7 ms·

What's the value proposition relative to the alternatives? It is adding weight, complexity, and limiting choice to your eye-wear while effectively doing a simi

What's the value proposition relative to the alternatives? It is adding weight, complexity, and limiting choice to your eye-wear while effectively doing a similar thing to half a dozen wireless earbuds already on the market. It isn't really comparable to Google Glass, because Google Glass used projection onto the glasses themselves (creating a unique value). Plus Amazon are trying to integrate with the US's predominant eye wear monopoly (via insurance/out-of-network frames) instead of just bypassing it and producing the lenses themselves. So you're paying $179.99 for empty frames and then untold amounts for the actual lenses, and trying to ingrate with an insurance system that's designed to benefit only Luxottica (via their stranglehold of both insurance companies AND lens producers).

echelon 7y ago
> US's predominant eye wear monopoly (via insurance/out-of-network frames) > an insurance system that's designed to benefit only Luxottica (via their stranglehold of both insurance companies AND lens producers). How is this a thing? Couldn't a startup come in and trounce them by offering $10 frames and lenses? The optics aren't that complicated, and frames are... plastic?
- colechristensen 7y ago
  Every optic has to be custom fit to a frame grinding the frame’s shape around the individuals specific fit. This also already exists with companies like zenni optical.
- windsurfer 7y ago
  Startups do all the time via the internet, and they are growing, but the issue is getting involved with insurance companies and optometrists. It's not as complete a monopoly as one may be led to believe, but Luxottica still does control a large portion of the market. See https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-luxottica-own-80-of-the-eyeglass-industry/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-luxottica-own-80-of-t...
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    That page badly needs an update. No mention that Luxottica merged with Essilor a year or two back. Essilor are mainly lenses, but also have a range of premium and designer frame brands they bought. EssilorLuxottica has a huge portion of the resulting market. No idea if it gets near or past 80% now, but they're a $50bn company.
- HeavenFox 7y ago
  There are. From Zenni Optical (https://www.zennioptical.com/ https://www.zennioptical.com/) you can order a pair of no-frill glasses for less than $10 if your prescription isn't too crazy (so you don't need high-index lens), and you're okay waiting for a couple of weeks for shipping. However, it's not for everyone. For one, it's out of network for insurance providers, so you have to deal with paperwork yourself and the deductible is high. Also since they are online only, you have to adjust it yourself, which isn't always easy. And being online only means you can't try it on beforehand.
  - ses1984 7y ago
    Zenni is ok but adding a simple thing like polarization can double the cost.
    - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
      Because polarized lenses cost more to make. Which means Zinni has to pay more. Also, depending on the Rx and frame combination, they can be a little more complicated to manufacture as well. If you have a reasonable Rx, Zinni are likely using finished lenses. Polarized have to been surfaced in the lab.
      - wtallis 7y ago
        Also, in my experience Zenni doesn't necessarily make the polarized lenses to adequate tolerances. I ordered a pair of aviators with polarized lenses and there were such severe pressure points around the rim that it distorted the polarization across almost the entire surface of the lenses. It made the polarization coating basically worthless, and I had to return them to order a non-polarized pair for half the price.
        JustSomeNobody 7y ago
        Yes. If the lenses are too large (circumference) too much pressure will be placed on the lenses and they’ll do just as you describe. Certain materials (polycarbonate) will actually crack in the same situation.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  Because employers are subsidizing their employee's eye insurance, which is owned by Luxottica, and only usable at Luxottica's shops. Ultimately even with insurance it is often cheaper to go outside of Luxottica's network, but many people don't even check and just assume that because they have reduced cost "insurance" that it will be cheaper to stay within Luxottica's spiderweb. The way you solve this is to split up Luxottica via strong competition controls. Have one retail giant and one eye insurance company, not one monolith doing both.
