective, but the 'studio' line is generally rather inoffensive (I do have a pair of the Damir Doma ones, too - https://my.mixtape.moe/ffhahq.jpg). Their screw-less hinges are pretty great. The prices are high, but they're low volume objects and there is probably a lot less gouging going on. There are other non-luxottica boutique makers, too.

There's a 200 page, 8-years running, active thread on eyewear/frame selection, https://www.styleforum.net/threads/ask-me-about-eyewear.1205...

Boutique frames are not usually available online, only from authorized B&M retailers. Because of the cost, opticians only carry a few models. Sometimes older models show up on Amazon and eBay. A few models are available at http://www.pretavoir.co.uk/us/ and http://framesdirect.com (owned by Essilor, soon to be Luxxotica).

I'm a bit confused about people buying glasses online. How do they check for comfort? What about the prescription lenses?

For frames and single vision lenses, ideally you would be able to find out:

  - frame width (temple to temple)
  - bridge size (nose width)
  - A size (width of lens)
  - B size (height of lens)
  - temple length (arm that goes over ear)
  - base curve / frame wrap angle
  - panto (vertical incline of lens)

Frame manufacturer's web site has some info, at least [lens width - bridge - temple] are provided. To determine frame fit, you need sizes from current frame or model numbers from frames tested at a B&M store.

An optician will measure where your eyes are located horizontally (pupillary distance) and vertically in the frame (fitting height). This determines where the optical center (clearest vision) of the lens will be located in the frame. Most online sites for single vision lenses do not have an input field for fitting height, using averages instead. But they often have a "special instructions" field where you can enter custom instructions, including fitting height. HN thread on PD measurement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15154066

Progressive (varifocal) lenses are complex to buy even at B&M, never mind online, because fitting and use-case analysis matter more than with single vision lenses.

Since FramesDirect is owned by Essilor, they use Essilor lenses, which are well known. Other online sites don't say much about their lens manufacturer. http://eyeglasslensdirect.com (US) and http://specsdirect.ca (Canada) sell branded premium lenses at discount prices, online reviews are mixed. There are 1700 old msgs about cheap online glasses at https://groups.google.com/forum/m/?hl=en#!forum/glassyeyes

If the Luxxotica-Essilor merger goes through, retail stores like LensCrafters may start providing fitting/adjustment for online stores. A better outcome would be for independent opticians to unbundle their fitting/adjustment pricing, so you can buy your frames at one store (or reuse a high quality frame), a premium branded lens at another store/online, and obtain your frame fitting at a B&M optician.

You win some and lose some. I've had great luck with eyebuydirect (apparently soon to be ingested by Luxottica), though sometimes I lose. On the balance, they're so much cheaper that the overall cost still beats going to Lenscrafters.

The hardest part is getting the distance-to-pupil that you need to input in millimeters. I just asked last time I went to a physical store and they measured it with the little machine.

My Mykita's are the lightest most comfortable glasses I have ever owned. It would be nice if an affordable retailer like Warby Parker could replicate the comfort and quality of Mykita frames.

FRAMES - $0.50-1.50: Injection modeled (plastic) frames. Everything is pretty much made in China. - $2.00-3.50: Metal frames. There were something like 3 factories still left in Italy 15 years ago, but I imagine everything has moved to China by this point.

LENS Local labs (and increasingly regional labs) mass customize these lens blanks based on frame and prescription details. - $7-11: For a pair of single vision lenses - $35-40: For a pair of transition lenses with progressive prescription - A couple dollars for labor AT MOST - A couple dollars for additional high end treatments that isn't already backed into the blanks (large CapEx now involved in these treatment machines hence the regionalization of these labs).

VISION INSURANCE - More of a discount program than insurance - Labs are often what "vision insurance" own with a discount program that is extended to you via these services at your local optometrist. - Medical insurance (not your vision insurance) covers anything serious...generally when you need to go see an Opthamologist or a Eye surgeon

LUXOTTICA They are aggressive, smart, license a good chunk of the luxury brands, AND vertically integrated to the nth degree. And yes, they own one of the largest "vision insurance" companies too, EyeMed.

