Why are glasses so expensive? The eyewear industry prefers to keep that blurry - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-why-are-eyeglasses-so-expensive-20190122-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter <comment><USER4> Reminder, if you're in the US, the FTC says your eye doctor _must_ give you your prescription after your exam. If a doctor refuses to do so, they can face legal action and penalties.

[https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2016/05/buying- prescriptio...](https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2016/05/buying-prescription- eyeglasses-your-rights-are-clear)

That said, I don't think the FTC stipulates what information must appear on the prescription. Many docs leave off your PD (pupillary distance), which is a necessary measurement if you're buying online. Fortunately, there are a variety of easy ways to take this measurement yourself after the exam, although if you're really concerned about precision, you'll want the doctor's measurement.

And by the way, it should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway. Although the quality of eyewear available online can be comparable to what you'd get in store ... please don't think an online eye exam is an acceptable substitute for visiting an ophthalmologist in person and getting a comprehensive eye exam!

<comment><USER5> biggest scam is that glasses/contact prescriptions only last a year in the US

<comment><USER6> Needing a prescription for glasses is a bit absurd to begin with. The worst case of wearing the wrong prescription is that you'll get a headache. I suppose it could be a bit dangerous if some drivers were slightly disoriented, but I can't imagine glasses being more dangerous than something like Tylenol.

<comment><USER7> > The worst case of wearing the wrong prescription is that you'll get a > headache.

Doesn't using the wrong prescription worsen eyesight faster?

At least, it's been my general experience that when a child is curious about people's glasses and is given the glasses so they can experience the effect, they only let them try it for a couple seconds and are explained that using them for too long can cause damage to their eyesight (because it's the wrong prescription for them who have perfect eyesight). Is that a myth?

<comment><USER6> The eyes don't care about what's in front of it. The brain does the image processing, so that's the only thing that's affected by a bad prescription. If your glasses are so wrong that it causes eye strain, it may cause damage, but you'd have to purposefully put yourself into that ordeal.

[https://mayoclinichealthsystem.org/locations/la- crosse/servi...](https://mayoclinichealthsystem.org/locations/la- crosse/services-and-treatments/ophthalmology/myths-and-facts)

<comment><USER8> The eye very much does care what's in front of it. Look up "emmetropization".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 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.

See this eye-opening 60 Minutes story on Luxottica: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDdq2rIqAlM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDdq2rIqAlM)

Luxottica retail brands: [http://www.luxottica.com/en/retail- brands](http://www.luxottica.com/en/retail-brands)

Luxottica eyewear brands: [http://www.luxottica.com/en/eyewear- brands](http://www.luxottica.com/en/eyewear-brands)

Luxottica vision insurance: [http://www.luxottica.com/en/node/6336](http://www.luxottica.com/en/node/6336)

In the US, only Costco and Walmart's optical departments are independent of Luxottica.

<comment><USER10> Why does that make the glasses so expensive though? The frames from my glasses were about 100 EUR and the glasses were a lot more expensive. If I ask my parents or other people, they are paying 1000 EUR or more for the glasses by themselves (not the frames). I'm about to get new glasses next month because my current glasses are 6 years old now, I'm looking forward to some new glasses.

<comment><USER11> That's insane.

I've recently bought a pair of regular glasses as well as prescription sunglasses. Regular ones use Mont Blanc frames(considered expensive) + some pretty good lenses(best ones they offered anyway). Total cost: £400 for everything.

Sunglasses: Ray-Ban frames + their own Ray-Ban G15 prescription lens(again, pretty expensive) - total cost £320 for everything.

I just don't understand - how are those people you mention paying 1000 euro for glasses(I assume you mean lenses)????? Are they some incredibly complex custom lenses that they are getting? Mine are for nearsightedness + slight astigmatism in one eye.

<comment><USER10> These are specific types of lenses that are for both nearsightedness and farsightedness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> You want to know what's outrageously expensive, yet equally important for basic ability to function in the workplace and other situations? Hearing aids. Hearing aids are glasses for your ears. But compared to them, glasses are unbelievably dirt cheap, and basically fully covered by a lot of decent company insurance plans. Hearing aids? Not the case.

Imagine if glasses cost $2-3000 per lens. PER LENS. And your company insurance offered to cover some of it, but limited you to ONE PAIR IN YOUR LIFETIME. That's the policy of my Fortune 50 employer believe it or not.

<comment> munk-a Hearing aides are also insanely cheap to produce, they are not complicated devices and that market is only surviving due to the medical device status of them causing a high barrier to entry.

<comment><USER13> I'd take issue with "not complicated." They are very tiny, have to be very low power, and they run a surprising amount of real-time DSP. Then the whole electronics package has to be integrated with an acoustics package including multiple microphones and transducers. And the higher quality all of those acoustical components are, the more transparent the end product. And it all has to be durable enough for continuous wear by a human for multiple years. I wouldn't diminish what cutting edge hearing aides do, they can be quite impressive technically.

<comment><USER14> I ask seriously: could this be replicated with AirPods and an iPhone, in software?

<comment><USER15> The latency between the AirPods and the iPhone is too high for the iPhone to do any of the real-time work. I have no idea if the AirPods have a DSP that would be able to do that work.

But cheap, small, low power DSPs can do an amazing amount of work these days. Even if the AirPods don't have such a DSP, they're a good example of a reasonably complex piece of electronics with speakers and a microphone that sits in your ear, but costs an order of magnitude less than hearing aids. I think they're a good datapoint to argue that a truly free market could make much cheaper hearing aids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Title correction: Why are glasses so expensive in the US? The American eyewear industry prefers to keep that blurry.

Please stop using the US as the "that's how it is"-standard.

In Germany, you pay a very reasonable (from my layman perspective) price for the lenses, maybe about 40$ plus another 30$ if you want to have non- reflective glasses or product from big name producers and stuff like that. Like every fashion product, frames start at a few bucks up to whatever you want to pay. Measurements, bending the frame are included in the service. None of this involves health insurance, as far as I know.

<comment><USER17> 70$ for glasses in Germany? I have to pay about 200€ per glas. Maybe weaker glasses are cheap. After all you can buy glasses in the supermarket for a few bucks.

Those modern glasses get scratches after just a few years of careful handling and cleaning only with "Mikrofaser" in my experience. No fun having weak eyes in Germany.

<comment><USER18> You might consider an ultrasonic glasses cleaner. They are pretty cheap (around €50), and clean without touch.

<comment><USER17> Thanks, I'll check that out. But otoh it's another thing you'd have to carry around.

I'll also try buying glasses online as suggested elsewhere. I do that with contact lenses already (dailies for when I'm on stage).

<comment><USER19> I've had good luck with eyebuydirect, and have heard some good things about Zenni too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Zenni is very good. There is a slight difference in quality between them and the Armani Exchange glasses I got from an optician, but it's not significant. I got a basic pair of black framed rectangular nerd specs for $8 last week, and I'd happily wear them out.

Measure the frame of a pair of glasses that looks good on your face and then try to find glasses with those measurements on Zenni.

<comment><USER21> I've been wearing glasses for over 25 years, the last 5 or so years I've been buying them from Zenni and it has been great. The best pair of glasses I've ever owned were about $25 from Zenni. I used to wear contacts a lot more until I got that one pair from Zenni. Now I wear contacts a few times a month.

I had to get a new prescription, so I went to a Walmart. After, they said that they could replace the lenses in my Zenni frames. It was going to cost me $180-240 just for the lenses!

I have never researched the economics of all this but there is an option for cheap glasses in the US that anyone with access to the internet can use. I wonder why people are still paying so much?

The conclusion from the article:

>Why do glasses cost so damn much?

>Because this industry has been getting away with fleecing people for decades.

That's all well and good but the fact that there ARE cheap options out there still begs the question, why aren't people using them?

<comment><USER22> > Why aren't people using them?

I've converted several people, but not being able to touch them and try them on first appears to be a significant problem.

<comment><USER23> Actually, you need to be able to try them on to ensure that you get your OC (optical center) correct.

This isn't a problem for people with relatively low prescriptions, but the stronger your prescription, the more important it is to get this right.

Some online stores will try to get it from a photo, but your OC actually changes by how/where you wear your glasses along the bridge of your nose, and that in turn changes with the frame you wear.

So if you've got a low prescription, why not just go to the local pharmacy? They sell prescriptions as strong as +/\- 3.5 over the counter for $15.

<comment><USER24> You get it measured by your eye doctor, then Zenni has a box for it.

They also give you a ruler with your first order, but it's crap, just have your doctor do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> One word: protectionism. Nothing else can explain it. The U.S. healthcare system is _rife_ with protectionism, and it's disgusting. From how hard it is to become a doctor, to how hard it is to build a new hospital (you need a "certificate of need" in just about all States to build one), to FDA regulations on drug manufacturing being extremely expensive, to too many drugs not being over the counter (thus requiring a trip to your general practitioner), it's all protectionism, all the time. On top of that we have huge distortions, like the non-insurance insurance schemes that have caused there to be no single public price for anything anywhere, thus destroying the single most important feature of free markets (price signalling). It's all a mess.