  - imroot 7y ago
    (Former Luxottica Employee): Luxottica owns EyeMed, which isn't VSP. Luxottica just purchased Essilor -- so, now, one company handles the insurance, frames, and lenses...turning it into a bigger monster.
  - rconti 7y ago
    The nice thing is, you still get big discounts on glasses with VSP. So when I buy absurdly expensive Bellinger carbon fiber frames, I get something like $120 off the top plus another 20% discount. And I'm not enriching Luxottica.
- baby 7y ago
  Don’t know about the US, but I always get my glasses in France and it’s 10euro there (lunettepourtous)
- monkeypizza 7y ago
  Zenni, eyebuydirect, goggle4u are all in this space and provide cheaper glasses. It seems like new ones keep starting, then slowly raise prices, leaving a gap for a new minimum cost provider. Eyeglasses are an interesting example of a market failure - customers have been paying 10x the actual price for an important item, for 20+ years, and the market hasn't fixed it. In Beijing I used to just head down to Panjiayuan Zhaojia Glasses City and get pairs for ~15 bucks. Rest your head on a machine that reads your prescription, pick out frames, bargain, 30 minutes later you have your glasses. In the US glasses are medicalized, which hides the reality that glasses are really cheap and simple to make; for people without money this causes real harm.
  - milofeynman 7y ago
    In the US the optometrist (eye doctor with no MD) makes most of their money from selling marked up prescription glasses.
  - mgkimsal 7y ago
    can't remember the name of the place, but there's a low cost franchise place I went to a few years back. I had a prescription from eye exam, but they'd do those there too. I was in, chose some frames, had my stuff done in about 45 minutes. 3 frames - one was $$ because I chose rimless, but I got 2 backup pairs as well - total cost was a bit under $200. Had I not chosen rimless, and just got the 'regular' basic frames... would have been ~$60?. They had a deal at that time too - $99 for exam and one frame/lens set, done in a couple hours. They're fine - have worn every day for 3 years. No 'insurance' to worry about.
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      Was it Jins?
      - mgkimsal 7y ago
        looking now I think it was eyemart express. I'd lost my glasses the day before and had a long trip coming up the next day (driving). I mostly use the glasses for driving, and couldn't find anyone who could necessarily guarantee same day service - had called some of the usual places that advertise that and got "well, maybe, we're backed up, call back this afternoon, etc". eyemart was, I think, relatively new at that location, so wasn't backed up.
reaperducer 7y ago
So you're paying $179.99 for empty frames and then untold amounts for the actual lenses This seems like smartnes. Pretty much every employer vision plan I've had for the last 20 years has given its employees $150 credit toward frames. So now employees can opt for paying $29.99 out-of-pocket for Echo frames, instead of $150+ out-of-pocket for frames, since any frames worth putting on your face cost $300+. The last time I got new glasses (a few months ago), the cheapest pair of frames in the shop was $450. Frames and lenses are always covered with separate co-pays/co-insurance at every employer I've ever had.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  > The last time I got new glasses (a few months ago), the cheapest pair of frames in the shop was $450. People need to avoid Luxottica's retailers. That price is absurd. The insurance isn't saving you a dime, the amount you're paying after insurance "savings" is likely higher than you would pay outright elsewhere. In other countries that I've lived (where you pay cash, no insurance) frames top out at $150~ equivalent (for branded/designer) and start under $30.