I bought my most recent frames at a shop in Tokyo to avoid the Luxottica monopoly. They were 1/3 the price, the frame is the best (in terms of both style and ruggedness) I've ever owned, and the optics match my prescription better than any I've ever owned. If you're visiting Japan, bring a recent eyeglass prescription with you!

Can you recommend that store? Looking for an English-speaking store that can sell Seiko lenses that are only available in the Japanese market.

Jun Ginza near Hotel Monterey Ginza. They don't speak much english but it's a small shop and they're VERY helpful. https://www.google.com/search?q=jun+ginza&oq=jun+ginza&aqs=c...

Every time I walk into an eyewear place, I walk out feeling frustrated and angry. That being said, I recently found https://dresden.com.au/, who are making decent prescription glasses for as low as $50 AU.

Thanks for the recommendation, I love the German/Australian crossover marketing on that site. I wish they weren't so hipster looking, but I'm still tempted to visit the store anyway. Something about their attitude and approach to business really grabs me.

Does anyone know if the various brands of lens matters, e.g. Nikon v Hoya v Carl Zeiss...

I have pretty bad vision, -9.0 and astigmatism so the optometrist recommend I get 1.74 high index lenses from Nikon [1], because according to him, it would be "harder/more impact resistant" and the quality would be better.

I also got additional coatings, like anti-reflective, blue light, UV, etc...

So I'm just wondering, if the brand actually matters or are they also all made by a single large factory? Are Nikon lenses that much better than the generic ones from Warby Parker?

1. http://nikonlenswear.com/products/see-series/seecoat-plus

Nikon has a joint venture with Essilor (soon to be Luxottica), so their lenses are very similar: https://www.essilor.com/en/medias/news/nikon-essilor-15-year... & https://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php/56186-Nikon-...

Here is a chart on lens materials: http://64.50.176.246/tools/materials.php

There are still good glasses out there that are not Luxottica. One example is Serengeti from Bushnell Corporation which has state of the art sun glasses.

I don't think Luxottica has anything going for them apart from monopoly. All their glasses are made with same technology, RayBan did not change last 50 years.

http://www.serengeti-eyewear.com/

Europeans seem to wear glasses at a much higher rate than Americans. Is there is structural reason for the preference of glasses over contacts?

Might be cultural reasons. Europe tends to be more pro-intellectual, and glasses are highly associated with the intellectual.

Orrr among people who wear vision correction, the US population has a higher median income that can afford contact lenses.

Without condemning anyone, the US has a very stratified class system. Those lower on the socio-economic ladder may not invest in vision care, which is a more complicated and expensive proposition in the US than it is in Europe. Among those that do, the US population probably has more disposable income than their European counterparts.

I love Europe, but saying that Americans hate nerds and Europeans are intellectual is just lazy. Many European policies, especially in terms of monetary policy and immigration policy, are not what I would call thoughtful or logical.

Or Europeans simply don't mind wearing obvious corrective lenses? There are a huge number of societal factors in play here.

Yeah, America is stridently anti-intellectual, and glasses make you look like a nerd.

> Yeah, America is stridently anti-intellectual, and glasses make you look like a nerd.

Which reminds me how Woody Allen once said, when asked why he was so beloved and respected in Europe, that apparently they might think he is an intellectual, since he's wearing glasses :)

Eastern European countries were too poor in the 1990s and early 2000s for contact lenses to really catch on like they apparently did in the USA during that time. You could only order contact lenses from a handful of opticians, and contact lens solution was only sold in a few places in the biggest cities. Only a small wealthy demographic bought them.

People have more money now of course, but the impression remains that contact lens are a luxury, not a necessity. Plus, the big rise in salaries in my city happened precisely at a time when spectacles were suddenly in fashion. Distribution of the lenses and lens cleaning products remains poor, and if you need a prescription for astigmatism, you can expect to wait 1–2 months for the special order.

Might have to do with what public health care covers?

In Germany, they used to cover glasses till 2003, tho you still had to pay for the frame yourself. They also covered contacts but only in special cases, so getting those on prescription was quite a bit more of a hassle.

2003 has been a while ago, but I have no doubt that plenty of people still have their prescription glasses from back then around, I do.

It's got either something to do with that or there's some societal difference which allows American people more easily to touch their eyes because that's usually one of the main reason people don't wear contacts, at least from my anecdotal experience.