<comment><USER26> I think what you're describing is bureaucracy, red tape, over-regulation and crony capitalism. Protectionism as I understand it would be measures taken to reduce competition from outside the country, not within it

<comment><USER25> When the law requires that you get a "certificate of need" in order to build a hospital, _that_ is very much a protectionist measure. Requiring that medical student careers be approximately a decade long is another protectionist requirement. The FDA often functions to protect large players. There is a ton of protectionism in the U.S. healthcare "market".

<comment><USER27> > Requiring that medical student careers be approximately a decade long is > another protectionist requirement.

No, that's just reflective of how damn difficult it is to distill the body of knowledge required to be a doctor into a brain.

Just because you can learn enough Javascript in 24 hours to build an insecure one-page CRUD app with an animated duck, doesn't mean that you can do the same with the human body.

It takes years of theory (med school), and years of supervised on-the-job practice (residency), to build up the knowledge and expertise required to give people _good_ medical advice.

<comment><USER25> Medical training in the U.S. requires first a non-medical degree.

<comment><USER27> The non-medical bachelor's degree is not the expensive part of becoming a doctor.

<comment><USER25> It sure is expensive though, as it's four years of lost production. Four years' income is a big deal. Cost of opportunity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Have to share this related story. I recently got a new prescription and the glasses salesman at my optometrist said that my insurance is super generous and willing to pay upto $200 every year for new glasses, so I should definitely get a pair before the end of the year. So I looked around and picked a frame I liked. The salesman measured my PD and started offering me options on the lenses. Coat this, photo reflect that. I said no to every option that was offered since I know those will rack up the cost. In the end the salesman added up all the costs and said that the total will be $230. I was like that's great so I only have to pay $30 for them. But the salesman was like I already deducted your insurance payment in the calculation, the actual cost is $430 of which $230 you will have to pay. After hearing that, my eyes opened so wide that 20/20 vision was restored in them.

<comment><USER29> My optometrists have all used color-coded stickers that represent the price tiers of frames. Only one of them ever seems to be under my insurance allowance. They don't really have an incentive to make them any cheaper than the average allowance otherwise they would be leaving money on the table.

<comment><USER28> Yes, I noticed this as well and the one that is under the insurance allowance is comically ugly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Jins (Japanese company) in SF makes glasses on site in 30 minutes for < $100.

[https://www.yelp.com/biz/jins-san-francisco-3](https://www.yelp.com/biz/jins- san-francisco-3)

Also, this story seems a few years behind given the rise of Warby Parker to address this very problem. If the person who felt compelled to spend $800 because they actually did not think they had any other option then they are living under a rock and/or being scammed by their optometrist.

<comment><USER30> > If the person who felt compelled to spend $800 because they actually did not > think they had any other option then they are living under a rock

...or they have really bad astigmatism.

Those lenses are not cheap and are usually excluded from 2-for-1 deals and other sales. Short of Lasik (which itself cannot always correct it) there really is no other option.

> being scammed by their optometrist

They also do that when it comes to frames, and it's really obvious.

The cheap/covered-by-insurance rack is usually a single rack in the back of the store, nondescript, and only mentioned if asked about.

After an eye exam the clerk will run your insurance, see what the coverage limit is, and guide you straight to a designer rack at an appropriate price point (unless you express interest in something more upsellable).

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> A few years ago I found a technique on youtube to help myopia by wearing slightly lower prescription glasses. And the author recommended zennithoptical.com for cheap glasses. I was almost shocked to find their price to be that cheap. And when I bought a couple of pairs, it turns out their quality is quite decent.

I have since bought more than a dozen glasses from zennithoptical.com, at a total cost of about $300. And by using the technique, the prescription on both of my eyes dropped by 1 (from -5.75 to -4.75). Unfortunately that seems to be the limit of that technique. But I was extremely happy to find a source for cheap yet good glasses. Now I have two normal prescription pairs for daily use like driving, two more pairs for reading (1 for backup for each).

So the cheapest way to get glasses now is to get a prescription at Costco (cost about $40), then just buy your glasses online.

<comment><USER32> > A few years ago I found a technique on youtube to help myopia by wearing > slightly lower prescription glasses.

That is not physically possible.

Maybe (and that's a big concession, I'm very skeptical) it could work with kids, with still-developing eyes. No amount of glasses trickery will reshape your cornea in adulthood.

Other than the physical world constraints, if this hypothesis was true, people's myopia would never progress, as you would, by definition, be wearing lower prescription glasses if this happened, so it would self-correct.

The only thing this will get you is a headache.

<comment><USER31> I don't know if it works with kids.

I'm a programmer, I look at the computer monitor probably about 8 hours per day. What I did was that I wear a glass with weaker prescription so that when I look at the computer monitor, the characters are slightly blurred but I can still read them. I did this for about 6 month and my prescription went from -5.75, -5.25 to -4.75, -4.25. Actually when I started even with the -5.75, -5.25 prescription my vision is about 1.2 or so.

Unfortunately this technique seems to only work at the beginning. In the months following the first 6 months my vision didn't improve anymore so I stopped it. But I consider spending $300 to knock off 1 point prescription from each eye quite worth it.

By the way I never got any headache from wearing weaker prescription glasses (and I did get headache before when wearing stronger prescription glasses). Actually I found it comfortable to wear weaker prescription glasses when reading, because my eyes don't feel stressed. That is actually the optometrist at Costo suggested to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Contacts are even worse. Did anyone notice that online vendors in the US like the 1-800 one were well cheaper, and now somehow they all have the same pricing? And that a special contact lens check is required, at a separate price, to get a prescription for contact lenses renewed, even if the script is the same for glasses and contacts, and you just did the glasses? And that while you can buy 100 years of contacts, the script is only valid for 12 months on the dot? Oh, and you can't resell your unopened box of contacts on eBay or anywhere.

Regulations are good but these laws in the US are very cartel-y. I remember in the UK in 2012 or so I could order as many contacts as I wanted with no script, no questions asked, online.

<comment><USER34> Your prescription cannot be the same for contacts as it includes additional parameters like curvature. The diopter may or may not be similar, true.

The whole point of a separate contact lens exam is to assess lens fit and check for corneal complications usually related to over-wear.

<comment><USER33> Curvature doesn't change.

The UK has or at least had the ability to order online scriptless, it's not exactly anarchy over there.

Also as mentioned I can order 10 years of contacts with one 'valid one year' script.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> > _Reminder, if you 're in the US, the FTC says your eye doctor must give you > your prescription after your exam. If a doctor refuses to do so, they can > face legal action and penalties. > [https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2016/05/buying- > prescriptio...](https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2016/05/buying- > prescriptio..).

That said, I don't think the FTC stipulates what information must appear on the prescription. Many docs leave off your PD (pupillary distance), which is a necessary measurement if you're buying online. Fortunately, there are a variety of easy ways to take this measurement yourself after the exam, although if you're really concerned about precision, you'll want the doctor's measurement._

The doctor will leave off prescription information on-purpose? WTF?

I'm not sure what bizarro system the US has with opticians and buying glasses...

On a trip in the US I broke my glasses. I had to get a replacement, but I was in rural country, and it was a weekend. Now, even though there were shops selling eyewear open, I couldn't just get a pair, because they wanted a prescription from a doctor (I think I went to a Walmart, whose doctor that takes prescriptions was off for the weekend among other places).

In my country you can get a prescription on the spot at any shop selling eyewear (perhaps our law dictates that any eyewear shop has an optician in employment -- but any assistant can also take a lens of your old glasses and get the measurements). In any case, a prescription test costs nothing, and you can buy single use contact lenses with that immediately, or get the glasses in a couple of days.

</comment><comment><USER36> No doubt discussion will turn to online optics (as it always does). The problem with online optics is the same as clothing: trying things on is important, and adjustments can only be done in person.

Last time we purchased Zenni Optical glasses we had issues, but none of which are Zenni's fault but rather inherent problems with buying glasses online.

The first issue was that the frames simply didn't look right/fit right/fall right even after using their photo preview to "try them on."

The second issue is that you're on your own for adjustments. What you'd typically do is at delivery have someone use a heat-gun and tugging to adjust how they sit. I had a heat gun, but was unable to adjust them to satisfaction.

Ultimately glasses and prescription sunglasses for $120 is very cheap, but there's issues with the whole concept, so we wound up just going to Costco instead. The Zenni ones sit in a draw as "backups," that is in spite of them doing everything they said they would do (i.e. prescription was spot on, frames were as-advertised, etc).

<comment><USER37> That's part of the reason I get my main glasses from my eye doctor, and then computer glasses or sunglasses from a place like Zenni. I don't care about how I look in them when I sit in front of a computer or in a car.

In fact, I have a wide head, and I've had better luck getting frames that don't squeeze into the side of my head through Zenni than anything I tried at an optometrist's. I basically just went with the widest pair offered, which they provide measurements for on Zenni, where I have to try each and every pair almost in person since they don't show those measurements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> My experiences in the US in 2015 and prior:

* Took exams, but didn't receive PD (pupillary distance). Had to take another exam and specifically ask in order to receive that.

* Frames from most places except Walmart were disproportionately expensive, and walmart's styles... were lacking. Only select styles were reasonably priced.

* Nowadays my family in the US uses Warby Parker. Last time I used it the prices were reasonable, one just needed their pupillary distance measurement and an eye exam taken within one year.