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    My vision insurance is so good receptionists frequently comment on it, and even for me I have to pay a lot out of pocket if I want anything above the barebones frame and lens(scratch/smudge/shatter resistance, blue blocker, etc). After getting my PD measured I bought a few pairs off of Zenni(after seeing it mentioned hn comments) for like $20 or $30 each or something, with all the same extras. Yes, their ultra cheap frames aren't as nice as the $180 but $30 after insurance ones, but now I have a pair of glasses with different characteristics in the car, in my home, in my office, and in my gym locker. Previously I would use basically one pair to multitask it all because of the price.
  - outworlder 7y ago
    > The insurance isn't saving you a dime, the amount you're paying after insurance "savings" is likely higher than you would pay outright elsewhere. I'm reaching this conclusion too.
noobiemcfoob 7y ago
Ah, this explains all the push back I got from Warby Parker about not providing a lens prescription. I'd already used Zenni before and gotten used to treating my glasses like what they are...a simple product with lens ground to a specification, not a potentially threatening medication. Too bad their support couldn't explain why they were hassling me for a document they didn't need (except for in a legal sense).
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  Free markets and globalism are good for everyone except lawyers and doctors. The two professions most overrepresented in congress. Funny how that is huh?
  - throwaway66920 7y ago
    What about... unskilled poor people in developed countries?
    - eurg 7y ago
      You missed the implied "/s".
- GavinMcG 7y ago
  Why is the legal sense some sort of surprising exception? Zenni also requires an up to date prescription.
  - resoluteteeth 7y ago
    > Zenni also requires an up to date prescription. No they don't. You just have to enter the numbers.
    - tomnipotent 7y ago
      I can't find the source, but I remember reading something along the lines that the whole "need prescription" was a bullshit ploy created by Luxottica Group to coerce people to going to LensCrafter.
fortran77 7y ago
Earbuds may restrict other hearing. Having the speakers near but not in your ear may be a better alternative.
GuiA 7y ago
I don’t like voice assistants and would never wear this, but I know I’m a minority as I’ve met many people who love their Echo speaker/dot/etc. This lets you use Alexa without taking your phone out or wearing ear buds. If I liked Alexa and wore glasses, I could see myself being into this product. Even if I didn’t wear glasses, being a hardcore Alexa fan user might justify wearing “fake” glasses just for the convenience. On Amazon’s end, it’s a smart move. If this product sticks in any way at all, they’ll have a platform to iterate on in the upcoming years - such as making more premium versions with cameras/display/AR/etc. Because this is such a basic product, it will likely not face the same kind of backlash as Google Glass did, and lets Amazon usher the age of face wearables in a much smoother way than Google’s attempt. So again, I hate voice assistants with a passion and have no interest in this product, but I think this is a very clever product move from Amazon.
- dr01d 7y ago
  > If I liked Alexa... I could see myself being into this product. Whether you like it or not you will be in their product if people are walking around in public or at work while wearing these. Isn't the future great?
dr01d 7y ago
The value prop isn't for the consumer, it's for Amazon. Stuffing Alexa into anything and everything means more usage overall and a more attractive platform for companies looking to sell their wares.
- edejong 7y ago
  In other words: the value is in the extraction of human behaviour which previously existed in the private sphere.
ijidak 7y ago
Well, I'd say this seems pretty nifty: "Amazon open-ear technology directs sound to your ears, letting you discreetly access Alexa. With your ears uncovered, you’ll be able to hear without blocking out the world around you."
- Yhippa 7y ago
  I tried the Bose sunglasses and was stunned at how cool it was. Unfortunately they didn't let you use prescription lenses. This does. I will probably look into these over bone conduction headphones.
chucky 7y ago
Simple. I wear my glasses all day every day. I can't wear earbuds all day every day. If I have to insert earbuds to talk to Alexa, then I could just bring up my entire phone.
not_a_cop75 7y ago
But I've always wanted to be a spy for a private company! Think of the industrial espionage angle!

