9 ms·
Pricing is interesting. $299 for the Wayfarer model when the base Wayfarer goes for $171 on the Rayban website. If (and this is a big if) you assume Luxottica
by api_or_ipa 3y ago
Pricing is interesting. $299 for the Wayfarer model when the base Wayfarer goes for $171 on the Rayban website. If (and this is a big if) you assume Luxottica takes the same cut on both models, then Meta is selling a camera, headphones, etc, conveniently packaged into a very small form-factor for $128. If I were in the market for a new pair of sunglasses, it isn't hard to seem me splurging another $128 for something that could potentially replace my airpods for taking calls while I'm away from home.
Personally, not a fan of sticking a camera everywhere I look though. I get why companies want to push that feature (more data!) but I just don't see a reason why consumers need a camera pointing at everything they're doing.
Kinda cool nonetheless.
- lm28469 3y agoFor me, and probably a lot of people, it's the opposite, I'd pay more if needed to get the non tech version
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dwighttk 3y agoif facebook were business smart, they'd sell these for less like the TV screen people...
- quickthrower2 3y agothey are business smart!
- dwighttk 3y agoBusiness smarter then I guess
- KarlKode 3y agoIn my local sunglass store iI can buy genuine Wayfarers for a bit more than 100$ so I guess Luxotica’s margin is even higher than expected…
- wyclif 3y agoLuxottica cannibalized and cheapened Ray-Bans a long time ago; see my comment above.
- sbilstein 3y agoYou can definitely go to a mall and get ray bans with solid barrel hinges
- wyclif 3y agoYou can't. They were only available on the original Ray-Bans before they sold out to Luxottica.
- cromulent 3y agoAren't these what you mean? https://www.ray-ban.com/eu/sunglasses/RB2140%20UNISEX%20original%20wayfarer%20classic-black/805289126577 https://www.ray-ban.com/eu/sunglasses/RB2140%20UNISEX%20orig...
- wyclif 3y agoThanks! I wasn't aware of that model; they must be new. Looks like they were introduced back in March of this year. Good to see the barrel hinges. But a couple of questions: Are the lenses glass? (It says they're G-15, which is supposed to be mineral glass, but I don't know if RB has changed the definition somewhere along the line and replaced them with plastic). Are these only available in EU, or in the US as well?
- logbiscuitswave 3y ago
- MrMetlHed 3y agoYeah, I go hiking several times a week and I'd wear these all the time. I like listening to podcasts or music, but want to be able to hear any rattlesnakes or interesting birds, so the speakers seem like a plus. And being able to snap a photo without pulling my phone out would also be great. I probably wouldn't use them in a lot of situations, but hiking seems like a good one. If these end up being decent I'd consider them over a normal pair of sunglasses next time I need a pair.
- gascoigne 3y ago> And being able to snap a photo without pulling my phone out would also be great The camera is only 720p. There are probably a couple more iterations before this becomes good enough to not pull your phone out.
- flockonus 3y agoWhere did you get 720p from? On the website it says 12MP, which i believe is equivalent to 4k resolution.
- mbreese 3y agoFrom: https://www.meta.com/smart-glasses/wayfarer-shiny-black-plano-g15-green/#tech-specs/ https://www.meta.com/smart-glasses/wayfarer-shiny-black-plan... Camera 12 MP ultra-wide Image framing / resolution - Portrait default / 3024 X 4032 pixels Video - Vertical default / 1440 x 1920 pixels at 30 fps So, the video is a mix of 1440 and 1080p. (1920x1440, but tall rather than wide).
- koube 3y agoBone conducting headphones are great, I use them all of the time on walks, and you can hear everything as long as you don't play anything too loud. If they get loud enough then you don't hear certain things but that goes for any kind of headphones.
- dontlaugh 3y ago
- seabass-labrax 3y agoLuxottica is probably doing very nicely on this partnership, and may well be offering Apple a substantial price cut to compensate. I had never heard of 'Rayban' before this Apple announcement! (Not that I am the target market for sunglasses anyway, in dark and wet Great Britain)
- bobobob420 3y agoHave you seriously never heard of Rayban but know what Luxottica is? I dont want you to dox yourself but I assume non US…?
- seabass-labrax 3y agoIndeed, I'm from Britain. I really hadn't ever heard of Rayban - and I only know what Luxottica is because I looked it up after reading this thread :)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- baby 3y agoRayban is famous worldwide tho
- ChristianGeek 3y agoNot if you’ve never heard of them!
- herbst 3y agoTo be fair they are barely relevant in my circle and more a fashion piece for the older generation. It's not like teenager or young people around here think it's cool to have expensive cheaply made glasses
- baby 3y ago
- dmix 3y agoMaybe there's some app store type arrangement.
- tamimio 3y ago> $299 for the Wayfarer model when the base Wayfarer goes for $171 on the Rayban website. With the amount of data collected, it should be provided free of charge, heck, you are getting paid too!
- seventytwo 3y agoI bet these smart glasses have basically zero profit margin, or even negative. The real value to be made here is to get facebook’s data vacuum into a new aspect of our lives.
- pharmakom 3y agoFirst company to crack this will have Apple like market dominance.
- scrum-treats 3y agoIf I recall correctly, Google already did. I also remember people largely pushing back against hyper-surveillance tech such as this.