* For both Warby parker & brick and mortar shops, you had to wait for the new glasses to come in.

* The process for contacts was better, but still quite expensive. I had to drive to the eye exam so I couldn't do the enlarged pupil process.

My experience in Korea in 2018:

* I walked into a random glasses store, picked out a pair of frames, gave my old glasses to the clerk in order to scan them, waited 10 minutes, and then walked out with thin, good-looking, strong-prescription glasses for $80. Couldn't have been easier or more straightforward.

* This year I plan to get contacts to see what the process is.

</comment><comment><USER39> Whenever we see an apparent monopoly or a confusingly high profit margin, we should immediately look for barriers to entry. Situations like this are usually explained by the existence of a racket with government-enforced barriers to entry.

Optometry is a licensure racket with strong legal barriers to entry. The sale of glasses is ostensibly a separate business without the same barriers, but I suspect it rides on the coattails of optometry's racket. I think there's an inertia tie between the eye exam and the purchase of glasses.

The cleanest way to end this nonsense is to break the optometry licensure racket. Think about what optometrists actually do. Think about all your eye exams and the whole "1 or 2" procedure as they flip through lenses. Honestly, most adults could probably do that job and produce a correct prescription after maybe a week's training. I'm not saying they're inherently bad people or anything, and I like my optometrist, but it's a racket just like realtors, lawyers, and other guilds that use the law to prop up their prices and reduce competition.

There's at least one startup out there that wanted to do eye exams through a specially designed web app. Expect the optometry racket to lobby hard against this, just like taxi rackets tried to stop Uber. And there ought to be companies offering cheap glasses online any second now...

<comment><USER40> I agree to an extent.

Most people could do what your average pediatrician does at a normal checkup. The reason you want a licenced pediatrician is for the abnormal.

While an optometrist isn't generally needed, they are sometimes. For example, they are generally the first ones to catch diabetes.

I'm not an optometrist, just someone that has worn glasses their whole life.

<comment><USER39> Me too. The diabetes angle is interesting – I hadn't thought of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Ever wonder why you cannot get glasses made of glass anymore? (At least that's the case in Israel).

Glass used to be a lot cheaper than plastic, more durable and long lasting. You rarely needed to replace them every year or two like with plastic, unless you really smashed your lenses hard and got a nasty chip.

All plastic lenses get scratched within a few years and your sight becomes gradually foggy until one day it dawns on you. "I can't see anything!" - <USER3> then it's time to renew the... What? The SUBSCRIPTION!? Sorry, the prescription. Right.

With glass that would never happen.

The repeated mantra I'd always get from the optometrists is that glass isn't sold anymore because it can shatter and splinters could get into you eyes.

I don't know about others, but I've been hanging on to my glass pair for over 18 years now, not a scratch or a chip or anything, and they are on a half frame! And I've done sports with them too... maybe not the smartest thing to do, but I will not give up seeing cristal glass clear!

At one of the optometrists I used to go to where they'd sell me plastics I discovered they would use acetone to clean the glasses. Yes, acetone, which eats the plastic away. Something to make your subscription a little more often. I'm Never going back there.

What's funny is that my glass pair has lasted so long they have gone in and out of fashion multiple times now.

I really wish they'd bring back the glass. I'm in the off fashion period now.

<comment><USER42> What are you doing with your glasses? Use a microfibre cloth to clean them and there is no reason that they get scratched, and especially not every couple of years. I've had mine for 8 years and the only reason I've recently changed them is to get a different frame. Also, glass is really heavy, especially if you have to have them with a significant diopter, and it also prone to breaking if dropped onto a hard surface. Here in Germany you can still get regular glass if you so desire, so maybe it's just Israel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'm Eric, the founder of Topology Eyewear. Our 3D face scan (via our iPhone app) is way more accurate than a standard pupilometer used in a Doctor's office (and WAY WAY better than a ruler or dots placed by a sharpie!). We solve for monocular PD, so no need to beg your doctor for this piece of info that isn't technically part of your Rx. Check it out at [http://www.topologyeyewear.com](http://www.topologyeyewear.com) or on the App Store at [http://bit.ly/topologyapp](http://bit.ly/topologyapp) I'm happy to answer here any optical or technical questions anyone has - just hit reply!

<comment><USER44> Right. Except that you have to buy eyeglasses if you want those numbers. The app will not tell them to you, and the frames alone are $349, not counting lenses. Total price starts at $600 and goes up. So, no thanks. I'll pass.

<comment><USER45> That's insane! $349 I could buy like 10 pairs at any other online store with the upgraded coating.

<comment><USER46> I live in ex-USSR in one of the poorest republics. My mom bought recently nice eyeglasses for $3.50. The procedure is this: you name the type of lenses (+2 + 3 etc) and they give a bunch of eyglasses with different ocular differences. You chose one that works for you and then choose the frame.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Expensive? I have astigmatism, top notch lenses with blue light filter and a slight varifocus (Eyezen, highly recommended for screen work) and a designer frame. This was a rather expensive purchase (around 350 euros) for me, but since I'm behind a screen a lot it's worth it.

Also, I bought these glasses at my local glasses store. I get headaches whenever my glasses aren't exactly centered or straight, so in a typical year I come in around 10-15 times to adjust them. They give me great service all the time, always cleaning the glasses and replacing screws/nose pieces for free. When I got theses glasses the lenses were replaced two times (I had transitions, didn't like them, and I got headaches from the second pair because my brain couldn't get used to the new astigmatic values), also without additional costs.

Buying glasses online is fine, but since I rely on my glasses every waking hour and require a lot of service, I'll keep buying them from my local shop. Probably not the most economical way, but 350 euros every couple of years isn't that shocking, either.

</comment><comment><USER48> Walk into any eyeglasses store and what do you see? Tons of designer labels on everything, labels that were clearly just sold to some third party outfit to slap on their frames.

As someone who generally avoids high fashion it drives me crazy to see all of those expensive and useless logos on everything along with $400 price tags. I'm glad to see all of these online outfits so ready to undercut them.

<comment><USER21> Walmart wanted to charge me $180-240 just to replace lenses in my frames. Even without a brand name it's still expensive!

<comment><USER49> Because you're lenses are coming from the same place. Depending on the contract year, your lenses are probably coming from Essilor, which at that point you should be probably be going to a private practice and getting better customer service and deals (in terms of warranties, and actually getting the most from the manufacturer). Though that really only extends to a two year period, if it is longer than than, it is pretty much considered a completely new order.

Disclosure, I work for Essilor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I've been buying from a Chinese maker online, Zenni. They sell a pair with all of the trimmings for $120 that's about $400 at my optometrist's. I did not get a great fit on the first try, but did on the second, so that still saves around $160. And using the fitting for that pair I've bought three others that all fit well.

The worst part is the sad look in my optometrist's eyes when I say I'd just like the prescription please.

</comment><comment><USER51> I was shocked that glasses cost as much as the lens of a DSLR camera, and glasses dont have all the moving parts and materials a DSLR lens have. I found some cheap glasses company on the internet and now I am very happy with the results.

<comment><USER52> I just use a 50 f/1.8 lens instead of wearing glasses. Problem solved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm the CTO of an online eye test for the European market ([https://easee.online](https://easee.online)). We work together with online retailers that want to offer prescription glasses at much lower costs and they need us to go fully online.

The industry has had pretty absurd margins for years, and that's fine for the fashion aspect of course, but I believe there should be affordable options for everyone, especially as the plastic only costs a couple of $ to produce.

I've been working in this space for one year and still have lots to learn, but I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have!

<comment> semi-extrinsic Looks interesting, I'll check it out!

FYI your copy hasn't been translated from Dutch everywhere on the English site. (Ik hou echt de stroopwafels!) Also your scrolljacking really works badly on Firefox mobile, it scrolls back up a bit five seconds after I scroll down, making it super annoying.

<comment><USER53> Thanks for the feedback, I'll sort it out with my team :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> This article is a literal translation of a 2012 60 mins show. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voUiWOGv8ec&t=87s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voUiWOGv8ec&t=87s)

Lensley Stahl is interviewing then Luxxotica CEO and his answers are really interesting. A must watch IMO.

</comment><comment><USER55> More in depth article: [https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/10/the- invisible-p...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/10/the-invisible- power-of-big-glasses-eyewear-industry-essilor-luxottica)

</comment><comment><USER56> I was paying over $700 a year for glasses. Funny how the cost always seemed to add up to the max annual amount that my Vision program covered. Since my prescription basically stopped changing five years ago, I determined my IPD (pretty easy with a ruler and a mirror) and now I just order from online glasses providers, for about $100 a pair. No issues at all.

It's still important to see an eye doctor every year or two so that medical issues can be spotted early. But it's stupid to pay crazy prices for what should be a commodity.

