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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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...
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.
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.
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?"
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.
"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
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"...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."
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.
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).
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
> 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 :)
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).
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.
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
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.
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