echelon 7y ago

> US's predominant eye wear monopoly (via insurance/out-of-network frames) > an insurance system that's designed to benefit only Luxottica (via their stranglehold of both insurance companies AND lens producers). How is this a thing? Couldn't a startup come in and trounce them by offering $10 frames and lenses? The optics aren't that complicated, and frames are... plastic?

colechristensen 7y ago
Every optic has to be custom fit to a frame grinding the frame’s shape around the individuals specific fit. This also already exists with companies like zenni optical.
windsurfer 7y ago
Startups do all the time via the internet, and they are growing, but the issue is getting involved with insurance companies and optometrists. It's not as complete a monopoly as one may be led to believe, but Luxottica still does control a large portion of the market. See https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-luxottica-own-80-of-the-eyeglass-industry/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-luxottica-own-80-of-t...
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  That page badly needs an update. No mention that Luxottica merged with Essilor a year or two back. Essilor are mainly lenses, but also have a range of premium and designer frame brands they bought. EssilorLuxottica has a huge portion of the resulting market. No idea if it gets near or past 80% now, but they're a $50bn company.
HeavenFox 7y ago
There are. From Zenni Optical (https://www.zennioptical.com/ https://www.zennioptical.com/) you can order a pair of no-frill glasses for less than $10 if your prescription isn't too crazy (so you don't need high-index lens), and you're okay waiting for a couple of weeks for shipping. However, it's not for everyone. For one, it's out of network for insurance providers, so you have to deal with paperwork yourself and the deductible is high. Also since they are online only, you have to adjust it yourself, which isn't always easy. And being online only means you can't try it on beforehand.
- ses1984 7y ago
  Zenni is ok but adding a simple thing like polarization can double the cost.
  - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
    Because polarized lenses cost more to make. Which means Zinni has to pay more. Also, depending on the Rx and frame combination, they can be a little more complicated to manufacture as well. If you have a reasonable Rx, Zinni are likely using finished lenses. Polarized have to been surfaced in the lab.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      Also, in my experience Zenni doesn't necessarily make the polarized lenses to adequate tolerances. I ordered a pair of aviators with polarized lenses and there were such severe pressure points around the rim that it distorted the polarization across almost the entire surface of the lenses. It made the polarization coating basically worthless, and I had to return them to order a non-polarized pair for half the price.
      - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
        Yes. If the lenses are too large (circumference) too much pressure will be placed on the lenses and they’ll do just as you describe. Certain materials (polycarbonate) will actually crack in the same situation.
Someone1234 7y ago
Because employers are subsidizing their employee's eye insurance, which is owned by Luxottica, and only usable at Luxottica's shops. Ultimately even with insurance it is often cheaper to go outside of Luxottica's network, but many people don't even check and just assume that because they have reduced cost "insurance" that it will be cheaper to stay within Luxottica's spiderweb. The way you solve this is to split up Luxottica via strong competition controls. Have one retail giant and one eye insurance company, not one monolith doing both.
- imroot 7y ago
  (Former Luxottica Employee): Luxottica owns EyeMed, which isn't VSP. Luxottica just purchased Essilor -- so, now, one company handles the insurance, frames, and lenses...turning it into a bigger monster.
- rconti 7y ago
  The nice thing is, you still get big discounts on glasses with VSP. So when I buy absurdly expensive Bellinger carbon fiber frames, I get something like $120 off the top plus another 20% discount. And I'm not enriching Luxottica.
baby 7y ago
Don’t know about the US, but I always get my glasses in France and it’s 10euro there (lunettepourtous)
monkeypizza 7y ago
Zenni, eyebuydirect, goggle4u are all in this space and provide cheaper glasses. It seems like new ones keep starting, then slowly raise prices, leaving a gap for a new minimum cost provider. Eyeglasses are an interesting example of a market failure - customers have been paying 10x the actual price for an important item, for 20+ years, and the market hasn't fixed it. In Beijing I used to just head down to Panjiayuan Zhaojia Glasses City and get pairs for ~15 bucks. Rest your head on a machine that reads your prescription, pick out frames, bargain, 30 minutes later you have your glasses. In the US glasses are medicalized, which hides the reality that glasses are really cheap and simple to make; for people without money this causes real harm.
- milofeynman 7y ago
  In the US the optometrist (eye doctor with no MD) makes most of their money from selling marked up prescription glasses.
- mgkimsal 7y ago
  can't remember the name of the place, but there's a low cost franchise place I went to a few years back. I had a prescription from eye exam, but they'd do those there too. I was in, chose some frames, had my stuff done in about 45 minutes. 3 frames - one was $$ because I chose rimless, but I got 2 backup pairs as well - total cost was a bit under $200. Had I not chosen rimless, and just got the 'regular' basic frames... would have been ~$60?. They had a deal at that time too - $99 for exam and one frame/lens set, done in a couple hours. They're fine - have worn every day for 3 years. No 'insurance' to worry about.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Was it Jins?
    - mgkimsal 7y ago
      looking now I think it was eyemart express. I'd lost my glasses the day before and had a long trip coming up the next day (driving). I mostly use the glasses for driving, and couldn't find anyone who could necessarily guarantee same day service - had called some of the usual places that advertise that and got "well, maybe, we're backed up, call back this afternoon, etc". eyemart was, I think, relatively new at that location, so wasn't backed up.

reaperducer 7y ago

So you're paying $179.99 for empty frames and then untold amounts for the actual lenses This seems like smartnes. Pretty much every employer vision plan I've had for the last 20 years has given its employees $150 credit toward frames. So now employees can opt for paying $29.99 out-of-pocket for Echo frames, instead of $150+ out-of-pocket for frames, since any frames worth putting on your face cost $300+. The last time I got new glasses (a few months ago), the cheapest pair of frames in the shop was $450. Frames and lenses are always covered with separate co-pays/co-insurance at every employer I've ever had.