<comment><USER57> > Funny how the cost always seemed to add up to the max annual amount that my > Vision program covered

I can echo this experience. Buying eyeglasses from the optometrist office has always felt nearly the same as dealing with a car salesman.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> There is a famous US company that has been making frames and lenses for decades. They are still around, offering classic models in a variety of custom sizes. They will insert any lens you need, even glass. Think of them as a time machine. They have their own lab.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browline_glasses](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browline_glasses)

 _> Browline glasses were invented in 1947 by Jack Rohrbach, then vice- president of Shuron Ltd., an eyeglass company. The first browlines – sold under the "Ronsir" model name – were made out of interchangeable bridges, eyewires, and "brows," allowing wearers to completely customize the size, fit, and color of their glasses. At the time, most frame manufacturers offered a limited number of colors and sizes, making browlines a unique means of customizing one's personal appearance. The style quickly caught on in popularity amongst eyeglass wearers, resulting in numerous other companies releasing their own browline frames._

[http://shuron.com](http://shuron.com)

Today, few frame manufacturers offer the same style in multiple sizes. Virtually none allow you to mix and match temple length, frame width, bridge, etc.

</comment><comment><USER59> The bridge of my nose is shaped weird apparently and it makes most glasses not fit very well, they tend to slide down all the time. I've gone to different places and perplexed the people there trying to help me find something that fit properly. They said everything sits too far off my face. I dunno what to do but push my glasses up. I basically cant buy any of the cheap online options though because they never fit.

<comment><USER58> Cheap ($10): [https://www.amazon.com/GMS-Optical-Comfortable-Silicone- Anti...](https://www.amazon.com/GMS-Optical-Comfortable-Silicone-Anti- slip/dp/B00DUWLIEM/)

Expensive (several $100): This company does a 3D scan of your facial structure, then your local provider designs a frame according to your anatomy and style/material/color preference. The frame design is then custom made, not 3D printed, [https://3dna-eyewear.org](https://3dna-eyewear.org)

<comment><USER59> I wouldn't mind shelling out for the 3D scan if the product is good. Unfortunately I'm having trouble finding anything out about the company like reviews or pricing. Their website is very sparse as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> The article mentions Warby Parker was started to combat these insane prices. NPR's How I Built This talks about the origins of Warby Parker in this podcast:

[https://www.npr.org/2018/03/26/586048422/warby-parker- dave-g...](https://www.npr.org/2018/03/26/586048422/warby-parker-dave-gilboa- neil-blumenthal)

</comment><comment><USER61> My girlfriend's worked in the eyecare industry for over 10 years now in just about every aspect of the industry. Cheap lenscrafter type places, respectable optometrists, opthamologists and the factories where they make glasses.

Just about everything is bullshit. The expensive brand name frames come from the same place as the cheap ones and cost the same, around $5-$10 for the store to purchase. Frames are marked up typically 200-300%.

Stuff like anti-reflective coating should not be charged extra. Most lenses are made from plastic with this built in.

Also, lenses take about 30 minutes to make on small CNC routers, which many places have in house and are usually made by the opticians working there in those cases.

While working for some of the shadier places, my girlfriend was told to straight up lie to customers(not patients....they don't think of the people that come in as patients) about what they needed to get them to spend more.

My recommendation would be to avoid opticians and chain type optometrists, they just want your money and they have no problem lying to get it.

The whole industry is ridiculously corrupt.

</comment><comment><USER62> I just bought my first pair of glasses from the eye doctor – previously been using EyeBuyDirect. There's no difference in quality but they cost literally 10x ($250 vs. $25). I guess it's nice to be able to try them on in person and have a nice woman tell me I look good in them, but that's the only appreciable difference in the entire process.

<comment><USER63> In my experience, the legs on the cheap glasses online are rarely as long as they should be. That means the bend in the leg sits just forward of my ear.

The practical difference in negligible, though. They feel just fine, and they don't fall off or anything.

So yeah, I buy all my glasses online, and have been for years.

<comment><USER64> Most of the time you can adjust this with a heat gun. I've seen the guy in target optical do it at his desk.

<comment><USER63> They're metal legs with a plastic coating that was molded, in my case. Can't really bend them or reshape them.

And for the plastic ones, it would mean the ends of the legs would be rather short, leaving them to sit funny on the desk when open and possibly more likely to fall off if you lean forward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I don't understand the difficulty here, at least for people with ordinary single-vision prescriptions.

10 years ago I was buying glasses mail-order from optical4less in Hong Kong: 58 USD for two pairs including single-vision lenses and shipping to anywhere in the world.

In the UK, places like speckyfoureyes are even cheaper, and have a wide selection of frames.

Both of these places show extensive details of frame measurements, which should allow you to choose frames that suit your face, unless it's your first time buying glasses ever (unlikely if you're an adult, as most of us develop issues earlier).

Sure, if you need to have name-brand frames or want a very specific fashion statement, maybe there's only one brand that will work for you.

But the fact that a particular person is satisfied only by a particular handbag costing $10k does not mean that 'handbags are so expensive'. Because most people can be satisfied with a handbag that costs 99% less than that.

</comment><comment><USER45> One of my co-workers always had a new pair of well fitted glasses on every week, and I found out she was buying them online for like $20-$40 a pair. At first I was apprehensive about the fit and quality of the glasses, but after buying a few test pairs they really are just like the store brands.

<comment><USER66> Link?

<comment><USER67> [https://www.zennioptical.com/](https://www.zennioptical.com/) is what my wife uses. She pays for all the special coatings, anti glare, anti oil. Ends up being about 50$ a pair. She loves them, and I think they look cute.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> So far I think the best value, even better than Costco, is Sam's Club. Bring them frames and they will trace them and measure your PD, then make you a pair of single vision Pentax lenses with AR coating, for less than $40. Add $60 and you have polarized sunglasses. This is for CR39 plastic which is optically superior to polycarbonate/high index lenses. There is also a great warranty, since Sam's Club will let you return anything practically any time.

You can find most frames for a few bucks on eBay, including popular brands like Ray Ban.

I have bought quite a few pair so far and am super satisfied, especially with the optical quality, compared to the competition's "HD" stuff.

</comment><comment><USER69> Relevant previous discussion: [1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17061380](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17061380)

I live in Portugal and I have needed prescription glasses since i was a child (I'm now in my 40s). I have always felt frames particularly are priced in a cartel like way. Of course for lenses there is more of a justification depending on the thickness/prescription (it is harder to make a more curved lens that is thinner and lighter).

In frames they try to get you to go for the branded style (Hugo Boss, Gucci whatever...) This is discussed extensively in the above article. [1] In lenses they try to sell you add on treatments (Anti-reflex, UV coatings, etc) In my experience some of these coatings end up shortening the lifespan of the lens as they create a surface that is easier to scratch.

I think local opticians take advantage of the fact that people's face dimensions vary so much and that people need to try on tens of options before they find one that is both comfortable and good looking.

Given the low prices for frames practiced by some online stores ([https://www.zennioptical.com/](https://www.zennioptical.com/) for example) I'm very tempted to even buy the frames online and then going into the local opticians to get them to make and fit the lenses. I'm pretty sure they will try their best to scam me into some overcharge if I do that though...

<comment><USER70> >they try to sell you add on treatments (Anti-reflex, UV coatings, etc) In my experience some of these coatings end up shortening the lifespan of the lens as they create a surface that is easier to scratch.

In my opinion, the best material for lenses is the cheapest: plain uncoated CR-39. It has the best Abbe number of any common material (lowest chromatic aberration), and good scratch resistance. I clean mine using a microfiber cloth (carefully pre-washed to remove any grit), hot water, and dish-washing detergent. This leaves them clean enough that water will "sheet" off them, leaving them visually flawless. I find dirt on the lens more annoying than reflections, so I'd rather have uncoated lenses than coated ones that won't survive aggressive cleaning.

I'd recommend CR-39 even for moderately high prescriptions. Weight of lenses increases super-linearly with size, and glasses inherently have bad off-axis performance, so there's little point wearing huge glasses where index of refraction makes a big difference. The low index of refraction of CR-39 also reduces reflections, which is important when you're omitting anti-reflective coatings. It's also worth considering that all glasses designs are trading optical performance for convenience; for maximum optical performance you need contact lenses.

<comment><USER69> Wow, cannot upvote this comment enough. Super helpfull, thanks! Definetely going to go with uncoated lenses. Will the opticians even know what I'm talking about when I ask for CR39? I have one concern though I'm - 6 Dioptre on each eye. so lens weight has always been an issue for me. even a few grams extra make a big difference. I always go for rectangular low profile lenses with the greatest thickness reduction they can apply and they always advise for Polycarbonate lenses.

What's your take on this?

<comment><USER70> All glasses are a compromise in some way, so you have to decide which flaws are most tolerable to you. -6 is strong enough correction that I'd seriously consider contact lenses if I needed it. Contact lenses avoid the image distortion and shrinkage you get with glasses, and because they move with your eyes, the image is sharp in all parts of your field of vision.

Polycarbonate is IMO a terrible material for corrective lenses. It has very bad Abbe number, so you get a lot of chromatic aberration (rainbow artifacts) and it's very soft, so coating is pretty much required. Its only real virtue is impact resistance, which is important in safety glasses, but you can get flat safety glasses that fit over your corrective glasses. The weight is marginally better than CR-39, but not enough to make up for the poor optical performance. I haven't seen it person, but going by the numbers, Trivex seems superior.

Wikipedia has some information on common materials:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrective_lens#Lens_materials](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrective_lens#Lens_materials)

My preference for uncoated applies only to CR-39. Other materials have properties that make coatings more important. It's also possible that some coatings have much better resistance to cleaning than others. Unfortunately, details about coatings are generally secret, so there's no way to evaluate them.

