Glasses Got Worse on Purpose(worse-on-purpose.beehiiv.com)
worse-on-purpose.beehiiv.com
Glasses Got Worse on Purpose
https://worse-on-purpose.beehiiv.com/p/your-glasses-got-worse-on-purpose
25 comments
>P.S. I like my Oakleys, both sun- and prescription glasses, but cannot deny they are way overpriced for what they are – a little bit of plastic and metal.
I'm like that with my prescription raybans, I know it's a scam, but they fit my head the best despite being like 4x the generic ones at the same stores.
I'm like that with my prescription raybans, I know it's a scam, but they fit my head the best despite being like 4x the generic ones at the same stores.
Meanwhile, I go to ZenniOptical, find a functional pair for $10, and buy eight copies. Never worry about glasses again. Keep a pair in the car, at work, in my luggage, and let them diffuse around the house.
Wife and I have been using Zenni for years. She loves being able to swap out glasses every year or so without breaking the bank. Also my glasses at a normal place are 800-1200 while at Zenni they are barely 120.
> 800 - 1200
What the fuck? Is this normal in the U.S.A.?
What the fuck? Is this normal in the U.S.A.?
No, not really. I bought an $800 pair of designer sunglasses a couple of times, but usually, good frames are only a few hundred bucks.
"only" a few hundred bucks for just frames? That seems ridiculous for what you are getting.
I did that for my reading glasses, but for shortsightedness, especially as an astigmatic, I find it hard to buy glasses or frames without actually wearing them. Curious what your strategy is.
They're cheap enough on Zenni that you can just try a pair. I have astigmatism and got lucky after a couple pairs on Zenni -- now I just reorder the same frames with a new prescription knowing I'll get something that works well.
Thankyou, this is the comment I came here for - advice on alternatives!
Another good option in Europe is Firmoo. They have very similar pricing.
> His analogy: "Imagine if in the luxury-bag industry, like Hermès and Louis Vuitton, if they were all actually the same company. That's kind of the trick here with Luxottica, is they own all the brands people think are competing brands, like Ray-Ban and Oakley, and they sort of mimic competition."
That's ironic as the company that owns the Louis Voitton brand does actually own a bunch of other luxury brands, to name a few: Christian Dior, Givenchy, Fendi, Tiffany & Co., Bulgari, TAG Heuer, Marc Jacobs, Sephora.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LVMH
That's ironic as the company that owns the Louis Voitton brand does actually own a bunch of other luxury brands, to name a few: Christian Dior, Givenchy, Fendi, Tiffany & Co., Bulgari, TAG Heuer, Marc Jacobs, Sephora.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LVMH
In Europe, Polette [0] has tried to sell cheap glasses, albeit with no way to try them on. However, they have started selling more expensive ones, and their style is very hit or miss.
People could favour other brands for lenses, like Nikon or Zeiss, but they aren’t necessarily better. Competition must stay alive!
Lenses factories are mostly in Asia, so if you go there, bring your prescription and get a pair!
[0]: https://www.polette.com/eu/
People could favour other brands for lenses, like Nikon or Zeiss, but they aren’t necessarily better. Competition must stay alive!
Lenses factories are mostly in Asia, so if you go there, bring your prescription and get a pair!
[0]: https://www.polette.com/eu/
Or just order direct from China. Supermarkets here sell Chinese reading glasses for the equivalent of USD 3 (not a typo, three US dollars), they're cheap enough that people buy several of them, one for the car, one for the handbag/backpack, a few to leave around the house, so you never spend time hunting for them or curse about leaving them behind. The lenses appear identical to whatever brand EssilorLuxxotica is selling them as and quite probably are, only the frames are a bit flimsier, but what do you expect for $3. If you want better frames, spend $10 and get them from China.
It hurts to see my neighbours, a retired couple, pay thousands of dollars from their pension for glasses that should cost $20. I've tried to tell them about EssilorLuxxotica but they insist on paying more because they're getting better glasses that way.
It hurts to see my neighbours, a retired couple, pay thousands of dollars from their pension for glasses that should cost $20. I've tried to tell them about EssilorLuxxotica but they insist on paying more because they're getting better glasses that way.
"if you put a fashion label on a medical device, people will pay twenty times what it costs to make."
And, if you take that label off, they'll pay even more. It's great work.
And, if you take that label off, they'll pay even more. It's great work.
> They own ... EyeBuyDirect.
Back when I used to buy eye glasses, I bought three identical pairs from them (same frames and prescription). All three were different, and only one of them was tolerable to wear.
LASIK seems to still have an very healthy margin for the provider, but still worth it. By my calculations, LASIK cost me the same amount that contact lenses would have cost me over the same time period (and that's after searching 30+ retailers for the lowest price on contact lenses).