In France, this industry is nothing short of fascinating, it's just an enormous bubble, almost entirely financed by the public sector, it's a market that is so broken it's almost hilarious. You basically have the glass covered by the government, as well as very basic frames, that you will typically not consider, since your company insurance policy probably comes with a plan covering frames.

As a customer, you don't really care, its mostly free for you of course, or worst case scenario you will have to do the deductible. When you go to a store with your prescription, they don't even bother talking about the cost side of things, all they want to know is what insurance you have. In a way it has a few similarities with the US health care system, prices are ridiculously high, often very opaque, sort of like in a legal mafia. In addition to this, the few people who have cornered this business have made sure it's hard to buy contacts or vision glasses in the next country. To give you an idea, just the glasses typically cost something like 200, except per glass, and as you know you will need two. They also have no problem charging you all kinds of useless options you don't need, the classic for example, consists in automatically adding the anti glare coding option by default if the client is an older person.

All true. Also, since the glasses are better covered than the frames, vendors routinely offer to move the cost for the frames onto the glasses, so for example if you want a frame that costs €300 (!) but your insurance covers up to €200 for frames then they will charge €200 for the frame and an extra €50 for each glass.

This is completely illegal but every shop does it (suggests it without prompting from customers).

It's all insane but there seems no way to stop it.

Many online shops have started to appear but they too charge a lot (all reimbursed by public/private insurance). There doesn't seem to be really cheap options.

Oh dear. That sounds sickening. (I'm due for a new pair of glasses and I'm in Western Europe).

Recently, I happened to visit a store to look for a new pair of frames (& glasses). The frames were so insanely expensive I had to ask the guy: "Why are they so expensive?". The guy's short reply was: "It's the brand". When I pressed further to explain, he couldn't say anything meaningful.

Moreover, the quality of these "branded" glasses from my tactile inspection felt subpar (as in, I was wondering: "will they even last a couple of years?").

/me is still on the look out for a reliable way to find something reasonable without shelling out an arm and a leg. (Don't mind paying for good quality.)

Try this: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=modo+frame+auth+new

If you find a model number that you like, do a web search for "modo model_no" to find out the exact size and normal price. Make sure the size is close enough to a frame that you have tried and found to be a good fit.

If you have a strong prescription, you'll want a frame with a narrower lens width, otherwise the edges of the lens will be thick, even with hi-index materials.

Ah, thank you for the suggestion, I'll certainly give it try. (And no, not a strong prescription.)

There are/were many government and company plans that cover the cost of glasses, and hardly any that cover contacts.

Seems that most frame design comes from European, so it probably has alot to do with pride.

I don't feel there is a push to wear one or the other in the UK, both feel reasonably priced too.

I'm interested in making frames for a niche market. And then we can grow to become mainstream. If you're a skilled frames designer, send me a PM, I can finance the project and "handle the business side" (serious).

How do you pm someone here?

You can't... Typically people put their email address in their profile (if they want to be contacted), though obviously not everyone does it.

And the email address needs to go in the about field if you want people to see it. The email field is only seen by HN Mods. (I think - I'm not a mod).

check out my company frameri.com and if you like what you see, message us on intercom. we designed everything ourselves

It does appear to be possible to avoid this, my frames at least come from http://morel-france.com/ (the French Jura made glasses - http://morel-france.com/history-1880/, the Swiss Jura made watches?) and http://www.undostrial.com/ ...

If anyone is looking for high visual clarity and quality sunglasses then I can't recommend anything higher than Serengeti [0]. I have two pair (bought second only because I wanted polarized lenses too) and the world looks even better than without. Putting on Ban Rays or some other "luxury" brand after Serengetis is now awful.

[0] http://www.serengeti-eyewear.com/

I don't wear glasses myself but my father seems quite happy with most of the frames I have ordered for him so far on aliexpress https://www.aliexpress.com/store/201163

It's very clear to me that the eyewear market needs more competition at the moment.

I've bought my last two pair of glasses online. I used eyebuydirect.com but 39dollarglasses.com is another one. It takes a few weeks to get the glasses but it was around $100 for bifocals.

I do https://www.warbyparker.com/. Actually a fan of the build quality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com