<comment><USER69> I see, thanks for the advice again I will read more about it. Yeah i wear daily contacts for beach / swimming days, but unfortunately never managed to get used to wearing contacts as primary everyday correction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> I recommend finding an independent eye practice - independent ophthalmology practices are common and likely to also have optometrists on staff - <USER3> getting a printed prescription from your exam. This lets you sidestep the Luxottica monopoly completely when you take your prescription to an online vendor like 39dollarglasses.com. You can easily get two pairs of glasses with the full suite of antireflective coatings for less than the copay you'd pay buying glasses at retail with insurance.

</comment><comment><USER72> Expensive glasses are expensive. There are online retailers where you can get glasses for $20 (not sure about more complicated prescriptions).

I go to this place where I can get a $50 eye test before buying them online. Only issue is that the people who do the eye tests leave out the PD number which is kinda important. If you ask them for it, they'll tell you to do it yourself or buy glasses from them. You can measure it yourself instead.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm Eric, the founder of Topology Eyewear. We agree that "stock" eyewear (a.k.a. off-the-shelf eyewear) is overpriced. Worst than overpriced, it doesn't fit you very well, because it wasn't made for you! Everyone is different, so we have figured out how to make every one of our glasses different: 100% custom made to fit each individual, like a custom suit; made from the same luxury Italian acetate (plastic) and full-hard stainless steel you'd expect from a high-end frame. And our optics are BETTER than you'd get from your doctor, b/c we compensate for 3D position of wear. And it's all done via an iPhone app using 3D face scanning. Check it out at [http://www.topologyeyewear.com](http://www.topologyeyewear.com) or on the App Store at [http://bit.ly/topologyapp](http://bit.ly/topologyapp) I'm happy to answer here any optical or technical questions anyone has - just hit reply!

<comment><USER73> I know doing the same for android is tough. But any plans to make an app for android?

<comment><USER43> Yes an Android version is on our roadmap, but honestly it will be quite a while. It isn't just the depth sensor, but also the ability to know for each phone model the intrinsic calibration of the sensor, the GPU, the IMU, and the screen size. We're doing real-time rendering and some very heavy computation at 60fps, which really does leverage tight software/hardware integration iOS and Apple hardware provides. That being said, if you are excited about what we're doing and the only think holding you back is the phone you choose to carry in your pocket, contact me or anyone on my team via the website and we'll be happy to give you a discount for the inconvenience of having to borrow a friend's iPhone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Interesting how much prices can vary between countries. I just googled for the prices in several stores here in Poland and it seems you can get the most basic frames and lenses for about $20. You can get a very decent pair for ~$100. Many companies here have to reimburse you a pair up to ~$130 every 2-3 years and this is the only time when you need prescription from doctor, otherwise you don't need it.

RayBan, Armani, etc. cost a lot, but I never seriously considered them.

I got my current pair over 15 years ago. Back then I think they must have costed over $200 but only because I have asked for (at that time) fancy lenses. This was expensive but considering how long they lasted and how much they survived I consider them one of the best purchases ever. I have couple of other glasses (reimbursed by my company, i.e. free) which I wear every now and then but I stick to the old pair simply because I am used to them.

</comment><comment><USER75> I've managed a few eyewear stores in Australia and it is important to not forget that the dispensing, fitting and quality checking of eyewear is time consuming if you don't want to half-arse it. I've never worked in the very high end stores, but whoever is rolling in money, it wasn't us.

</comment><comment><USER76> > Because no one is doing anything to prevent a near-monopolistic, > $100-billion industry from shamelessly abusing its market power.

> However, as with prescription drugs, government officials are content to > pretend that "the market" will protect patients.

So the same old story from pretty much every other sector of the economy. America loves its monopolies and oligopolies and does everything in its power to promote their creation, including spreading bullshit about the how the market will make everything and everyone perfect forever and ever and grant everyone eternal life. Or however else they choose to describe the complete and utter chaos that is markets. It's amazing what getting even a small percentage of the population to believe in one's delusions will achieve.

</comment><comment><USER77> There have been quite a few large threads on this over the years.

2018: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17061380](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17061380)

2017: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15736573](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15736573)

2016: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13091936](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13091936)

2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9183464](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9183464)

2013: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6718224](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6718224)

</comment><comment><USER78> I signed up for an HDHP and HSA when I got my first job because I wanted didn't want a premium deducted from my paycheck (young and short-sighted), turns out it was one of the best decisions I've made financially.

I'm healthy so I haven't had many medical expenses at all, but I've been able to amass a decent health emergency fund through my HSA and "splurge" on certain qualified medical expenses. For instance I got a pair of relatively expensive superscription glasses over the summer paid for through my HSA.

I know it's not for everyone, and I'd really like Congress to make an HSA more appealing to lower and middle income folks, but I think an HSA is a solid way to plan for medical expensive if you're in the right demographic.

<comment><USER79> While an HSA is good this is completely unrelated to the topic. You still overpaid for expensive glasses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> In India you could get good quality glasses ~15$ to 40$

</comment><comment><USER81> Surprised not to see mention of 39dollarglasses in this article or the comments. They've been great in my limited experience (two pairs of glasses)

[1] [https://www.39dollarglasses.com/](https://www.39dollarglasses.com/)

<comment><USER82> I have been using 39dollarglasses for quite a few years, good service, and I've gotten quite a few unsolicited compliments on the frames.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> There is a company in Sydney, Australia called Dresden that make cheap recyclable plastic glasses. The prices range from AU$49-$99 (US$35-$70) depending on how thin you want your lenses.

They keep costs down by producing a single, neutral, yet attractive style. You can have just about any color you want and a choice between four sizes.

An engineering friend of mine was helping them improve the recycling process. Once you are done with the glasses, you take them back to Dresden, they grind them down and reuse the plastic in new frames. I'm not sure if they recycle lenses.

[https://dresden.vision/](https://dresden.vision/)

</comment><comment><USER84> Ironically, I pay even more to avoid Luxottica.

VSP encourages me to buy "preferred" brands with even larger frame discounts if I go with one of these generic "designer" companies.

Instead, I pay even more to get glasses I actually like; all-carbon-fiber frames from Bellinger in Denmark.

I pay an extra dollar or two a month in order to qualify for new frames every year; that money more than pays for itself when I get 20% off $600-$800+ frames.

As a guy, my glasses are about the only fashion accessory I have, so it's worth it to me. But if it's not worth it to you, Costco will happily sell you cheap glasses, as will the various online retailers.

As usual, don't trust what the industry wants to tell you you have to buy.

</comment><comment><USER85> I have been buying glasses from Goggles4U for a decade or so here in the USA. I enter my prescription plus my PD. I get very good glasses for $20-40 all in. Recently I moved to progressives which actually cost a bit more ($20-40).

For comparison, last year my wife added me to her VSP. For $200 + $500 paid by VSP from a pocal optometrist/eyewear store I got glasses that might be a tad more stylish, but the progressive prescription is worse - fewer areas are in focus. What a joke.

Always buy online. At these prices you can trade a movie night out for a set of spare glasses. I have single focus distance, reading, sunglasses and progressives for about the price of the copay on a VSP.

</comment><comment><USER86> The glasses industry is so structurally bundled and unsound that a disruptor like Warby Parker was able to come in and build a billion dollar business in a matter of years.

Hearing aids are similar as mentioned on the thread.

Wondering what other industries have these structurally integrated industries where a disruptor could deliver a tremendous amount of value with insider Knowledge or reintegrating a supply chain. I believe an original Warby team member worked in the eyewear industry.

I have a feeling things like Car Dealerships are next. You fundamentally have to be able to drive massive value to consumers by making a one time purchase expneisve good cheaper with an innovative business model.

</comment><comment><USER87> It would also be nice to not need a prescription for contact lenses in the United States.

<comment><USER88> Second! My prescription hasn't changed in 10 years, do I really need to keep going through this?

And recently, it seems like all the optometrists have started tacking on a $40 "contact fitting fee" that technically isn't part of the insurance-covered exam.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> Last year, I went to a JINS store in Tokyo Japan.

They gave me an eye exam and, in less than an hour, had made my prescription reading glasses (with AR coating). Total cost was less than $90 USD.

And I don't speak Japanese - I know less than a dozen words.

JINS has stores in California.

</comment><comment><USER90> Here's a great example of the crazy markup. I use these $7 sunglasses for biking:

3M Virtua Glasses Gray Lens, [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006PJHM6/](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006PJHM6/)

And these clear $5 ones for wind while biking when it's dark:

3M Virtua Clear Lens, [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00166OALC/](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00166OALC/)

Both 3M and Amazon make a profit on these! 3M's cost of goods sold is probably $1.25.

</comment><comment><USER58> Someone was asking about glass lenses. They are now mostly a premium product, not many online suppliers.

[https://www.2020mag.com/article/a-dawn-for-glass- lenses](https://www.2020mag.com/article/a-dawn-for-glass-lenses)

[https://www.eyeglasses.com/prescription- lenses/glass/](https://www.eyeglasses.com/prescription-lenses/glass/)

[http://www.lensfactory.com/glass-lenses/](http://www.lensfactory.com/glass- lenses/)

<comment><USER91> Essilor used to make them but are closing most of their lines. They are just not that in demand. They also take longer to make.