- dvngnt_ 3y agogoogle is an innovator but they don't really stick with things if they're not immediate hits. meta has privacy concerns but they've made a name for themselves in XR so this move isn't out of nowhere and with apple joining soon it's more normalized. apple wants us to strap a hmd to watch our kid blow out the candles
- CodeWriter23 3y agoNot zero, negative margin.
- wyclif 3y agoThe base, regular Wayfarers were cannibalized and cheapened out by Luxottica a long time ago. I'm fortunate enough to have a vintage pair from the mid-1980's that still look brand new. They have higher quality zyl frames, polarized glass Bausch & Lomb lenses, and, crucially, five barrel bolted hinges. They're built like a tank. The new ones are so cheap I won't even wear them. Cheap plastic, plastic lenses, spring hinges that break quickly, and obnoxious branding on both the temples and the lenses. Terrible.
- bamboozled 3y agoAgree they’re complete trash now. I once had a pair I found under a house from I’d guess the 60s, the builder must have misplaced them. They felt like something from another universe compared to today’s garbage.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throwaway837367 3y agoI work in the optical industry. I do R&D/quality control for a lens manufacturer and agree Luxottica is an awful company, but your comment is way off base. It's actually quite wrong. Your "zyl" acetate frames aren't higher quality. Modern acetate is stronger, lighter, less brittle, less subject to warping from temperature change, and more resistant to UV damage which impacts brittleness and color. 40 years of material science progress. No one in the industry would say older acetate is better. It's worse in every way especially because yours are old. They're breaking down. People don't wear glass lenses anymore for a reason. They are heavy and the only advantage over plastic is less chromatic aberration which is a non issue unless you are comparing to an extreme prescription using high-index plastic. They are also fairly dangerous compared to plastic due to the way they shatter. They fog up more easily. Again, 40 years of material science. Additionally, there are no low optical-quality plastic lens blanks. This is a solved problem. The only defects you'll get in lens blanks are bubbles and these won't make it through production. What happens after a manufacturer grinds the lens out is a different story but I can also tell you that their lens surfacing is not low quality by any means. Your hinges aren't any better and get loose over time. You can't actually use these for 40 years, they will wear out too and are harder to replace. Spring loaded hinges are lighter and reduce strain on both the frames and the wearer. I know what they use, they aren't cheap, and are high quality. I do agree with your point on the branding. The optimization for optics is all about weight. Your old frames and lenses aren't better because they're heavier, they're worse. As well as being more brittle and shatterable. It's like pining for the old heavy golf clubs made of wood and iron or all steel cars with V8 engines. Yeah, they're heavier! But they're worse in every way. I will also say that you should buy frames because you like the frames. If you want great lenses, you just get them made. You shouldn't expect high-quality prescription lenses from a frame manufacturer, that's what your optometrist is for. I buy cheap frames all the time and pop in whatever I want. You may have a bit of a point if you are talking moderate to high prescription ordered from Ray-Ban, but if you are talking about their non-prescriptive sunglasses, you're just yelling about all the wrong things. Edit: typo and swapped in "surfacing" rather than "production" for clarity.
- surfingdino 3y agoYes, it's to gather even more data. Ad agencies have figured out how to glorify this. Dell in the UK is running an ad telling the viewer that the tourists photographing and filming coral reefs are helping the scientists help preserve nature.
- mikelward 3y agoYeah, I would take no cameras, less creepy, and longer battery life, if I had the option. Edit: I do love that they have a transition lens version, though. I haven't seen that elsewhere. Bose had some Bluetooth glasses, but their website currently says "We'll be back soon". I also can't find them on Amazon, so I'm wondering if they were discontinued.
- bbor 3y agoOmnipresent video input is going to be essential for Artificial Self-Instantiation AGIs early next year. Your personal assistant can’t help you if you need to tell it what you’re doing all the time!
- jondwillis 3y agoWhy do you say early next year? Agents barely work as of now. OpenAI’s plugins that ~do~ things like browse are still quite slow.
- bbor 3y agoPartially openai’s “chatgpt5 will be done by December and achieve AGI”, partially a wish to stir a discussion here with hopeful language, and partially my burndown chart for my own implementation :)
- autoexec 3y ago> Your personal assistant can’t help you if you need to tell it what you’re doing all the time! I assume "help" in this case will mean shoving endless ads your face and feeding manipulative lies to you on behalf of anyone willing to pay for it.
- bbor 3y agoI believe in the power of open source and self-hosting, in this case.
- mgrund 3y agoSounds interesting, any reading material you could point to about this?
- bbor 3y agoHmmm it’s a very hard thing to sum up in one piece, not sure I have a good author… I highly recommend skimming Marvin Minsky’s “The Frame Problem” (TL;DR personal assistants will only be helpful once they have intuition), and Picardy writings on Affective computing (TL;DR computers need to simulate our mental states in order to help us effectively). This is a good reminder to look for more lit though! Philosophy wise, I’m frustratingly forgetting the two people who write about how one’s consciousness can be said to include things like personal journals, record books, calendars, etc. The idea is that you’re offloading part of your mind into artificial forms, in a very meaningful and real way. Will update if I remember their names soon! In the meantime, this is a great skim on the more general topic IMO: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/