Someone1234 7y ago
> The last time I got new glasses (a few months ago), the cheapest pair of frames in the shop was $450. People need to avoid Luxottica's retailers. That price is absurd. The insurance isn't saving you a dime, the amount you're paying after insurance "savings" is likely higher than you would pay outright elsewhere. In other countries that I've lived (where you pay cash, no insurance) frames top out at $150~ equivalent (for branded/designer) and start under $30.
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  My vision insurance is so good receptionists frequently comment on it, and even for me I have to pay a lot out of pocket if I want anything above the barebones frame and lens(scratch/smudge/shatter resistance, blue blocker, etc). After getting my PD measured I bought a few pairs off of Zenni(after seeing it mentioned hn comments) for like $20 or $30 each or something, with all the same extras. Yes, their ultra cheap frames aren't as nice as the $180 but $30 after insurance ones, but now I have a pair of glasses with different characteristics in the car, in my home, in my office, and in my gym locker. Previously I would use basically one pair to multitask it all because of the price.
- outworlder 7y ago
  > The insurance isn't saving you a dime, the amount you're paying after insurance "savings" is likely higher than you would pay outright elsewhere. I'm reaching this conclusion too.

noobiemcfoob 7y ago

Ah, this explains all the push back I got from Warby Parker about not providing a lens prescription. I'd already used Zenni before and gotten used to treating my glasses like what they are...a simple product with lens ground to a specification, not a potentially threatening medication. Too bad their support couldn't explain why they were hassling me for a document they didn't need (except for in a legal sense).

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
Free markets and globalism are good for everyone except lawyers and doctors. The two professions most overrepresented in congress. Funny how that is huh?
- throwaway66920 7y ago
  What about... unskilled poor people in developed countries?
  - eurg 7y ago
    You missed the implied "/s".
GavinMcG 7y ago
Why is the legal sense some sort of surprising exception? Zenni also requires an up to date prescription.
- resoluteteeth 7y ago
  > Zenni also requires an up to date prescription. No they don't. You just have to enter the numbers.
  - tomnipotent 7y ago
    I can't find the source, but I remember reading something along the lines that the whole "need prescription" was a bullshit ploy created by Luxottica Group to coerce people to going to LensCrafter.

fortran77 7y ago

Earbuds may restrict other hearing. Having the speakers near but not in your ear may be a better alternative.

GuiA 7y ago

I don’t like voice assistants and would never wear this, but I know I’m a minority as I’ve met many people who love their Echo speaker/dot/etc. This lets you use Alexa without taking your phone out or wearing ear buds. If I liked Alexa and wore glasses, I could see myself being into this product. Even if I didn’t wear glasses, being a hardcore Alexa fan user might justify wearing “fake” glasses just for the convenience. On Amazon’s end, it’s a smart move. If this product sticks in any way at all, they’ll have a platform to iterate on in the upcoming years - such as making more premium versions with cameras/display/AR/etc. Because this is such a basic product, it will likely not face the same kind of backlash as Google Glass did, and lets Amazon usher the age of face wearables in a much smoother way than Google’s attempt. So again, I hate voice assistants with a passion and have no interest in this product, but I think this is a very clever product move from Amazon.

dr01d 7y ago
> If I liked Alexa... I could see myself being into this product. Whether you like it or not you will be in their product if people are walking around in public or at work while wearing these. Isn't the future great?

dr01d 7y ago

The value prop isn't for the consumer, it's for Amazon. Stuffing Alexa into anything and everything means more usage overall and a more attractive platform for companies looking to sell their wares.

edejong 7y ago
In other words: the value is in the extraction of human behaviour which previously existed in the private sphere.

ijidak 7y ago

Well, I'd say this seems pretty nifty: "Amazon open-ear technology directs sound to your ears, letting you discreetly access Alexa. With your ears uncovered, you’ll be able to hear without blocking out the world around you."

Yhippa 7y ago
I tried the Bose sunglasses and was stunned at how cool it was. Unfortunately they didn't let you use prescription lenses. This does. I will probably look into these over bone conduction headphones.

chucky 7y ago

Simple. I wear my glasses all day every day. I can't wear earbuds all day every day. If I have to insert earbuds to talk to Alexa, then I could just bring up my entire phone.

not_a_cop75 7y ago

But I've always wanted to be a spy for a private company! Think of the industrial espionage angle!