Back when I used to buy eye glasses, I bought three identical pairs from them (same frames and prescription). All three were different, and only one of them was tolerable to wear.
LASIK seems to still have an very healthy margin for the provider, but still worth it. By my calculations, LASIK cost me the same amount that contact lenses would have cost me over the same time period (and that's after searching 30+ retailers for the lowest price on contact lenses).
The one thing that has stopped me isn’t cost, but the relative risks of serious/permanent side effects. If LASIK generates an issue (dry eyes, pain, inaccurate correction) it’s basically permanent. If contacts are an issue, take them out or swap the brand/prescription. I just couldn’t gamble my vision on the outcome of LASIK.
There are the risks you mention plus 3 things that I've heard:
1) You lose any close-up vision that you have. I take off my glasses to read things like books or my phone. Hmmm. Verifying this, Google says you could ask for one eye to be set to see close and the other far https://www.eyecenteroftexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/... says that if you don't do that than you will lose near vision.
2) There's more problems with oncoming headlights at night blurring your vision or causing halos. This may only last for 6 months to a couple of years at worst.
3) It's not permanent. At some point you'll need glasses again. https://ophthalmology.wustl.edu/does-lasik-last-forever-unde... says 10-20 years before you need to correct your vision again or a lifetime if you're lucky.
1) You lose any close-up vision that you have. I take off my glasses to read things like books or my phone. Hmmm. Verifying this, Google says you could ask for one eye to be set to see close and the other far https://www.eyecenteroftexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/... says that if you don't do that than you will lose near vision.
2) There's more problems with oncoming headlights at night blurring your vision or causing halos. This may only last for 6 months to a couple of years at worst.
3) It's not permanent. At some point you'll need glasses again. https://ophthalmology.wustl.edu/does-lasik-last-forever-unde... says 10-20 years before you need to correct your vision again or a lifetime if you're lucky.
I've been wearing glasses for 20 years (myopia and astigmatism, can't see shit without them) and these are the things that put me off, the small risks and non-permanence don't really seem worth it. If I do sports I wear daily disposable contact lenses, so glasses don't get in my way.
My plan is to wait until refractive lens replacement (basically the same as cataract surgery) becomes a bit more mainstream option and do that. Artificial lenses last longer than the eyes natural lenses and supposedly never need replacement - although I'm not sure how much of that data is from the typical older person who has cataract surgery.
My plan is to wait until refractive lens replacement (basically the same as cataract surgery) becomes a bit more mainstream option and do that. Artificial lenses last longer than the eyes natural lenses and supposedly never need replacement - although I'm not sure how much of that data is from the typical older person who has cataract surgery.
1 is obviously non universal. You don't "lose" anything, but the nature of a lens is that it becomes harder, though completely possible, to focus up close afterwards, unless you're old and already can't with glasses.
You can test yourself to see what would happen. Wearing your nearsighted glasses, can you still read a book? You'll notice it is harder than without them. If so, then you still can after LASIK.
You can test yourself to see what would happen. Wearing your nearsighted glasses, can you still read a book? You'll notice it is harder than without them. If so, then you still can after LASIK.
> I just couldn’t gamble my vision on the outcome of LASIK.
Perfectly reasonable. However, do know that modern versions of the procedure are way better at identifying the people who are likely to have problems.
However, even if the odds are 1 in 10,000, there is always a "1".
Perfectly reasonable. However, do know that modern versions of the procedure are way better at identifying the people who are likely to have problems.
However, even if the odds are 1 in 10,000, there is always a "1".
True, 99% of people experiencing no negative side-effects does mean that 1% do experience negative side-effects.
I think religiously-following the pre-operating and post-operation instructions is very important, and making sure eye health before the procedure is good enough.
I imagine dry eyes wouldn't be any more inconvenient than having to deal with contacts (and having worse vision without the contacts).
I think religiously-following the pre-operating and post-operation instructions is very important, and making sure eye health before the procedure is good enough.
I imagine dry eyes wouldn't be any more inconvenient than having to deal with contacts (and having worse vision without the contacts).
The FTC is the weak link here. The FTC and Department of Justice divvy up their prosecution of monopolies. Firms prosecuted by the FTC always get off scot free.
> "In essence, EyeMed is merely an instrument to protect the market share of the Luxottica family of companies, and it provides little to no substantive cost amelioration to consumers, what many would regard as the principal purpose of insurance."
Searching with Kagi, the quote comes from a post on forums.studentdoctor.net by ThazinJayne (1), who prefaces the text “Here is an e-mail I received from a friend”.
An industry observer? More like an unnamed friend of an anonymous forum member.
1: https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/luxottica-eyemed-sc...
——
P.S. I like my Oakleys, both sun- and prescription glasses, but cannot deny they are way overpriced for what they are – a little bit of plastic and metal.