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> I hadn't thought of the cost, but the article does a good job of highlighting that. What I _had_ noticed (in the UK at least) is how limiting the styles are by not being modular: opticians stock an impressive array of glasses, but it's incredible how inflexible it can be as countless times you find a pair that go well but then find there's some random flourish that ruins it - were the pieces modular (or better yet made to order by 3D printing) you'd get exactly what you were after - and then maybe I could just about stomach the pricing!

</comment><comment><USER93> Great "Adam Ruins Everything" episode about this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAeHuDcy_bY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAeHuDcy_bY)

</comment><comment><USER94> My wife was an optician for 15 years; she left the industry because of the crazy retail sales environment (focus on sales and commission instead of customer service)

She had the idea of being an independent optician, but not selling glasses. Rather, offering services like adjustments, frame styling, measuring PD, etc, to service the growing market seeking out glasses from places like Zenni and Warby Parker.

Personally, I didn't think she'd find enough people willing to pay for those services, but perhaps there's an opportunity there.

</comment><comment><USER95> I was shopping for new glasses a few months ago. Unfortunately, not only Luxottica brands where out of control expensive, pretty much all of their offerings where low quality. I mean really shitty quality. The quality you'd expect you get buying $5 glasses from shady fake crap stores.

I ended up buying La Coste frames. It was on a sales. Both the frame and the glasses cost less than $100. I think it is a fair price and one that makes me not think much about. But if I find cheaper frames, I have better use for that money.

</comment><comment><USER96> I'm surprised that noone is blaming the health insurance and opticians for these prices.

In France when we need glasses we have to get a presciption and we can choose the glasses at the optician. The thing is that the optician will not give you a price for a pair until you have given your health insurance details, which allows him to know how much you will get reimbursed. And surprise surprise, the pair of glasses you chose is coincidentally just 5€ cheaper than the max limit paid by your insurance.

</comment><comment><USER97> I feel that they steal the universe from me by making new prescriptions that presume normal distribution in use-case, and because the new prescription mandates new glasses.

I have heard that recycling of glasses is illegal. Isn't that like right-to- repair broken for 18th century technology? It is because someone in politics makes a lot of money from it. If someone were to dig out decent documentation there, and make it public, then the problem could be and not just patched with a band-aid.

</comment><comment><USER98> Is this only a states thing or generally all of North America thing? An eye- doctor's visit, prescription, and two pairs can be around 200 quid[0] (adjusting for currency conversion).

[0] - [https://www.specsavers.se/glasogon/bag- sok#sort=field_frame_...](https://www.specsavers.se/glasogon/bag- sok#sort=field_frame_skus_field_price_including_std_lenses_amount_decimal_asc&order=asc&f%5Bgenders%5D=female,male)

</comment><comment><USER99> About 20 years ago, while I was in highschool, my foreign student Korean friend would get care packages and in them would be 3-4 pairs of glasses to change it up depending on the occasion. Apparently, glasses run around $30, even with an eye exam.

When I visited a couple years later, I could get glasses, even with thei highest index for $30. Some places would charge 50-70 for frames + high index lenses, but the big volume shops, you could get a bunch of pairs for cheap.

</comment><comment><USER100> When I last wore glasses, I found zenni optical, and got my prescription for $18, which would have been near $200 at a wal mart. They were great, and lasted many years.

</comment><comment><USER101> I got Lasiks done last April. It was a very scary procedure but it worked. It cost $3000. I have saved about $300 in glasses so far... assuming I wouldn't have lost/crushed a pair.

My vision is now so good people say "wow you can read that (chalkboard specials menu in restaurant etc.)?!"

Still when I was laying there with my corneas being sliced... I wasn't sure if it was such a good idea!

<comment><USER102> Yeah, I got Lasik done 15 years ago at UCSF, where they trained ophthalmologists. It costed around $6000, with insurance covered around $1000. Best money I ever spent. The improvement to quality of life was incredible. Still get 20/20 at left eye and right eye degraded slightly to 20/30.

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> Just get lasik. I got it a couple years ago and I recommend it highly. Never having to buy expensive glasses again is just icing on the cake.

</comment><comment><USER104> This is very timely for me as I have an optometrist's appointment this afternoon. My 3 year old prescription needs an update unfortunately. Three years ago these glasses cost me $NZ1500 ($US1000). I do have"off the charts" astigmatism and they're progressives as well. Does anyone here know if the online options extend to extreme corner cases like this ?

</comment><comment><USER105> I have ordered four pairs of -4 glasses from aliexpress ranging from 1 to 7 US dollars, from four various sellers, some have arrived already and are surprisingly good, lenses are great really. Maybe I'm lucky to have standard distance between my eyes, but these super cheap glasses are just as good as those I used to buy in a local clinic for 50-100 USD.

</comment><comment><USER106> An optometrist friend of mine once told me decades ago about an 'in joke' they had in the industry:

When you hand over a pair of glasses to a customer, you say "That will be $200...".

If the customer doesn't blink, you continue "... for the frame, the lenses cost an extra $200...".

If the customer still doesn't blink, you continue "... each.".

</comment><comment><USER107> It seems like a perfect opportunity for someone to disrupt this market.

I have never spent more than $100 on prescription glasses ($20 for lens with AR coating). I understand there's lack of information, otherwise people would buy just them online but the convenience and trust factors might also be in play.

</comment><comment><USER108> People don't buy glasses that often. A single pair can last a long time. So even tho gross margins can be rich, the annual volume may not cover the fixed cost of marketing, r&d, etc. and don't forget the optician isn't really making money from the checkups, it's the glasses and contacts.

</comment><comment><USER109> I've been getting glasses from selectspecs.com for years now. I just buy 3 pairs for about £15 each and then swap them out when I break them (which happens often due to clumbsiness). Quality is fine. Glasses are just made of plastic. No reason they should be expensive as far as I can tell.

</comment><comment><USER110> "Eyeglass sales are becoming a very competitive market, with frames and lenses available in a range of prices and quality levels," Bajwa said. "Today's glasses aren't the glasses of 20 years ago, and the price can reflect these technological advances."- This is exactly a true statement.!

</comment><comment><USER111> I can't really do online lenses because I'm at -10 diopter and special techniques have to be used. But I always buy my frames online cheaply. Then I take my frames to my local optometrist and have them cut lenses for the online frames. It's cheap and quality.

</comment><comment><USER112> As a related aside - I got lasik surgery a couple years ago for $3000 on the dot and it was easily in the top best life decisions I've ever made. Most lasik practices I know of have low-no interest financing options that are going to be cheaper long term than glasses.

</comment><comment><USER113> One word- Walmart. The most durable frames and AR coatings I have ever bought. The frames are a Chinese knockoff. This industry is completely automated and relies on CNC automated finishing and batch costing. Walmart evidently made a centralized investment.

</comment><comment><USER114> Do-it-yourself wooden frames: [https://www.instructables.com/id/Techniques- for-Making-Woode...](https://www.instructables.com/id/Techniques-for-Making- Wooden-Glasses-DIY/)

</comment><comment><USER115> Because Luxottica is the DeBeers of glasses. Warby Parker, and IIRC Walmart, are the major insurgents against them in the US. I thought Costco also was after their business but it looks like they sell a great deal of Luxottica product.

</comment><comment><USER116> [http://www.luxottica.com/en](http://www.luxottica.com/en)

in NL there is a documentary about this company and how much of influence they have on the market. Interesting, though if true, worrying

</comment><comment><USER117> In Brazil the regulation states that you must have a prescription in order to buy and it _must_ be no more than six months old.

So if you lose your glasses after as little as six months and can't find your prescription, off to the doctor you go.

</comment><comment><USER118> I wonder if there is a market for an iphone app that uses the Face ID sensors to measure pupillary distance (PD). Last time I got an eye exam, the optometrist would not share the PD measurement without purchasing frames as well.

</comment><comment><USER119> I bought 40€ glasses online, send them back and got 200€ glasses at a normal shop.

I see the issue that everyone should be able to get glasses as it is that important but I will not compromise my eyesight quality because of a few hundred bugs.

</comment><comment><USER120> How long before 'Jeff' gets into this industry? [1]

[1] Amazon of course is what I mean.

</comment><comment><USER121> We're fortunate enough to have a Warby Parker retail store nearby. $95 all-in for glasses. This is 15-25% of what I've spent elsewhere.

It's considerably more if you have progressive lenses. Nearly $300. Still far off the norm.

</comment><comment><USER122> I enjoyed the Adam Ruins Everything segment on Luxottica... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAeHuDcy_bY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAeHuDcy_bY)

</comment><comment><USER123> Brings to mind the advocacy of William Horatio Bates:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method)

</comment><comment><USER124> one would think in free market US economy you will have tons if brands to choose for each budget but the article imply opposite, is it really truth there it's unregulated monopoly? can't you buy cheap glasses in supermarket for few dollars or some event brands for let's say 50-200$ online? looks odd from Europe

of course luxurious brands cost more, bit who is forcing people to buy luxurious fashion brands? that doesn't sound like monopoly to me

</comment><comment><USER125> Why aren't insurance companies putting pressure on the market to get more inexpensive options? Is the overall savings (~$200 every few years) just not worth it?

</comment><comment><USER126> I want to buy glass lenses, not plastic lanses. Plastic accumultes many fine scratches over time from cloth etc. Which online supplier sells glass lenses?

</comment><comment><USER127> The answer: The Government.

In the UK you can grab a pair of decent frames for as little as £15 and and an eye test for about £30 at most optics stores.

Single vision lenses £50 at the most.

</comment><comment><USER128> They're not tho... [https://www.zennioptical.com/](https://www.zennioptical.com/)

</comment><comment><USER129> I would also like to know why it takes my HMO (Kaiser) 6 weeks to make lenses, and why their invoices don't list what products they sold you.

</comment><comment><USER130> I understand the Luxotica monopoly but everytime this comes up people recommend some Japanese company -- I can't recall their name.

</comment><comment><USER131> No surprise when there is no competition in the market. Companies are just greedy and margins are high in almost everything these days.

</comment><comment><USER132> Zenni's glasses start at $6 (lenses and frames included).

I usually splurge and spend around $15 a pair.

Glasses are cheap. Many consumers are hoodwinked by vendors.

</comment><comment><USER133> I bought 2 brand new pairs of glasses for $40 in China in 2014, including eye exam. They've lasted me for the last 4 years.

</comment><comment><USER134> Ive been buying my contacts from Europe without a perscription for years now because of the scam that is US healthcare industry.

</comment><comment><USER135> I've been meaning to bypass this racket for a while. Can anyone recommend a good chinese/indian seller for eyeglasses?

<comment><USER136> 39dollarglasses.com is what I use.

<comment><USER137> Same; I have several pairs from them and they have always been fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER138> I just bought a pair of glasses of Warby Parker for 135 dollars. They will last me multiple years - how is this expensive ?

</comment><comment><USER139> I have started buying my glasses from Costco. I was blown away by how cheap they were there when compared to other places.

</comment><comment><USER140> I do wonder how easy it would be to complete automate eye tests. It seems to me a robot could do the job very easily.

</comment><comment><USER141> So for average US optometrists, what % of the revenues and profits comes from eyewear sales vs services (exams etc.)?

</comment><comment><USER142> They aren't expensive. There are stores like Specsavers that charge USD20 for a pair of affordable glasses.

</comment><comment><USER143> Retro Super Future is a great brand for sunglasses and optical. Stores in the states and Europe, made in Italy.

</comment><comment><USER144> Just making list of industries where market forces have failed to give a way to monopolies, at least in US:

\- Cable TV/Internet

\- Prescription glasses

\- Hearing aids

What else?

</comment><comment><USER145> Warby Parker is a good alternative to the Luxotica monopoly but I think even their lenses are Essilor

</comment><comment><USER146> Go for lasik. 4500 bucks in abq 0% over 2 years. Best thing ive ever done in my life

</comment><comment><USER147> In France we have lunette pour tous and it's 10€ for a pair. It works wonders

</comment><comment><USER148> I had lasik eye surgery 15 years ago and never looked back (pun intended).

</comment><comment><USER149> Maybe that's because a single company controls 80% of the market:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7H-_8UkmFU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7H-_8UkmFU)

(it's an Adam Ruins Everything about the eyeglass industry)

</comment><comment><USER150> And why is optical/optomechanical lab equipment so expensive?

<comment><USER64> Probably because of the small market and the precision required in manufacturing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER151> Anyone know cheap online glasses seller that shipping worldwide?

</comment><comment><USER152> A massive portion of the industry is owned by a single company.

</comment><comment><USER153> You think glasses are expensive try hearing aids.

<comment><USER154> Don't hearing aids have electronics and batteries in them? Glasses don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER155> I can hear Luxottica laughing in the distance

</comment><comment><USER156> Obligatory manufacturing video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCH1SEYbrVA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCH1SEYbrVA)

I got a chance to do some due diligence on a company that was trying to "print" lenses with an interesting sintering process. It was a creative idea but I don't think it went anywhere useful. Dr. Strand at USC was researching holographic lenses which was something I high hopes for.

</comment><comment><USER12> Wow, did this post blow up or what.

</comment><comment><USER157> anyone who spends excessively on glasses should consider a laser-correction

</comment><comment><USER158> why can't we just 3d print and laser cut these things already?

</comment><comment><USER159> Use zenni. Cheap af.

</comment><comment><USER160> Glasses are not expensive.

Convenient glasses, or glasses with recognizable brand names, available in one hour at your local mall are expensive.

My glasses were $29 plus shipping.

The magical mystery superpower that I developed after being bitten by a radioactive wombat which enabled me to break through the chains of Luxxotica and do (according to people on the internet) the impossible and escape their "monopoly" was: using Google to find online eyewear retailers.

<comment><USER21> Haha, that's what I was wondering. How is this a monopoly if I'm able to buy glasses for $25?

<comment><USER161> You're taking a pretty narrow view of what a monopoly is with your anecdote.

A monopoly is where a company gets large enough that it is able to leverage its market share in anticompetetive ways (charging outrageously high prices, far above the competition, for exampe).

NOT where its literally impossible to buy other brands or where a company has 100% market share. That scenario is impossible and will never happen in any market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER162> Glasses are expensive if you choose to pay a lot.

I get super cheap yet fashionable and long lasting glasses at the WalMart optician's office. WalMart does a better job than the private practice guy I saw for years. I get lenses with all the extras and it's still cheap. They also give me the prescription rather than fuss about it.

If anyone is still paying $200 and up for glasses it's because they choose to do so. The market works.

Same goes for generic drugs. Most things a month supply is $4 at WalMart. Some people prefer to go to a small pharmacy, use insurance, and end up with a $20 copay for the same drug. That is their choice to do so but they should not complain.

Likewise with the MRI cost crisis. You can get an MRI and the reading for $250-$500 depending on what state you are in. People paying $10,000 are choosing to pay that. Excepting cases where they are unconscious of course.

</comment><comment><USER163> Just buy glasses in / from India. The Indian government price protects most prescriptions because otherwise the poor will be absolutely excluded from them. So too with eye glasses. I bought mine in 2005 for the equivalent of $20 & they are running perfectly fine even now. I bought another pair in 2016 for the equivalent of $55 & they are now my backup. Both prices are including frames. My prescription had changed very little.

</comment><comment><USER164> This is an area where I feel like AI could one day give you a comprehensive eye exam and even measure your face and head displaying a number of frames that would suit you. Once you decide on color and style, they would then be 3D Printed and the Lens could be ground while you wait. Perhaps just a tech to assemble would be all that is required.

</comment><comment><USER165> I haven't tried this personally but I should plug endmyopia.org if for no other reason than to give some more picture on the practices of this industry.

</comment><comment><USER166> Is the glasses industry heavily regulated? because if not, this is evidence that free market forces tends towards monopolies and wealth inequality.</comment>


Ask HN: How to work with bad contractors? - <AUTHOR> I recently joined a company on a team that had a significant software project outsourced to a team of contractors. The reason for the outsourcing is that we did't have the people at the time to ship the project, and the project required deep knowledge of a non-software field that they had and we didn't.
The problem is that the contractors are just bad at writing code. The project that they have provided has all sorts of problems: functions that haven't been implemented are imported and passed as arguments through chains of functions 4-5 levels deep, every component is deeply coupled to all other components, the same operations have been reinvented in 4-5 times in different ways, etc. Whats more, the contractors seem to be convinced that the code they are shipping is pure genius.
I've brought up one of these issues in the past with the frame "can you explain why you did it this way?" and the what I got back was a word salad. How do I work with these people? What approach should I take when I bring up these deep technical debt issues? <comment><USER2> I would suggest cutting your losses and change contractors or internalize the code. Take a look at the contract, there's probably a reversibility clause to cover this contingency. From what you're describing, it's probably the best solution in the long term.

If you really want to make them improve (or if you absolutely have no other choice), I would suggest taking a look at the situational leadership model.

From the sound of it, that team is squarely in the lowest zone of autonomy. This means you have to be directive with them. Don't try to argue or discuss, tell them what to do. Micro-manage them. Give them small tasks and check often that they're doing what you're telling them. Review every line of code they send your way and reject anything that doesn't pass muster.

If this sounds like a lot of work, it is. You're basically taking over the role of tech lead and scrum master. It may not go down well with them and it may be unenforceable. But eventually you'll get them to a point where you can discuss with them and convince them of what should be done rather than outright telling them. This is step 2 in the STL. Your ultimate goal is to take them to step 4 (full autonomy)... Hence my first suggestion: ditch them.

</comment><comment><USER3> Don't reason with those contractors. As far as you both should be concerned, you've hired them to write bad code, and they think they're doing a great job.

If your own internal organization is not too fat, dumb, and slow to be able to hustle during the holidays, ramp up your own staffing immediately. Sounds like the clowns you have working as contractors were always a stopgap, and now, well, it's time to stop having the gap.

To avoid a full time version of these snowflakes, and since it's caused you such pain, try sussing out the attitude of your new candidates with case examples from your existing relationship. What would they have done differently, if anything, kind of thing, and what would they do with the contractor?

The above might be a good way to gauge technical fit, interpersonal fit, and intelligence. Obviously candidates who immediately say "fire them immediately and never look back" might be a bit rash for the role, since that would leave you with no progress to show.

You have the modern-day equivalent of a Corvair (unsafe at any speed), Pinto (bursts into flames in low-speed collisions), or Diesel VW (whoops, turns out those emissions and mileage guarantees were a bit too good to be true). You can try and rework the warts, or you can call it a wash and start from scratch. Only you know which of those you need to do, but if you start hiring expert devs, they'll be able to tell you which one will take less time.

Even though their code sounds like beginner-level JavaScript, I wouldn't rule out an expert refactor based on what I've heard; as few as 5-10% of the functions getting moved around might turn your pony into a racehorse. You just need to move up to the expert.

</comment><comment><USER4> One thing that isn't entirely clear from this post is whether the software _works_. The unimplemented-functions thing doesn't sound wonderful, but I'd still argue that there's a world of difference between software that blows up the moment you look at it and something that's pretty much working except for a few loose ends where a relatively obscure feature hasn't been finished off yet.

In the former case, demonstrating that what they've done isn't "pure genius" shouldn't be too hard.

In the latter case, I think that -- especially if this is something you need reasonably quickly -- there's a good argument for focussing on value delivered and fixing actual, observable, bugs rather than spending too long worrying about the internal details. If need be, it can always be quietly rewritten once the dust has settled.

</comment><comment><USER5> Are you doing code reviews? They shouldn't be allowed to commit code to master until you're happy with it if it's that bad.

<comment><USER6> In my company (medium size, 400 people or so and 300+ devs) code reviews are unheard of, everyone commits to the trunk. And I think this is the case in most companies.

I'm not happy, not even a bit, with this. But it's the status quo.

<comment><USER5> I think for new developers to a team, you shouldn't be letting them commit to master until you've got confidence they're not going to cause problems. I've done this several times in small teams (less than 10) for new members and it's essential for orientation in my opinion so they know what the team is looking for.

<comment><USER6> I would love to do so, but we're always in a hurry for this or that project. I can't tell how many times I reported to the management that this way we're worsening our codebase and piling up technical debt. But revenue is revenue, and they always tell me "next year"... this is true also for education. I've been here for five years and attended only a mandatory course on workplace safety :)

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I appreciate it's not always easy. Some thoughts: nobody should be telling management "it's done" until code review is complete (which is true, and when you do otherwise management want to push you on to the next task because they won't understand the difference), tasks should be ready for code review a couple of days before deadlines and not on the deadline, and you need to educate management that when they push unrealistic deadlines where code review is skipped then they take on a large part of the responsibility for bugs that appear now and in the future.

In other words, they need to understand that code review isn't some bonus additional task but a vital part of healthy projects.

<comment><USER6> Problem is that most of our work (90%) has deadlines established _before_ getting most of the specs.

I know management should not be pushing us this way - but even being a team lead I can't change this. Time and resources are always fixed and deadlines are always so short that we can't review code nor do proper test & quality.

Part of my new years resolutions is to either change this mindset, gradually of course or change job, because working like this is not giving me the right professional experience to make the next step.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Scientists Discovered Serious Problems With [Soylent] Everyone's Talking About - <AUTHOR> http://www.policymic.com/articles/90261/scientists-discover-possible-long-term-consequences-of-soylent <comment><USER2> What they actually discovered is that not chewing is bad for mice.

<comment><USER3> In fact, not even that, they discovered that something bad might be tied to not chewing. They didn't test Soylent, they tested some powdered food vs pellet food.

Soylent should start delivering their packs with some chewing gum, just to make fun of these morons (the article's authors, not the scientists).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you want to chew your nutritionally complete food try mealsquares.</comment>


Tasty Labs is hiring engineers in Palo Alto/Mountain View - <AUTHOR> http://www.tastylabs.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> We're looking for engineers who have experience in some of the following skills:

      * Frontend UI (javascript/html/etc)
      * Rapid Prototyping (python and related web dev frameworks)
      * Information Retrieval and Big Data (Hadoop and suchlike)
      * Distributed Systems and Storage (NoSQL and suchlike)
      * Mobile (iPhone/Android/etc)

We're also looking for one UX designer.

We're founded by folks who have experience at Mozilla, Google and Yahoo, including myself. This is my second startup after Delicious. We're already funded and are able to pay appropriately, both in salary and equity.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, and I'm saying Palo Alto / Mountain View as that is where we are trying to get office space. We want to be near downtown so SF folks can easily commute via Caltrain.</comment></comment>


Ideas for Improving Ruby During Google Summer of Code 2015 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/rubygsoc/rubygsoc/wiki/Ideas-List

<comment><USER2> In a recent talk in Amsterdam Koichi said that Matz has very high ambitions for Ruby 3. They will focus on concurrency and it is expected that the concurrency interface might dramatically change.

With that in mind I'd say that removing the GIL is a rather useless effort. It would probably not do much for performance and most likely result in many very buggy releases of Ruby possibly tarnishing its reputation for reliability.

Imagine instead if Ruby 3 had an actor system like celluloid integrated to the core, and it would require any globally defined objects (I.e. most classes and modules) to be actors. (Perhaps by making the default class parent be ActorObject, instead of Object or something) That would in one fell swoop deal with concurrency, while retaining the clean feel of Ruby.

<comment><USER3> I read Ruby 3.0 is coming in earlier then expected. Likely with concurrency, some sort of types, JIT or AOT for easier deployment.

But Just when should we expect Ruby 3.0? 2020?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> While we're sharing GSoC project ideas, I'd like to highlight the list we have at lowRISC - covering a wide range of languages and just about every part of the hardware/software stack. [http://www.lowrisc.org/docs/gsoc-2015-ideas/](http://www.lowrisc.org/docs/gsoc-2015-ideas/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Is it just me or is it odd that Sidekiq is in there when it has a corporate side to it?

</comment><comment><USER6> >MRI executes Ruby via an interpreted stack-machine bytecode language known as YARV

On Wikipedia: >Since YARV has become the official Ruby interpreter for Ruby 1.9, it is also named KRI (Koichi's Ruby Interpreter), in the same vein as the original Ruby MRI, named for Ruby's creator Yukihiro Matsumoto.

So is one of them wrong? I'm confused.

<comment><USER7> AFAIK, technically, ruby 1.9 and later are no longer MRI, but KRI. So, yeah, I would say that technically speaking, refererring to current versions of ruby as "MRI" is not terribly correct.

On the other hand, to tell the "default" ruby apart from jruby and rubinius, one might still refer to it as "MRI". Also, Robert Metcalfe once said something to the effect that "Ethernet cannot die - if something comes along to replace it, it will just be called Ethernet" or something along those lines. Maybe something similar is at work here? (Sloppiness is more likely, though.)

<comment><USER2> I am not 100% sure, but wasn't KRI a fork of MRI that at some point simply was merged? It would be a bit strange if the whole interpreter would be called KRI when most code was still written by Matz. Though Ko1 is the main developer currently Matz is still the visionary and decision maker.

<comment><USER8> you are correct. A lot of the code is still the same from the original (1.8) matz' interpreter.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Anatomii of a Hack - <AUTHOR> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Anatomii-of-a-Hack.aspx <comment><USER2> It's hard to say whether the Nintendo guys are that inept or whether they're deliberately leaving these gaping holes for the modders.

<comment><USER3> From some other DailyWTF articles, I get the impression that most video games are written with the implicit assumption that no one will ever see your hideous code -- writing security-related code requires exactly the opposite attitude.

<comment><USER4> Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is very true. You could probably trigger a gazillion buffer overruns in your average console game. Having worked with Nintendo (library) code, I'd say the lame security isn't intentional either. They've got everything in there, including asynchronous networking libraries that are blocking in error situations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was amazed to see the first truly interesting DWTF post since a _long_ time ago....</comment>


Is Romania a good place to start a business now? - <AUTHOR>

Although there the crisis is felt many times stronger than in the rest of Europe I know that things are still moving fast over there. Although I do not have a big sum of money to invest I heard it is a lot easier to start something than in like say The Netherlands. I know there are many holes in the road, but which ones should I expect in daily life there ? ThanX in Advance. <comment><USER2> Bureaucracy, volatile laws, laziness as a cultural norm, bribery and that's just the top of the iceberg.

Been there for 40 years and in the last 10 I own my own business. So I kinda know what I'm talking about. If somebody else could prove me wrong, just go ahead, I'd be happy to agree with you :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> TY. Ik know I should work with as few ppl as possible and find out things myself to avoid high costs and to know the way. I understand how things got even worse bit by bit, but still I think that the young generation is full of ideas and energy to change this swamp. I remain positive !

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> A fast evolving tax situation. With the new laws regarding pfas, a lot of my friends have been trying to restructure. Ro used to have a great structure called the microenterprise. I don't know what's happened to it.</comment>


Why Writing Your Own Search Engine is Hard - <AUTHOR> http://www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=printer_friendly&pid=143&page=1 <comment><USER2> I'm working on a rebuttal to this very article right now ;)

<comment><USER3> Rebuttals should be in the form of a working search engine.

<comment><USER2> that's included</comment></comment></comment>